Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

Woodrow Wilson Pushed U.S. Into World War I And Communism, Fascism And Nazism Resulted – Huffington Post

A century ago Congress declared war on Imperial Germany. It was a bizarre decision: the secure New World voluntarily joined the Old World slaughterhouse, consigning more than 117,000 Americans to death for no intelligible reason.

The chief outcome of the war was to sweep away several reasonably benign if imperfect ancien regimes while loosing various totalitarian bacilli. All too naturally, even, seemingly, inevitably, emerged communism, followed by fascism and Nazism. The so-called Great Wars unfinished business was finally settled only in World War II, after consuming as many as 80 million lives.

In April 1917 Europe had been at war almost three years. On June 28, 1914 a Serbian terrorist killed Archduke Ferdinand, the heir to the Hapsburg throne of Austro-Hungary. Vienna accused Belgrade of complicity in the crime, which in fact was promoted by Serbian military intelligence. But the Russian Empire came to Serbias defense. Imperial Germany sided with its ally, Austro-Hungary. France backed its treaty partner, the Russian Tsar.

Berlins troops rolled through Belgium to attack France; Great Britain came in against Germany. Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire joined the latter, known as the Central Powers. Romania and Italy backed the Entente. Rome sold its participation to the highest territorial bidder, winning promises of Austro-Hungarian lands at wars end. Japan saw an opportunity to grab Germanys Pacific territories and also joined the conflict.

The resulting horror vindicated Americas decision to remain aloof. The alliance system turned out to be a transmission belt of war. Millions upon millions of people died as a result.

There was little too choose between the two sides. The many failings of the German-led Central Powers were highlighted, and exaggerated, by brilliant British propagandists aided by Americas establishment Eastern press. In fact, however, no one had clean hands.

Every combatant bore blame for the conflict, starting with Serbia, which was complicit in an act of state terrorism. The Entente members were no tribunes of liberalism. Certainly not the anti-Semitic despotism of the Tsar. Belgium was a despotic colonial power; the Belgian Congo may have been the most misgoverned territory in Africa. Great Britain was a more benign ruler, but still brutally suppressed any subject people who sought to run their own affairs. France was an angry revanchist power, determined on war to win back territory seized by Berlin in the Franco-Prussian War. Italy sold its peoples blood for land. Some alliance.

The only sensible decision was for America to stay out. There was no conceivable threat to the U.S. The Atlantic insulated America from invasion. More important, prior to Washingtons intervention no European power had a quarrel with the U.S. It really didnt matter much to the American people whether Tsar Nicholas or Kaiser Wilhelm was Europes dominant monarch, France regained territory it had lost after grabbing it in prior conflicts, or the ramshackle Hapsburg empire of Austro-Hungary maintained its influence in the Balkans. To paraphrase Germanys late Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the results werent worth the blood of a single American infantryman.

Unfortunately, however, in the midst of the disastrous Progressive Era, as social engineers grabbed political power to ply their arrogant trade, a Republican Party split allowed Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency in 1912. There was perhaps no president more sanctimonious and certain of his own righteousness. He was, it was said, hoping to fill the first vacancy in the Trinity. His ambitions did not stop at remaking America. He desired to transform the entire world. And that required that the U.S. become a combatant since otherwise his grandly unrealistic schemes for a new global order would be ignored. He was precisely the wrong man to have in the White House with Europe aflame.

He could not tell Americans he wanted to take them into war because of his megalomaniacal desire to dictate international affairs. Instead, he took Great Britains side in the wars maritime disputes and allowed events to play out. The result was as he wished.

London employed skilled propaganda agents in America, who used faked atrocity stories to blacken Germanys reputation (which made listeners less willing to believe what turned out to be true reports a couple decades later). British ships also cut the transatlantic cable, allowing London to control news that reached America.

Britain violated international law and the rights of neutral nations, most importantly America, while imposing a starvation blockade on Germany. The latter retaliated with U-boat warfare, a new innovation. When submarines attempted to comply with the dictates of traditional maritime warfareby surfacing to challenge British merchantmanBritish ships rammed and sink the subs. So Berlin proceeded to torpedo British vessels without warning.

American lives were lost and President Wilson made an astonishing claim: U.S. citizens had an absolute right to book passage on armed merchant vessels designated as reserve cruisers carrying munitions through a war zone. The most famous case of allowing London to mix bullets and babies, as a frustrated Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan pointed out, was the Lusitania. It was torpedoed on May 7, 1915; it sank as a result of the secondary explosion of the ammunition it was carrying. Despite his pretense of neutrality Wilson made his biases clear: England is fighting our fight, and you may well understand that I shall not, in the present state of the worlds affairs, place obstacles in her way when she is fighting for her life and the life of the world. Recognizing that Wilson was determined for war, Bryan resigned the following month.

