Mediaboss Marketing

Perhaps the most solid symbol of the geopolitical tension of the Cold War was the Wall that stood between East (the German Democratic Republic or GDR) and West Berlin dividing the communist East and the democratic West. The Wall, ordered to be built by Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev, was to halt the fleeing of skilled workers, professionals, and intellectuals. From 1949 to 1961, about 2.5 million of these people crossed into West Germany, unhappy with the living conditions of the East(because Communism). Barbed wires and concrete antifascist bulwark were built beginning on August 13, 1961.

To those desperate to leave, the possibility of being shot down was a risk they were willing to take. In fact, 100,000 citizens of the GDR tried to pass the Berlin Wall from 1961 to 1988. More than 600 were shot and killed by the border guards, if not from other ways while trying to escape drowning, accidents, or committing suicide once caught.

It was the same for the Bethke brothers, who fled and crossed that iron curtain several years apart on three occasions. They were Ingo, Holger, and Egbert.

Ingo Bethke was just seven when the Berlin Wall was erected, thus leaving his family on the eastern side of Germanys capital. When he grew up, he was called to work as a soldier assigned to guard the border, just like all the other young men required to serve in the Peoples Army. However, all those times, all he thought was escaping that very same wall that he was tasked to guard.

On May 26, 1975, Ingo and his friend drove to the Wall. After seeing that the coast was clear, they crept through a small hole that they cut beforehand within the border fence, making sure that they did not step on the raked sand that would indicate someone was trying to escape. They also had to avoid tripwires that would activate floodlights. The last obstacle was a minefield that they successfully passed through with nothing but a crude wooden block as a mine detector. They finally reached the river bank, and so they blew out their air mattresses and quietly paddled their way across the River Elbe and toward their freedom. It seemed that night that the river wanted them to be free, as she was filled with fogs that moment, concealing the two fugitives from the police boats and spotlights all over. Thirty unnerving minutes of paddling passed, and they made it to West Berlin.

Ingo did not leave behind his family, in a sense that he kept in touch all the time, using fake return addresses, cryptic telephone calls, and the help of their relatives. It took them eight years before deciding to make a move for Holger Bethke to join his brother on the other side of the Wall. On March 31, 1983, he made up his mind to escape. If his brother used an air mattress, his choice was to use his trusty zip wire.

His preparation included practicing at a public park in the guise of a circus performer. In reality, he was scouting the Wall so they could create sketches. Next, he worked on his archery by doing dry runs in the forest. On that day, Holger found a street near Treptow Park with a narrow death strip sandwiched by tall houses. He sneaked into an attic. From there, he shot an arrow that flew 40 meters across and beyond the house opposite it. It trailed a nylon wire that Ingo pulled across the border and tied to his car. On the other side, Holger knotted his end of the line around a chimney. When all was set, Ingo drove a few meters to pull the rope taut.

Heres the scary part: With his metal pulley enclosed in a frame with two handholds and a strap for his wrist, he prepared to launch himself. He gripped the handles before launching himself into the atmosphere, hoping that the soft whirring noise would not be heard from below. 120 ft later, he was in the West, safe in his brothers embrace.

The two Bethke brothers ran a pub together in Cologne, but they knew they had to help Egbert, their youngest brother. For five years, they plotted how they would get him out. Thus, a great and daring escape idea was born.

They sold the pub and used the money to buy two ultralight aircraft that they taught themselves how to fly. Their first attempt was on May 11, 1989, which failed. On May 26, they were back wearing military uniforms and helmets, and their planes were painted with Soviet stars. At 4 AM, Egbert was at Treptower Park, hiding in a bush and waiting for his ride to freedom. Two planes suddenly emerged: one circling above to survey the area, while the other landed in front of him. It had been fourteen years since he last saw his older brother, and it was surreal. However, they didnt have much time for an emotional reunion, so he hopped in, and they flew their way out, now all reunited.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our Veteran Editorial by becoming a SOFREP subscriber. Click here to join SOFREP now for just $0.50/week.

