Displaying posts categorized under

HISTORY

Obama’s Doomed and Dangerous Deal Daryl McCann (May 2015)

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/from-our-archives/wiser-men-iranian-deal/

Back in December 2013, former US secretaries of state Henry Kissinger (who served from 1973 to 1977) and George Shultz (1982 to 1989) wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled “What a Final Iran Deal Must Do”. This missive appeared a week after President Obama signed the 2013 interim nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, one that purported to temporarily freeze Tehran’s decade-long advance towards military nuclear capability. Kissinger and Shultz warned that the Islamic Republic’s quest for the nuclear bomb would be enhanced by the 2013 interim agreement. On April 12, 2015, a week after Obama celebrated his latest “breakthrough” with the Mullahs of Iran, the so-called framework for a preliminary nuclear agreement, Kissinger and Shultz published a sequel in the Wall Street Journal, this time titled “The Iran Deal and Its Consequences”. The worst fears of the former secretaries of state appeared to be confirmed by the latest turn of events:

“negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first ten years.”

The problem, in the opinion of Kissinger and Shultz, is that the P5+1 (UN Security Council members plus Germany) negotiations have progressively legitimised Tehran’s thirteen-year-old quest for nuclear weapons capability. Between 2003 and 2013 Tehran “defied unambiguous UN and IAEA demands and proceeded with a major nuclear effort, incompatible with an exclusively civilian purpose”. During this time Iran “periodically engaged in talks but never dismantled any aspect of its enrichment infrastructure or growing stockpile of fissile material”, notwithstanding six Security Council resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010. The interim agreement reached on November 24, 2013, had provided the Islamic Republic with an estimated $8 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for a temporary halt to some aspects of its nuclear program. Tehran was not being asked to dismantle or wind back its vast nuclear infrastructure, let alone lengthen the breakout time necessary to acquire nuclear weapons capability. Thus, the 2013 interim agreement effectively “recognised as baseline” past Iranian misconduct including uranium enrichment and plutonium production, all previously condemned by the United States and the international community as illegal and illegitimate.

FDR’s Massive Federal Overreach And how it prolonged the Great Depression. by Robert Spencer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/fdrs-massive-federal-overreach/

In his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” It sounded great, and is still presented as inspiring, but actually the statement made little sense, and wasn’t even true at a time when so many Americans were facing imminent financial ruin. Still, it gave the impression that the new president was a wise man who had matters well in hand during a time of crisis, and that reassured people.

The Roosevelt administration compounded the impression that it was working hard at reversing the nation’s massive economic downturn when it charged out of the gate in its first hundred days with a large number of initiatives designed to end the Great Depression. The Emergency Banking Act was the first federal bailout of the nation’s banks, and gave the federal government massive new power to regulate the banking system. Much more was to come.

On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt signed an executive order forbidding the hoarding of gold. This was a time of economic panic, with people withdrawing gold from the banks at a phenomenal rate. By ending the massive run on gold, Roosevelt saved the banks, and the American economic system (which was still on the gold standard), from wholesale collapse. He also established a number of new federal agencies designed to provide relief for the poor, get the unemployed working, enable American businesses to get on their feet, and more.

These included the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the National Recovery Administration (NRA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). More of these new agencies and initiatives followed. The Social Security Act of 1935 established a plan to tax Americans to provide pensions for the aged.

All this and other New Deal initiatives made Roosevelt more popular than ever: it gave the impression that the administration was tackling the Depression with tremendous energy and would soon have America back on its feet. Yet the Depression continued through Roosevelt’s first two terms, only to be ended when the U.S. entered World War II after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

As it turned out, the cure just prolonged the disease. Many found the proliferation of New Deal agencies, all known by their three initials, bewildering, and ridiculed them as “alphabet agencies.” Al Smith, Roosevelt’s old rival in the Democratic Party, said that the government during the Roosevelt administration was “submerged in a bowl of alphabet soup.” Smith was making light of a situation that was actually quite serious: the New Deal was the impetus for a massive expansion of government regulation and federal bureaucracy.

Stories Told by the Ghosts of Babyn Yar By Janet Levy

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/06/stories_told_by_the_ghosts_of_babyn_yar.html

No monument stands over Babi Yar. A drop sheer as a crude gravestone. I am afraid. Today I am as old in years as all the Jewish people. Now I seem to be a Jew.