In an attempt to forestall U.S. intervention, Berlin backed away from unrestricted submarine warfare. President Wilson won reelection as the man who kept America out of war. But he pushed military preparedness and was frustrated by his inability to impose his will on the combatants. As the conflict dragged on and hundreds of thousands of men died on both sides in fruitless trench war on the Western Front, Germany decided to return Britains favor by trying to starve the island nation into submission. In January 1917 Berlin unleashed unrestricted submarine warfare.

On February 3 Wilson broke diplomatic relations with Berlin but held off on formal entry into the conflict, fearing that he lacked sufficient public support. On April 2 he requested that Congress declare war, claiming that the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States. It was nothing of sort: Wilsons eloquence was calculated dishonesty. Indeed, he expressed shock that a government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations would engage in submarine warfare but conveniently ignored Great Britains illegal blockade which targeted the Central Powers civilian populations.

There was strong resistance from a handful of Senators more concerned about Americas interests than Wilsons fantasiesmost notably Minnesota Progressive Republican Robert La Follette, a genuine American hero. However, the reluctance of Americas heartland counted for little. On April 6 the House followed the Senate in voting for war and propelled America into the Europeans last imperial conflict.

Americas entry was a disaster for the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the world. Washingtons assistance was critical for the allied victory. However, no American other than Wilson benefited as a result. The U.S. troops were brave but ill-trained; American commanders were incautious and ambitious. Thousands of brave soldiers and Marines died unnecessarily.

As for Europe, Washingtons assistance was critical for victory. With the collapse of Russias Tsarist government in April and Soviet revolution in November, Germany was able to shift troops to the west and make one last attempt at victory. But that effort failed. Without Americas involvement a compromise peace loomed likely as the exhausted powersthe French military mutinied while Austro-Hungary teetered on the edge of collapse and German morale plummeted. Alas, the infusion of U.S. aid and troops put the Entente over the top.

However, Wilsons subsequent attempt to dictate a glorious peace through the war to end war, as he termed it, proved to be a disaster. The Versailles peace conference wantonly violated his famed 14 Points as fellow allied leaders plundered the losing powers, traded subject populations as casino chips, trashed principle whenever it was to their advantage, and manipulated his idealistic vision to suit their pragmatic ends. The losers had no stake in maintaining the settlement: Germans called it the Diktat. Even some of the victors, most notably Italy, were unhappy at not gaining more loot. The French military commander Ferdinand Foch presciently said of the agreement: This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.

The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia a few months after Americas entry into the war, creating the first Communist nation. After the conflict ended Benito Mussolinis Blackshirts put the fascists in power in Italy. Around the same time World War I veteran Adolf Hitler took over a small nationalist party, beginning his rise to power in Germany. The following years allowed the former combatants to catch their breath before returning to the unfinished business of 1918.

World War II followed naturally.

The most obvious modern Wilsonians are the Neoconservatives. Alas, the result of their handiwork in Iraq had the same catastrophic character as Wilsons decision to drag America into World War I. The major difference is that Iraq was of minor geopolitical stakes compared to Europe. Wilson inadvertently set in motion a process that destroyed huge portions of the globe and slaughtered tens of millions of people. The Neocons merely wrecked the Middle East and killed hundreds of thousands.

Good intentions are never enough to justify government action, especially foreign policy. Woodrow Wilsons nominal idealism proved to be deadly. Americans should ponder the lessons of his fateful course a century ago. Its time for U.S. presidents to work hard for peace rather than take what has become the far easier path to war.

See original here:
Woodrow Wilson Pushed U.S. Into World War I And Communism, Fascism And Nazism Resulted - Huffington Post

Castro Craved Power Over Communism, Recalls Ambassador – PJ Media

WASHINGTON They were a respected couple with memberships at the yacht club and country club in Havana. They had a house, two children and a third on the way. The husband, Alberto Piedra, who was working on his doctorate, had a job lined up in Fidel Castros Ministry of Commerce. It seemed they were set for a beautiful life in Cuba. But Alberto knew they had to escape.

Piedra believes that if Castro were living in Germany during World War II, he would have been a Nazi. His allegiance was not to communism, but to power. The power to send enemies to the firing squad. The power to control.

Castro, who died in November 2016 at age 90, seized control through three major offices: the ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs and Education. Within three months of overthrowing Fulgencio Batista, Castro had nationalized the education system, ordering the government to ignore degrees from a private institution in Havana as it clashed with his agenda.

Piedra did not want his children matriculating through a system of brainwashing. In a communist regime, he said, the youths loyalty is not to parents but to the state. He disagreed with the direction of Cuba, and feared the possibility that his children would one day turn him over to the regime.