Go here to read the rest:
The Daring Feat of How the Bethke Brothers Escaped the Berlin Wall and Communism - SOFREP

Mr Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Ceylon, said in an interview published here yesterday that he had made up his mind that British forces based on Ceylon would have to go.

Having foreign bases on our soil is not at all consistent with our sovereignty as a nation, he said in an interview with the U.S. News and World Report, a weekly magazine.

It is against my line of thinking in making Ceylon the Switzerland of Asia. Also it would make us one of the first targets if war should break out. (Britain has a navy base at Trincomalee and two R.A.F. bases on the island).

The Premier said Britain and Ceylon had not signed any agreement dealing specifically with bases unless the last Government entered into some secret agreement with the British which we dont know about yet.

BECOMING REPUBLIC

Mr Bandaranaike, said Ceylon would become a Republic but he had not yet decided whether it should leave the Commonwealth. He said a long time ago his party now in power advocated becoming a Republic and also withdrawing from the Commonwealth. Now, however, the case of India has shown that it is possible to remain within the Commonwealth without impairing ones sovereignty. There may be certain advantages in staying in, he said.

On the other hand, there may also be certain advantages in staying out. It we wanted to enter into certain regional agreements with other countries, with the U.S.A. for example, it might be easier if we were not members of another grouping like the Commonwealth. With the growth of international organizations, the practical advantages of Asian countries remaining in the Commonwealth are greatly reduced since there are other groupings we can become members of. Regional relationships are more important than the Commonwealth relationship these days. We have to look further into this whole matter of remaining in the Commonwealth.

NEUTRAL COURSE

Mr Bandaranaike said in general he agreed with the spirit of Mr Nehru in foreign policies. He described this as following a neutral course and non-alignment with any Power blocs.

He added: I think, sometimes he (Mr Nehru) has a tendency to lose sight of the intrinsically essential dynamism of communism.

In answer to a question, he said: Communism will continue to expand but the expansion will be slowed up.

Given at least 25 years without war, which I think the world needs, I think that the extremes of communism will disappear as they are doing now and the rest of the world will start moving towards the centre.

A suitable middle ground will evolve probably a type of democratic socialism.

TRADE BARRIERS

He said the most important measure to prevent such an explosion now was the elimination of trade barriers.

Then there must be increased contacts between East and West in other fields, he added. Thirdly, one must not permit oneself to be too fanatical on either side.

Certainly, if the whole world should decide that it wants communism. I am not going to stand in the way. But I dont think that is going to happen. Gradually communism will become watered down.

He said there was no danger of communist subversion in Ceylon. He thought Ceylon should exchange diplomatic missions with China, the Soviet Union and the East European countries. She had no such relations now though she trades with China.

He said he would like to make a trip around the world and would welcome a visit to Ceylon by Mr Bulganin, and Mr Khruschev, now on their way to Britain.

He said the Soviet leaders had agreed to a reasonable working formula to achieve peace when they signed Mr Nehrus statement of 6ve principles of co-existence during their visit to India last year.

Mr Bandaranaike said he would have to examine carefully the U.S.A.s recent decision to grant economic aid to Ceylon.

I am not ruling out aid from any country in the world, he added. But I must look into it carefully to see what conditions might be attached.

He said he would accept aid if it had no strings attached from the U.S.A. and from Russia and China. He would not object if Soviet technicians came to Ceylon and were paid a fee for their services on such projects as irrigation.

Read the rest here:
HT This Day: April 18, 1956 -- Ceylon To Become Republic - Hindustan Times

Weve all been following the war that is being waged in Ukraine, and it has become fashionable to refer to the devastation of the former Soviet satellite as Putins war. That is, perhaps, the most apt colloquialism, because it implies that the incursion into Ukraine is not the wish of the Russian people, but rather that of its president, who craves more power to complement his tremendous wealth.