So begins Yevgeny Yevtushenko’s heart-wrenching poem Babi Yar, published in 1961.  Written to protest antisemitism, it shames communist leaders by saying their hands are “unclean” for having erased the memory of the gunning down of over 34,000 Jews by the Nazis in Babyn Yar, a ravine on the outskirts of Kyiv on September 29–30, 1941.

The poem wasn’t proscribed, but censors ensured that for 22 years, it wasn’t published in any of Yevtushenko’s collections.  Dimitri Shostakovich’s Symphony 13, inspired by the poem, suffered a similar fate: performances faced bureaucratic interference and disruptions, and the lyrics, an interlinked collage of Yevtushenko’s poems, had to be changed off and on.

But such is the irony of how human nature and memory respond to suppression that everyone came to know Yevtushenko’s poem anyway.  And Symphony 13, which resonated deeply with audiences in the Soviet Union, came to be known as the Babyn Yar symphony.  A massacre to which even a cold memorial plaque was denied thus became enshrined in collective memory through the power of art whose creators defied an authoritarian regime.

In The Ravine of Memory: Babyn Yar Between the Holocaust and the Great Patriotic War, published in March this year, Shay A. Pilnik presents the story of that internal memorialization of the Babyn Yar massacre through literature.  For there were many other writers, too, who wrote essays, poems, stories, and other works about Babyn Yar.

In the introduction, Pilnik quotes James Young, author of a seminal study of Holocaust memorials: “The more memory comes to rest in its externalized forms, the less it is experienced internally….”  Then, speaking of the story his book tells, Pilnik says: “Ours is a story of the most effective memorial one could think of — albeit not one made out of stones, but rather of words — calling its memory-bearers to act rather than simply to recall, galvanizing a literary, social, and national movement to revolve around it.”

Intrepid Heroes of the D-Day Invasion Catherine Salgado

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/06/06/intrepid-heroes-of-the-d-day-invasion-n4940498

June 6 is the 81st anniversary of the historic D-Day invasion of Normandy, when the Allies shifted the balance of World War II against the Nazis.

From Pointe du Hoc to Omaha Beach, and from Colleville Sur Mer to Sainte-Mère-Église, the heroism of American troops was on full display on June 6, 1944. Many of the Allied leaders were incompetent (Patton aside), but our men more than made up for that with their determination and courage. Nor did the fighting and dying end on the Normandy beaches, as troops fought their difficult way into the French countryside, pushing the Nazis back.

There are countless stories of bravery from D-Day and the following campaign — including that of my own great-uncle Jack Corley — but today I would like to share the stories of two Americans who won the Medal of Honor for their exceptional actions during the larger Normandy campaign. The first, as described by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (CMOHS), was Army staff sergeant Arthur Frederick DeFranzo, who earned his medal on June 10 near Vaubadon, France. Scouts were moving across an open field when an abrupt hail of enemy fire wounded one scout.

SSgt. DeFranzo courageously moved out in the open to the aid of the wounded scout and was himself wounded but brought the man to safety. Refusing aid, SSgt. DeFranzo reentered the open field and led the advance upon the enemy. There were always at least two machine-guns bringing unrelenting fire upon him, but SSgt. DeFranzo kept going forward, firing into the enemy and one by one the enemy emplacements became silent. While advancing he was again wounded, but continued on until he was within 100 yards of the enemy position and even as he fell, he kept firing his rifle and waving his men forward. 

When his company had come up, however, SSgt. DeFranzo — seriously injured as he was — managed to raise himself up and take his place at the head of his men. 

But DeFranzo was now too great a target, and once more the relentless enemy fire hit him. The dying hero got his revenge, though:

In a final gesture of indomitable courage, he threw several grenades at the enemy machine-gun position and completely destroyed the gun. In this action SSgt. DeFranzo lost his life, but by bearing the brunt of the enemy fire in leading the attack, he prevented a delay in the assault which would have been of considerable benefit to the foe, and he made possible his company’s advance with a minimum of casualties. The extraordinary heroism and magnificent devotion to duty displayed by SSgt. DeFranzo was a great inspiration to all about him and is in keeping with the highest traditions of the Armed Forces.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Terrible Legacy How Americans came to think the government would solve all their problems. by Robert Spencer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/franklin-d-roosevelts-terrible-legacy/

In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933, the architect of the New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, declared that fear was all that Americans should fear. He also attempted to lower expectations for an economic recovery by trying to convince the nation that material prosperity wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. “Happiness,” he declared sonorously, “lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.” He continued, “The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits….” He called on Americans to recognize “the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success.”