What is the greatest gift God has given man? the 91-year-old Piedra asked Thursday while speaking at the Institute of World Politics. Freedom. We can use that freedom for good, but we can also use it for evil. It depends on our will. We can decide. Government should be at the service of man, not the other way around.

When Piedra was asked to serve in the Ministry of Commerce, he sought the opinion of a priest, who told him to accept the position as it would allow him to make a difference in Cuba.

Youre wrong, Piedra told the priest. Theyre using me.

Piedra believed the regime would use him as a puppet in international negotiations, pointing to him as evidence that Cuba was not entirely made up of radical communists. Piedra also knew that turning down the offer would be dangerous, that if he denied the regime and walked away it would arouse suspicion.

How do you abandon a communist regime without being accused of plotting a counter-revolution? Piedra asked. In a communist regime, you have to be very careful about such things.

Piedra would serve three months as director general of exports and imports at the Ministry of Commerce, but he eventually made his escape. He approached Castros brother Ral in an attempt to convince the regime that he would be more useful to Cuba if he finished his doctorate at Georgetown University in D.C. Piedra suspects that Ral knew exactly what was happening, but he gave Piedra his blessing.

Read more here:
Castro Craved Power Over Communism, Recalls Ambassador - PJ Media

How the CIA Secretly Funded Arab Art to Fight Communism – Newsweek

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, details began to emerge about the CIAs covert role in using art as a tool for political ends during the Cold War. The policyknown as "long leash"was initiated to showcase the creativity of American artists such as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell and Mark Rothko in the face of "rigid" Soviet artistic constraints.

The United States government wanted to use the soft power of modern American art to combat Communism. Among the most effective of these initiatives was the Congress for Cultural Freedom which funded a number of cultural projects including a major exhibition titled "The New American Painting" that toured Europe in the late 1950s.

Suspicions about the almost sudden spread and funding of American art movements such as Abstract Expressionism led critic Max Kozloff to describe it in a 1973 essay as "a form of benevolent propaganda." But while much is known about CIA funding for American art during the Cold War, their support for Arab art during the same period has rarely been discussed.

Try Newsweek from $3.25 per week

In his 2013 book America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Hugh Wilford documents the extent of the relationship between the spy agency and a "pro-Arabist" organization known as the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME).

One of the 24 Americans that founded the AFME in 1951 was Kermit Roosevelt Jr., a career intelligence officer who played a leading role in the CIA-backed coup to remove the democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953.

Unlike the Congress for Cultural Freedom, however, the AFMEs goals were primarily internal, seeking to get the truth about the Middle East before the American public," according to its first annual report. Wilfords book notes that Roosevelt channeled the CIA funding to the AFME to "foster American appreciation for Arab society and culture, and to counteract the pro-Israel influence of US Zionists on American foreign policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict."

A man walks past "Baghdadiat" by Jewad Selim at the Mathaf: Arab Museum of Modern Art in Doha December 14, 2010. Selim was one of a number of Arab artists promoted in the U.S. by the AFME. REUTERS/Mohammed Dabbous

The financing allowed the AFME to conduct numerous non-oil and trade activities including funding student exchanges, lectures, promoting diplomatic ties and holding cultural activities. The AFME soon established a Department of Intercultural Relations that oversaw the funding of art exhibitions and visits by Arab artists to the U.S..

In 1954, the AFME funded a major touring exhibition, lecture series and media appearances by Jewad Selim, one of Iraq's most celebrated artists, which saw 21 paintings and drawings and seven sculptures flown in from Baghdad and displayed in the L. D. M. Sweat Museum in Portland, Maine, the de Braux Gallery in Philadelphia, the Bellefield Avenue Gallery in Pittsburgh and the headquarters of the Mid-western office in Chicago.

The tour finished with an exhibition at the AFME's newly leased headquarters, which was known as Middle East House in New York City (the AFME eventually relocated to Washington D.C. in 1958). Selim sold a number of works in the U.S. and gave a painting titled "Woman with Watermelon to Middle East House" that was then hung in their offices.

In 1955, the AFME organized four art exhibitions by Middle Eastern artists including Syria's Fateh Moudarres, Egypt's Jirair Palamoudian and Salah Taher, who was then director of the Egyptian Museum of Modern Art. Iranian, Turkish and Pakistani artists were also recipients of AFME's largess.

In fact in 1957-58 the AFME sent Pakistani art to Baghdad and Tehran in what appears to be an attempt to improve relations between Americas regional allies. The AFME was particularly active in the year 1962-63 as it provided "assistance in scheduling interesting exhibitions" to galleries in New York, Minneapolis, Evanston, San Francisco, Spokane and Pittsburgh.