As I watch the evening news on television and see images of wanton destruction and senseless killing of civilians, I ask myself a simple question which seems to elude a simple answer: Why?

If Russian troops could have simply marched in and claimed the territory for Russia, as they did in Crimea, in 2014, what would the ruling powers of Russia have gained? Even in that relatively bloodless coup, cost/reward calculations do not compute. As Yuval Noah Harari, Professor of History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, points out in his brilliant 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Tourist resorts in the Crimea and decrepit Soviet-era factories in Luhansk and Donetsk hardly balance the price of financing the war, and they certainly do not offset the costs of capital flight and international sanctions.

In the 21st Century, limited wars seem to be tolerated by the global economy. The recognition of a global economy began to take root in the 1970s with the publication of Immanuel Wallersteins world-system analysis, which posits that there is really only one economic system, and that is capitalism. At the time, this was best exemplified by the wealthy nations, notably those of North America and Western Europe, as well as Australia and Japan.

During the past 50 years, countries like China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and a number of wealthy Middle-Eastern countries, like Dubai, have become members of the single, global economic system. The system is so pervasive that limited wars like Darfur (2003), the Libyan and Yemeni Civil Wars of 2011, or even the ISIL insurgency in Tunisia in 2015 dont disrupt the global economy.

So, the Russian take-over of Crimea, which drew very little resistance from the people of the area, many if not most of whom still maintained their allegiance to Russia, attracted little attention from the great powers of the world-wide economic system. And the fact that these limited wars had little impact on the amassed wealth of the oligarchs throughout the world may have at least some significance.

It has been documented that the wealth of the richest people in the world increased during the past decade, despite an estimated 46 limited wars in 2014, 43 in 2015, and 38 in 2016. Writing in 2018, Harari stated that Putin knew far better than anyone else that military power cannot go far in the twenty-first century, and that waging a successful war means waging a limited war.

Putins Russia is not Stalins Russia, nor is it the Russia over which Peter the Great ruled. It was greatly weakened by decades of communist ideology, the expenses of the Cold War, and a decade of being bogged down in Afghanistan, from which the United States should have learned a lesson. Since the Afghanistan debacle, Russias politico-economic reality has shifted from communism to Putinism.

Despite perceived alliances with China and North Korea, modern Russia largely stands alone, and it is ruled by the iron fist of Vladimir Putin. So far, Putin has been backed by a host of Russian oligarchs who have become fabulously wealthy in a supposedly communist society and socialist economy. What communist/socialist system would permit some people to have palaces with water-front views from which they would be able to admire their hundred-million-dollar yachts while working-class people struggle to get from paycheck to paycheck?

Russia, as the core of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, reached its zenith in the mid-twentieth century when heavy industry, fueled by a centralized economic system, produced trucks, tanks, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. But today, as Harari points out, information technology and biotechnology are more important than heavy industry, but Russia excels in neither. Its current economy relies overwhelmingly on natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas. The appeal of the USSR to poorer nations was based on the theoretical appeal of communism as much as the vast reach of the Red Army. In contrast, Putinism has little to offer to Cubans, Vietnamese, or even French intellectuals.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States detonated the first atomic bomb above Hiroshima and, three days later, the second over Nagasaki. The use of these now-primitive nuclear weapons caused the death of between 129,000 and 226,000 people mostly civilians. The devastating effects of nuclear warfare were understood worldwide, and at a visceral level.

Other powerful nations were working on developing the same destructive capabilities during WWII, and it wasnt long before they were successful. As Harari points out, It is no coincidence that ever since Hiroshima, superpowers have never fought one another directly, instead engaging in what (for them) were low-stakes conflicts. When I was in college, the professor who taught a class in social disorganization referred to this phenomenon as mutual deterrence.

War between superpowers which had nuclear capability became counterproductive. If A were to launch nuclear weapons at B, it was a foregone conclusion that B would retaliate, ensuring the destruction of both. In the 1960s, U.S.S.R. tried an end run, building missile bases in Cuba, a hitherto technologically low-level threat to U.S. security. It was only level-headed, yet forceful response on the part of the United States that averted a tragedy.