During his 1936 reelection campaign, Roosevelt reiterated his determination to redistribute wealth, adapting the Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in saying: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

As was so often the case with Roosevelt, this sounded better than it was. A graduated income tax has been in place in America for many years, but that doesn’t negate the fact that penalizing wealthier Americans by forcing them to pay higher taxes only decreases their ability and reduces their incentive to maintain businesses that provide jobs for ordinary citizens. A genuine “American principle” would be to tax everyone equally, which would naturally result in the wealthy paying more anyway.

As the Great Depression dragged on, perhaps there were some Americans who comforted themselves with the realization that they were not corrupted by “the falsity of material wealth.” They had scant other comfort. In May 1939, halfway through Roosevelt’s lengthy presidency, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau went before the House Ways and Means Committee and frankly admitted that the New Deal had been an abject failure.

The Daring Polish Resistance Fighter Who Volunteered to Be Sent to Auschwitz So He Could Sabotage the Nazi Death Camp From the Inside Witold Pilecki smuggled reports about Germany’s war crimes to the Allies, urging them to stop the atrocities at Auschwitz by bombing the camp. But his warnings went unheeded Paul Hockenos

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-daring-polish-resistance-fighter-who-volunteered-to-be-sent-to-auschwitz-so-he-could-sabotage-the-nazi-death-camp-from-the-inside-180986559/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

“Pilecki’s life ended on a particularly bitter and darkly ironic note. As a man who had fought colonial and imperial lordship over Poland his entire life, he saw the Soviet occupation of his homeland after World War II as just another incarnation of foreign dictatorship. He went underground again, fighting until the Soviet-allied Polish secret police arrested him in May 1947. His own statesmen jailed and tortured him for over a year before executing him by firing squad on May 25, 1948. He was 47 years old.”

In September 1940, the Polish underground resistance fighter Witold Pilecki undertook a monumental act of bravery: He volunteered to allow the Nazi forces occupying Poland to arrest him, in the expectation that they would incarcerate him in the Auschwitz concentration camp.

At the time, the newly constructed Nazi facility in southern Poland hadn’t yet assumed its ultimate incarnation as Adolf Hitler’s seminal death camp. The internment center functioned more like a prison for convicted German criminals; a small number of Jews; and Polish oppositionists, including members of the Secret Polish Army, Pilecki’s outfit. Yet from its first days, Auschwitz bore a reputation for extreme brutality.

The Polish underground initially hoped that it could liberate Auschwitz from within the camp’s walls. The clandestine network selected Pilecki, a 39-year-old veteran and fervent Polish nationalist, to infiltrate Auschwitz, report on its operations and organize fellow prisoners with the object of overthrowing the German camp’s superintendents. Pilecki, the secret army’s chief of staff, carried out this Hail Mary mission over a period of two and a half years. Although the Polish freedom fighters couldn’t incapacitate the Nazis’ operation, Pilecki and his cohorts smuggled descriptive reports out of the facility as it morphed into Europe’s most heinous death factory, where more than 1.1 million people died, nearly one million of them Jews.

Over the course of 1942, Pilecki correctly grasped why the Nazis were enlarging the camp complex by adding gas chambers and crematoriums. He repeatedly urged the Polish exile government in London to convince the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force to bomb Auschwitz, even if it meant killing innocent victims in the camp, including himself. Pilecki’s reports provided some of the earliest evidence of the Nazi death camps and their function in what the Nazis labeled the “Final Solution,” or the extermination of Europe’s Jews, known since as the Holocaust.

Pilecki’s credentials made him a logical candidate for this harrowing job of subterfuge and sabotage. Born in 1901 to patriotic Polish Catholics living in the Russian Empire, the teenage Pilecki served as a scout for Polish self-defense units during World War I. After the global conflict ended in 1918, he fought in a cavalry unit in the Polish-Soviet War, a 1919 to 1921 conflict between Polish nationalist forces and the Soviet Red Army over territory in present-day Ukraine and Belarus. While serving as a reserve officer in the mid-1920s, he took over his family’s estate, and in 1931, he married elementary school teacher Maria Ostrowska. The couple had two children; Pilecki painted and wrote poetry in his free time.

