Associated Press Worldstream
July 27, 2004 Tuesday 2:20 PM Eastern Time
Champions League: Pyunik 1, Shakhtar Donetsk 3
YEREVAN, Armenia
Result Tuesday from a UEFA Champions League, second qualifying round,
first-leg match between Pyunik and Shakhtar Donetsk:
Pyunik (Armenia) 1 (Rafael Nazarian, 60), Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine)
3 (Ciprian Marica, 30 and 75; Julius Aghahowa, 86).
PRESS OFFICE
Armenian Holy Apostolic Church Canadian Diocese
Contact; Deacon Hagop Arslanian, Assistant to the Primate
615 Stuart Avenue, Outremont Quebec H2V 3H2
Tel; 514-276-9479, Fax; 514-276-9960
Email; [email protected] Website;
Saint Sahag and Saint Mesrob Armenian School students visited His
Holiness Karekin II Catholicos of All Armenians
Reporting: Ashkhen Shishmanian from Armenia
On Sunday, July 18, 2004 the students of St Sahag and St Mesrob
Saturday school of Toronto visited the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin
and had a formal meeting with His Holiness Karekin II Catholicos of
All Armenians. The meeting was arranged by His Eminence Bishop Bagrat
Galstanian, Primate of the Canadian Armenian Church Diocese. The
students then visited the Museum of Etchmiadzin at the
Veharan. Canadian Youth Mission to Armenia participants joined the
Holy Badarak, where Serpazan Bagrat had arranged special seats at both
sides of the altar. They received Holy Communion and also had the
chance to see the Treasures at the Holy Etchmiadzin and the remains of
the Pagan Temple under the Altar.
The children were inspired and so amazed that they asked to visit Holy
Etchmiadzin again. You could see and feel from their expressions that
they felt at home as they belonged to the Mother See of Holy
Etchmiadzin.
We thank the Primate of the Canadian Diocese His Eminence Bishop
Bagrat Galstanian for making Sunday a memorable day for all of us. We
thank him for his attention and care that he has shown to us for the
past several days.
Hereby we present some of the thoughts of our students:
Coming Back Home
Aida Knadjian
After I left Armenia last year, I wanted to come back right away. I
kept thinking about wonderful experiences we had shared and the warm
people we had met everyday. I would never have thought that I would be
given the chance to revisit my homeland.
When in Armenia, I felt at home and going back to Canada made me feel
like I was going on vacation. I had experienced something here that I
never had in Canada: The people treat you like family – from David,
our bus driver, to Ara and Zabelle, our tour guides, and from Nigol
and Zabelle to strangers in the streets. This feeling is something you
will never experience in any other country.
I visited Armenia last year to see all the churches, monuments that I
had learned about. It was only then that I realized that I belong
somewhere in the world. The statues and churches motivated me to come
back and try to help my country in any way I could. Now I see Armenia
in a positive light. Althoughwe have been massacred and
underestimated, I see a wonderful livelihood everywhere: Armenians
working hard and rebuilding their country. That reflects our history
and character.
I just hope to help as many people as I can in my short stay here
until I return to my homeland to have a greater input. Not being able
to touch Ararat is encouraging me to become an entrepreneur like Nigol
and Zabelle and try to help Armenia and its people in any possible way
that is in my power.
I loved my homeland Armenia.
First Impressions
My name is Vanch Boghoumian, a graduate of St Sahag St Mesrob Saturday
school in Toronto. This summer we came to our homeland Armenia. It was
a long journey, but when we finally arrived, we no more felt tired and
agitated. Ifelt as though there was a relief inside of me, because I
finally came to a place where all Armenians can call HOME.
Until this day, we have visited Sartarabad, Lake Sevan, Dilijan, Garni
and Geghart, the Zeitun Orphanage and Yerablur, where Armenian
soldiers have been buried. Armenia has surprised me in so many ways:
its beauty, culture, heritage and all sorts of rituals and
traditions. The first time I laid my eyes on Mount Ararat, I was in
shock. Surprisingly my eyes seemed unable to move, and I thought to
myself that one day Mount Ararat will be ours again. I would love
waking up early, climb to the upper balcony and just stare at the
mountain.Now I am extremely proud of being an Armenian, convinced that
I have to speak my mother tongue.
When I go back to Toronto, I will tell my family and friends about
Armenia and make sure that we visit our homeland as often as possible.
In two weeks I will go home a better Armenian and a proud one as well.