Since then, certainly wars have been fought, but the real focus of attention has been on financial and technological development. Consider this, those countries that lost WWII Germany, Italy, and Japan have experienced both economic and technological miracles. And none of these countries has developed nuclear weapons.

While concerns about the United States getting sucked into a hot war in Ukraine cannot be dismissed out of hand, it is hoped that the effect of nuclear mutual deterrence will hold. However, the fear in this third decade of the 21st century should be of cyberwarfare. Within milliseconds, such a conflict could be brought to California, or Illinois, or New York, shutting down airports, wreaking havoc on power grids, disrupting computer databases.

If such an attack were to be coordinated among an axis of potential enemies, like Russia, North Korea, and China, the effects would be so swift that cyber mutual deterrence might not be possible. And the war would be won not by destroying the enemy, but by disabling it.

While I sympathize with the people of Ukraine and I support our economic and materiel contributions, I hope that our leaders will avoid any breach of diplomacy that could draw us into either nuclear or cyber war, regardless of what combination of allies or enemies might develop. And I hope that Putin keeps it in mind that, while he has a militia with cyber competency, so do we. But the U.S. also has a huge civilian force of computer experts; that element is woefully lacking under Putinism.

Jim Glynn is Professor Emeritus of Sociology. He may be contacted at j_glynn@att.net.

Read this article:
Opinion: Will Putinism lead to cyberwar? - The Madera Tribune

The All India Forward Bloc (AIFB), which was founded by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939, recently decided to drop hammer and sickle from its flag, while retaining the iconic image of leaping tiger against a red background on it.

The decision has been taken as part of the AIFBs proposed move to return to its roots, marking an ideological shift from communism to Subhasism the party founders ideology of socialism according to the party leadership.

Netaji had himself selected the design of the AIFBs flag with a leaping tiger on a background of tricolour which was also the flag of the Azad Hind government. Subsequently, reflecting the influence of the communist ideology over it, the party inserted hammer and sickle and red background to its flag in 1949.

Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis

Nearly 82 years after that event, the AIFB leadership has now decided to effect a change in the partys ideology, dispensing with globally-known icons of communism hammer and sickle while retaining the elements of leaping tiger and red backdrop on the flag.

The AIFBs West Bengal state secretary Naren Chatterjee said that the new party flag will be hoisted on July 22 the day 82 years ago, in 1939, when the partys first all-India session was held in Mumbai, where its constitution and programme were adopted. Subhas Chandra had resigned from the Congress presidentship on April 29, 1939, and on May 3, 1939, he declared the formation of the Forward Bloc.

Our National Council had a meeting at Bhubaneswar last week, where more than three hundred delegates were present and 46 delegates participated in the discussions. During the conclave, the

National Council decided to make these changes to our flag, Chatterjee told The Indian Express.

Asked why the party felt the need to redesign its flag now, Chatterjee said, A majority of our party leaders think that the concept of communist international has gone. Communists are moving towards a socialist position. Hammer and sickle have also become obsolete. Farmers now use cutter machines instead of sickles and workers also do not use hammers. So, we decided to shift towards the socialist approach from our communist position.

He said the party flag will retain the leaping tiger and red background since red colour symbolises the sacrifice of our martyrs and leaping tiger is the symbol of courage that was introduced by Netaji.

A section of the AIFB leaders, however, said there are some other reasons behind the move as well.

A senior party leader said, Forward Bloc has been part of the Left Front under the CPI(M) leadership for about four decades. This increased its dependence on the communist party. Hammer and sickle were introduced to the party flag at the Puri Congress in 1949. The upsurge of Soviet Union and other communist countries and the concept of communist international had probably driven our leadership towards it.