But Hitler’s war machine shattered the family’s harmony. On September 1, 1939, the Nazis invaded Poland, and two weeks later, the Soviets attacked from the east. Pilecki mobilized a reserve unit of local men he’d trained over the summer, but most of them were “peasants who had never seen action or fired a gun in anger,” writes journalist Jack Fairweather in The Volunteer: One Man, an Underground Army and the Secret Mission to Destroy Auschwitz. In a little over a month, the Polish Army was defeated, and the country of Poland came under Nazi and Soviet occupation.

Pilecki, like thousands of other Polish soldiers and civilians, joined an underground opposition that battled the occupiers from forests, sewer systems and cellars, notes a permanent exhibition on Pilecki’s life at the Pilecki Institute in Berlin.

The (Communist) Truth About VE-Day Diana West

https://dianawest.substack.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=

Did you know that we celebrate V-E Day on May 8 due strictly to Stalin’s wishes and Truman and Churchill’s fear of “offending the Russians”? This fear was the frequent driver, sometimes fueled by bona fide agents of Stalin’s influence, of much US and British policy and strategy.

The war in Europe ended on May 7, 1945.

Here is the real story, from Chapter 12 of American Betrayal:

An even cruder, emptier example of this manipulation was the embargo placed at the behest of the Allied leaders, Stalin, Truman, and Churchill (dragging his heels), on the news of the surrender of Nazi Germany in France on May 7, 1945, until the Russians could rig up their own surrender ceremony in Berlin on May 8, 1945. This stupendous act of appeasement, blanked out of national memory, was thankfully circumvented by a wise and bold AP reporter named Edward Kennedy, who believed the news of Germany’s surrender “belonged to the Allied peoples,” as he later wrote, and not to the Soviet propaganda department.

Kennedy created a giant controversy for refusing to go along with this blatant political censorship. On learning that Allied military headquarters (SHAEF) had already authorized German radio to broadcast the news of the May 7 surrender, Kennedy filed his story regardless of the embargo, regardless of the Soviet plan. As Kennedy explained his decision (which cost him his job with the AP) in an Atlantic Monthly essay in 1948, “Truman and Churchill—the latter reluctantly and only on pressure from Washington—agreed to hold up the news, which belonged to the Allied peoples, until the time of the Berlin meeting . . . The Russian action was quite in line with the Soviet conception of the press for propaganda, and nothing to get excited about; the fault was ours for falling for it” (emphasis added).

Of course, according to this new way of looking at our history, we fell for it because we were pushed, both from the outside and, more important, from the inside. As a result, Americans at large were left to try to make half-sense of the partial truths doled out by our leaders. Later, as Kent Cooper notes in his book The Right to Know, a smaller, book-reading audience would sort through the many war memoirs written by military and political figures, Churchill’s most famous among them, containing “laments” over their authors’ having been “pushed around by the insatiable Russians.” Cooper—the newspaper executive who coined the phrase “the right to know”— comments acerbically:

“Not one of them, however, has expressed any realization of how different it all might have been had they disclosed what they later so dolefully put in their memoirs to excuse their actions. The fact that they so needlessly conducted all political matters in secret and kept them so under protection of war censorship should be the basis of remonstrance from a democratic people.”

Broken Trust — Iran, America, and Diplomatic Immunity Warren Kozak

https://www.nysun.com/article/broken-trust-iran-america-and-diplomatic-immunity

The hostage crisis between 1979 and 1981 needs to be remembered as a signal of the kind of regime with which we are again negotiating.

The hostage crisis between 1979 and 1981 needs to be remembered as a signal of the kind of regime with which we are again negotiating.

Is Iran a country we can trust in any kind of agreement — nuclear or otherwise? A realistic answer could be found in an event that took place before most people in both countries were born.

America and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1979. That’s some two generations ago. With talks between the two countries underway, it would be a good time to revisit exactly what initiated that break. There is another, seemingly irrelevant question, that arises at the same time: Just how important is diplomatic immunity? It’s a question at the heart of the distrust.

Up until 1979, Iran was one of America’s staunchest Middle East allies. Between 1941 and 1979, it was ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an autocratic, pro-Western monarch whose reign was supported by the United States. 

Like any ruler of a non-democratic Middle East country, Pahlavi was no shrinking violet. His Savak secret police were brutal against any faction that opposed his authority, especially Islamic fundamentalists. 

At the same time, the Shah modernized his country with a series of reforms. He instituted land reform and wealth sharing. The incomes of middle-class Iranians increased substantially. Women were not forced to wear headscarves, they dressed in the latest Western styles, they attended universities, and held professional positions.