"Woman selling material" (1953) by Iraqi artist Jewad Selim was amongst the works exhibited by AFME in the US. Bonhams

In 1965 the AFME funded exhibitions by Iraqi photographer Latif Al Ani, paintings by Tunisia's Jalal Gharbi, etchings by Sudan's Mohamed Omar Khalil and Hassan Bedawi Omar along with pottery work by Nasif Ishag George. The following year the AFME organized an exhibition of paintings and sketches of female Iraqi artist Widad Al-Azzawi Al-Orfali and her compatriot Faik Hassan at Middle East House.

The AFME funded many more art exhibitions including for Syrian artists Louay Kayyali and Mamdouh Kashlan but not all of them were documented in detail. For instance the 1967, AFME Annual Report states that it funded "exhibitions of Iraq's leading painter and seven other artists" although none are explicitly named.

These exhibitions would attract a range of people, including writers, intellectuals and celebrities as well as diplomats including ambassadors from Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia. It is worth noting that these artists were most likely unaware of any CIA connection to the support that their exhibitions would receive.

It is unclear exactly how much CIA money ended up at the AFME officially its funding came from numerous sources, including oil giant Saudi ARAMCO, with an impressive budget that peaked in 1955 at $500,000 (the equivalent of $4.4 million in 2016).

A 1967 New York Times article uncovering CIA funding was a blow to the AFME, but the U.S. government's support for Arab art has continued to the present day under the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs although its goals have drastically changed.

A recent study by the RAND Corporation titled "Artists and the Arab Uprisings" notes that the previous two U.S. administrations identified the "role that cultural outreach can play in achieving the long-term U.S. goals of combating extremism and promoting democracy and reform in the region."

The AFME changed its name to AMIDEAST in the 1970s, but in its two decades of existence as the AFME it played a major role in showcasing Arab art to an American audience. Some of the artists supported by the AFMEsuch as Iraqs Jewad Selim, who in 1959 designed the iconic Monument for Freedom in Baghdadwent on to play significant roles in the contemporary art movements of their respective countries and beyond.

Furthermore, it appears that most of the exhibitions that were funded were targeted inward at an American audience, in a way making them a reverse "form of benevolent propaganda" by using the work of modern Arab artists to build stronger cultural bonds.

Today, however, we see a plethora of exhibitions including Barjeel Art Foundations 2017 hat trick displays at Yale University Art Gallery, the Hessel Museum of Art and the Katzen Arts Center at the American University. These shows highlighting Arab art are being showcased in an increasingly inward-looking United States. But this time they are largely funded not by the CIA, but the Arab world itself.

Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi is a UAE based writer and founder of the Barjeel Art Foundation.

More:
How the CIA Secretly Funded Arab Art to Fight Communism - Newsweek

Local publisher catching flack for kids book about communism – The … – The Boston Globe

A popular new book intended to teach children about communism is an example of academia out of control.

So say some conservatives about Communism for Kids, a book published by Cambridge-based MIT Press that seeks to present political theory in the simple terms of a childrens story.

Advertisement

The book, which currently ranks among Amazons top-sellers in the category of Communism & Socialism, was written by Bini Adamczak, a Berlin-based social theorist and artist. Predictably, its being excoriated by the likes of Breitbart News, which claims the book sugarcoats a pernicious political theory.

Wrote OneNewsNow, part of the Christian American Family News Network: MIT Press one of the most prominent university publishers in the US is publishing the book titled Communism for Kids that instructs American youth to shun the economic system that has made their country the most powerful economic force on the planet ... and embrace a system that has resulted in poverty and millions of deaths worldwide over the past century.

Get The Weekender in your inbox:

The Globe's top picks for what to see and do each weekend, in Boston and beyond.

Um, not exactly, says MIT Press Director Amy Brand, who told Publishers Weekly that response is a reminder of the polarizing power of ideas and words and the serious responsibility of being in a profession dedicated to protecting fundamental freedoms of expression.

Brand was traveling Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.

The publishers website certainly makes Communism for Kids sound innocuous, saying it merely proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism. The story, featuring jealous princesses, fancy swords, displaced peasants, mean bosses, and tired workers, is accompanied by illustrations of lovable little revolutionaries experiencing their political awakening.

See the original post here:
Local publisher catching flack for kids book about communism - The ... - The Boston Globe

Quiz on Communist films: communism in cinema – The Hindu – The Hindu


The Hindu
Quiz on Communist films: communism in cinema - The Hindu
The Hindu
'Communist films' might bring to mind propaganda films of USSR. But much after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, many filmmakers across the world have made ...
Gimme red: What is behind the craze for Communist themes in ...Scroll.in

all 3 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:
Quiz on Communist films: communism in cinema - The Hindu - The Hindu