Reader "Endless Struggle" sent in a comment concerning last week's piece on the Communist takeover of Yugoslavia:
He's referring to this document (PDF), in which the NSA analysts argue that Tito's speech patterns belie his origin story - but conclude, tellingly, that it doesn't matter, since Yugoslavia's ruler is doing the West's bidding anyway.
Also, since Churchill had liaison officers at Tito's HQ, it is much more credible that Tito arranged the Jajce event to coincide with Churchill asking Stalin (and not the other way around) in Tehran to abandon Mihailovic, than the official story. Certainly, the British betrayal of the royal Yugoslav government was entirely too enthusiastic for something allegedly forced on them by Stalin. Though I wouldn't put it past Tito to play Moscow and London against each other, for his benefit.
On one hand, it didn't quite work out that way: Britain never really recovered from the war, sliding into moribund welfarism. India became independent in 1947; the rest of the Empire followed soon enough. On the other hand, the spirit of British imperialism moved across the Atlantic and infested the American host; hence the Cold War and the Atlantic Empire of today. But as I've been pointing out for over a decade, that hasn't been going well for the imperialists, either.
Of course, none of that is any comfort to the people they've sacrificed like pieces in a board game, in the 1940s or today. It just goes to show that, once you agree to be a piece on the board, you lose your say in how the game is played.
Still, conniving as the British - and their American apprentices - may be, they are hardly all-powerful. While they can and do a lot of damage, their dreams of conquest routinely fail. Or as one famous Englishman wrote, in an entirely appropriate context, "Oft evil will shall evil mar."
Good analysis of the significance of Nov. 29, however, not enough credit goes to the British in "making" Tito, especially since the recently disclosed CIA analysis of his speech indicates that the Tito of WWII and later is not the original Tito.
 |
| "The name is Broz. Joe Broz" (via the Daily Mail) |
We now know - thanks to Michael Lees' book, "The Rape of Serbia" - the British were recruiting and training Croatian communist for a British-controlled guerrilla army in Yugoslavia in late 1941, a full half year before their official history said the British even heard of Tito. And David Martin, in his book "Web of Disinformation", tells us that is was Churchill that convinced Stalin to switch Soviet support from Mihailovic to Tito. You see, Stalin did care about who was killing Germans because the SU was close to breaking in 1941 - 42. Meanwhile Britain is safe and secure behind the Channel and the combined British and American fleets. In fact, Gen. Eisenhower, in his private journal, accuses the British of cowardliness for not fighting the Germans by deliberately delaying D-Day for nearly two years.The assertion that Tito was Stalin's pawn rings false on many levels. For one thing, there is 1948, and the Tito-initiated split. But way before that, there was the case of Mustafa Golubic. A WW1 Serbian veteran, Golubic became a NKVD general and ran several Soviet networks in the West (e.g. he's alleged to be the mastermind behind the assassination of Trotsky). He was sent to Yugoslavia in the spring of 1941, to be Tito's minder - and in June 1941, he was ratted out to the Gestapo, tortured and executed. Although officially it is still a mystery who sold him out, rumors allege it was Tito's aide Milovan Djilas, on Tito's orders.
Also, since Churchill had liaison officers at Tito's HQ, it is much more credible that Tito arranged the Jajce event to coincide with Churchill asking Stalin (and not the other way around) in Tehran to abandon Mihailovic, than the official story. Certainly, the British betrayal of the royal Yugoslav government was entirely too enthusiastic for something allegedly forced on them by Stalin. Though I wouldn't put it past Tito to play Moscow and London against each other, for his benefit.
And since Tito's true significance was to cover up the Serbian Holocaust and save the indispensable Roman Catholic Church for the Cold War becomes logical and clear. Or perhaps we are to believe the British are so noble that they "fought" Hitler out of pure altruism. then I suggest you read John Costello's "Ten Days to Destiny: How the British Tried to Strike a Deal with Hitler".I, for one, never thought Britain fought Hitler out of altruism. In both 1914 and 1939, London went to war to safeguard the Empire - and in both cases, only hastened its demise. As far back as the Seven Years' War, it has been British policy to foment unrest in Europe. So I have no trouble believing Churchill's intent was to have the Germans and the Soviets smash each other to bits, whereupon Britain would leverage their American cousins' (Churchill himself was half-American) manpower and industry to conquer and rule the ashes.
As many have commented, since the end of the Cold War, the true history of WWII is only now seeing the light of day.
On one hand, it didn't quite work out that way: Britain never really recovered from the war, sliding into moribund welfarism. India became independent in 1947; the rest of the Empire followed soon enough. On the other hand, the spirit of British imperialism moved across the Atlantic and infested the American host; hence the Cold War and the Atlantic Empire of today. But as I've been pointing out for over a decade, that hasn't been going well for the imperialists, either.
Of course, none of that is any comfort to the people they've sacrificed like pieces in a board game, in the 1940s or today. It just goes to show that, once you agree to be a piece on the board, you lose your say in how the game is played.
Still, conniving as the British - and their American apprentices - may be, they are hardly all-powerful. While they can and do a lot of damage, their dreams of conquest routinely fail. Or as one famous Englishman wrote, in an entirely appropriate context, "Oft evil will shall evil mar."
1 comment:
This confirms what I long suspected but never got around to researching. Everything I have learnt about Stalin in the recent years strongly indicates that he would at least initially side with the Royalists, surprising as it may seem. And it seems surprising only to those who make no distinction between Stalin and Lenin, and especially between Stalin and Trotzky. Those who take a more careful look at Stalin's rule notice that he, while formally preserving the Marxist ideology, in practice restored much of the traditional Russian political, social and religious culture. He ended the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, restructured the military after the
pre-revolutionary model, encouraged traditionalism in art, and commissioned films about monumental figures of Russian history, such Aleksandr Nevsky and Ivan IV ("Grozny"). Of course, most importantly, he removed from power the Trotzkyite internationalists, who committed genocide against the Slavic peoples of Russia during the early years of Communism and instigated the purges of 1937-38. In light of everything stated above, it seems only natural that Stalin would have little sympathy for either a Croat who came to Russia during WWI to exterminate the "evil" Orthodox rule, or whatever double he has been replaced by British puppet masters. Still, Stalin deserves blame for giving in to Churchill's pressure. The prize of that mistake unfortunately continues to unfold before our very eyes. Finally, I also suspected for a long time that Milovan Djilas was a treacherous snake. Is there any wonder that Robert Kaplan in his notorious book never stops citing him as his mentor in trying to decipher the actions of those savage and primitive Balkan tribes.
Post a Comment