Chatterjee made it clear that Our party will now also shift from the communist ideology and grow only with the ideology of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

A section of the AIFB leaders believe that the move would help the party to gain a firmer footing in some states at a time when the Left parties have been losing their ground virtually everywhere across the country.

The AIFB has also shrunk in the country over the decades. Currently, the party does not have any legislator in West Bengal, with its vote share in various recent elections plummeting to barely 1-2 per cent in the state.

Read the rest here:
With new-look flag, Forward Blocs tiger takes the leap: Communism to Subhasism - The Indian Express

This article originally appeared in the Star.

By Marcus Kolga, Paul Grod, and Ludwik Klimkowski, April 13, 2022

A recent edition of The Economist magazine, symbolically titled The Stalinization of Russia, has rightly termed Vladimir Putin a 21st century Stalin.

What is even more important to understand is that the primary driving ideological force behind Russias invasion of Ukraine is the glorification of the Soviet Union and its communist leadership, including Josef Stalin.

Russias war against Ukraine and its hostility toward the democratic West have their roots directly in Russias communist past, which is why it is important today to recognize communisms dark legacy and commemorate its victims.

The history of communism is the history of conquest and subjugation of independent peoples to the rule of a repressive centralized dictatorship. After the end of the First World War, Vladimir Lenin attempted to impose Moscows rule on the newly independent republics including Ukraine and Poland, with the aim of eventually carrying out a world revolution in the entirety of Europe and annihilating whole classes of people deemed counter-revolutionary.

Stalin continued this policy of colonial expansion, signing an agreement to carve up Europe and co-ordinate the start of the Second World War with Adolf Hitler in 1939. The agreement allowed Stalin to invade and annex the Baltic States, half of Poland, a portion of Romania, and he then invaded Finland. Stalins liberation of Central and Eastern Europe from Nazi occupation served as a template for Putins current barbaric invasion of Ukraine, where civilians faced mass murder, rape, looting and destruction by the Russian Soviet Red Army.

The nations that fell under Soviet communist rule were subjected to terror and devastating social and economic reorganization. In the name of a Marxist utopia, communist dictators abolished civil and property rights, confiscated homes, farms and businesses, conducted mass arrests, executions, deportations of undesirables and implemented a policy of systemic repressions.

Lenins Red Terror and class purges, Stalins genocide of the Ukrainian people (Holodomor), the Great Terror, the deadly collectivization of the farms, the mass deportations of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and others and the war crimes committed during the Second World War, such as the Katyn massacre of the Polish prisoners of war, are just some examples of Soviet communist crimes.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the individuals and the organizations responsible for these crimes were never brought to justice in Russia and their victims were never officially recognized.

On the contrary, Putins government has been whitewashing Russias past and glorifying its communist leaders. Like Putin himself, much of his inner circle are in fact former functionaries of the KGB, the secret police that carried out mass executions during communist times. Putin and his advocates make it no secret that they aspire to resurrect the Soviet Union and see Stalin as their role model.

Given all this, it is not surprising that Putins Russia has culminated in invading Ukraine, an independent democratic state.

The Memorial to the Victims of Communism, A Land of Refuge is the only project in Canada that seeks to commemorate the tens of millions of victims of communism. It is a collaboration between many ethnic communities across Canada, whose members found refuge in our country after surviving the violence of communist rule in their homelands.

However, the memorial has faced many challenges and is still waiting to see the light of day, 14 years since its inception. Despite the expressions of support from federal politicians, the remaining stages to complete the project are again delayed.

A new act of abhorrent injustice is being committed today in Europe by Putins regime. It has claimed lives of thousands of victims and made millions flee their homes. It is time for the memorial to open to the public as a place to commemorate the victims, past and present.

Marcus Kolga is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Paul Grod is president of Ukrainian World Congress. Ludwik Klimkowski is chair of Tribute to Liberty, Memorial to the Victims of communism.

Go here to see the original:
Barbaric war against Ukraine underscores need for the memorial to the victims of communist Russia: Kolga, Grod and Klimkowski in the Star -...