Harry Truman’s Seder Message His 1945 address to American troops drew a lasting connection between the Passover story and the nation’s consciousness Rabbi Stuart Halpern

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/holidays/articles/harry-truman-passover-message

With Hamas still holding Israeli hostages and global antisemitism rampant, as Jewish families sit down to read the Passover Haggadah this year on Monday evening, April 22, the passage “in every generation, there are those who rise up to destroy us” will no doubt be particularly resonant. While most Jews are aware that the phrase—like the phenomenon of Jew-hatred it describes—is centuries old, few fully appreciate the role the Passover story has played in offering Americans of all backgrounds comfort and inspiration during difficult times. The Haggadah, in fact, has long been America’s guidebook for liberty.

At 5 p.m. on March 26, 1945, in Washington, D.C., Vice President Harry S. Truman addressed the annual Passover service at the Jewish Welfare Board during WWII. The speech, broadcast to the Jewish men and women in the Armed Forces, praised both the miracle of Jewish historical survival and the contributions of Judaism to the West. It encapsulates how the story of the Exodus has left an indelible imprint on the American consciousness.

“Since biblical times,” Truman began, “people of the Jewish faith have made great contributions to the moral code of mankind.” He then described how, for centuries, the Jewish faith has served as an ethical beacon for humanity. “From the revelation of the Ten Commandments by Moses to the philosophical teachings of modern Jewish scholars,” he continued, “there has been a constant search for a better way of life for the benefit of all.” Fighting against the worship of “pagan idols,” the Jews “preached eternal faith in one God—the God in whom we all put our trust.”

The vice president then took the occasion, the beginning of the Festival of Freedom, to express gratitude, on behalf of America, for the gifts bestowed by the God of Israel. “All God-fearing people,” he said, “can well join with those of the Jewish faith to thank the Almighty for the many blessings received.” Millions of people, across Europe, Asia, and Africa, had already been “liberated by the forces of freedom.” Though the conflict was ongoing, great progress had been made toward victory over the Nazis.

Israel: an anti-colonial triumph Jews had to fight the British Empire to forge the state of Israel. James Heartfield

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/30/israel-an-anti-colonial-triumph/

The history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine has become a contest of one-sided interpretations and outright myths. For Israelis, Palestine was never a country. For Palestinians and their supporters in the West, Israel is an illegitimate settler-colonial state.

There is perhaps no historical moment that has been more distorted by such mythmaking than 1948, the year the British colonial ‘mandate’ ended and the modern state of Israel was founded. It was a moment of celebration for the Zionist movement, which had finally realised its dream of a Jewish homeland. But it was a moment of misery for Arabs. Indeed, it is remembered as a ‘catastrophe’ or ‘disaster’ – the Nakba. In their telling, it was the moment when hundreds of thousands were exiled to refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank and in Lebanon and Syria.

To Arabs, Britain has often been portrayed as the midwife to the Israeli victory. ‘The British and the Jews defeated us’, said one prominent refugee at the time. The Brits gave ‘their weapons to the Jews’, said another. According to Palestinian artist Ismail Shammout, British support for Zionism was a conspiracy (1). The Arabs of Palestine were certainly right to conclude that history had defeated them. But the nature of that defeat has long been mischaracterised as a British-Jewish collaboration, when nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, after the Second World War, the Jews fought a war of national liberation against Britain, the ruling colonial power. They forced Britain to withdraw from the then British Mandate for Palestine, which it had ruled over since the 1920s. In the fighting between Arabs and Jews in 1948, Britain did not support the Jews. Britain was actually involved in arming the Arab forces and even fighting alongside them in an attempt to limit the Zionist victory.

This shouldn’t be all that surprising. Britain’s alliance with the Arabs began in the First World War, when Colonel TE Lawrence – otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia – allied with Sharif Hussein in a revolt against the Ottoman Empire (which was allied with Germany). The Arab Revolt ended Ottoman rule over the Middle East in 1918. After the war, in 1922, the League of Nations eventually gave Britain the mandate over Palestine (including ‘East Palestine’, which is today Jordan). This kickstarted more than 20 years of contested British rule in the Holy Land.

There had been a Jewish minority in Palestine for millennia. But its numbers had been growing during the 19th and 20th centuries, as refugees fled anti-Semitic persecution in Europe. As a result, by the interwar years, Jews in the area were becoming a numerical and political threat not just to British rule, but also to Arab aspirations to the land.