Seeing is believing and Living
My name is Christopher Yeretsian and I have been attending St Sahag-St
Mesrob Saturday School in Toronto for the past eight years. Following
the commendable tradition already established for the past four years,
I am in Armenia now, along with my fellow graduates (a group of 19
students plus our teachers.)
Guess where I’m writing this from? Correct!
My friends and I have been here for only a few days and seen a lot of
important land- marks of Armenian history: Garni, Geghart, Sevan,
Dilijan, the world-renowned Matenadaran and Waterworld (one of my
personal favorites). It may seem as though we have seen a lot over the
past four days, but there are still many sights we have not yet
visited.
Along with the beauty and cultural atmosphere of Armenia, there are
many areas in different sectors of the economy that are being
improved.
My current feelings toward my Armenian heritage have drastically
changed over the days that we have been here. Three days ago our group
visited Zeitun Orphanage. We brought toys and clothes to comfort the
children. I handed out my toys, explaining how each worked and spent
time with most of the children. We played together and colored. It was
very special moment for me to see how these children coped with no
parents or family. It made me feel fortunate to have parents that love
me dearly. Every toy we played with and every word we exchanged, put a
smile on their faces.
I feel that I have contributed now to a very good cause.
I look forward to the rest of the trip, that will include visits to
Khor Virap, Spitak, Gumri and most of all, Karabagh.
Rev Fr Vazgen Boyadjyan and Deacon Hagop Arslanian attended a luncheon
hosted by the Consul General of Lebanon in Montreal H. E Khalil el
Habre
On Wednesday, July 21 2004 Rev. Fr Vazgen Boyajian Pastor of St
Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral of Montreal and Deacon Hagop
Arslanian, Assistant to the Primate attended a luncheon hosted by the
Consul General of the Republic of Lebanon in Montreal H. E Khalil El
Habre in Outremont.
Present were high ranking spiritual leaders of Maronite, Assyrian,
Catholic Churches as well as the heads of Montreal Muslim
community. During the luncheon at the Consul’s resident interfaith
representatives had the chance to discuss the relations amongst their
respective communities as well as the paths for further
cooperation. In his word, Consul General Mr. el Habre thanked the
attendees and wished them continued success in their future missions
and undertakings.
Rev Fr Vazgen Boyajian presented the Consul General with an Armenian
Cross and thanked him on behalf of His Eminence Bishop Bagrat
Galstanian for sucha warm reception.
CYMA members enjoying their stay in Motherland, Armenia
“CYMA participants are doing great and enjoying every second on the
soil of the Motherland, Armenia”. That’s how CYMA Director, Very Rev
Father Ararat Kaltakjian described the Mission’s working visit to
Armenia.
“The reconstruction work is going well and the participants are in
high spirit” said Hayr Ararat in a telephone conversation on Thursday,
July 23, 2004. Very Rev Fr Ararat Kaltakjian informed that the
participants visited the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin as well as
they had the chance to visit famous sites in Armenia.
The Canadian Youth Mission departed to Armenia on Thursday July 8,
2004 under the guidance of Very Reverend Father Ararat Kaltakjian. 16
participants from all across Canada and Europe met in Prague
International Airport and then continued their way to Armenia. This
year CYMA members will achieve their mission in the kindergarten of
Saghmosavank. The team is currently working to renovate the walls,
floor and repaint the rooms and hallways of the kindergarten.
During their stay in Armenia, a day camp will give CYMA participants
the opportunity to interact with the local children by working on arts
and crafts, and engage in social activities and sports. Visitations
will be made by CYMA participants and clergy, offering spiritual and
humanitarian relief to families living in dire
circumstances. Participants will have many opportunities to visit
churches, landmarks and monuments. Under the guidance of local
professionals, participants will take part in workshops to learn the
history of the land and of the Church, as well as the culture through
singing, dancing and drawing
First Annual Armenian Youth Pilgrimage to St Catharine’s
The oldest and the first Armenian Apostolic Church in Canada,
St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Apostolic Church of
St. Catharine’s, On., will be hosting the first Annual Armenian Youth
Pilgrimage.
His Eminence Bishop Bagrat Galstanian will join the pilgrims from
Montreal, Laval, Toronto and Ottawa at this historic event that will
take place starting Saturday, August 14th. in the evening and continue
on Sunday, August 15th. with the 74th. Annual “Blessing of the
Grapes” Holy Badarak and traditional Picnic.
St. Vartan Summer Day Camp 2004
On the morning of July 12, 2004 a group of 25 Armenian children (aged
between 3 and 8 years old) gathered at Fogolar’s Country Club in
Oakville. They were there to participate in the week long St. Vartan
Summer Day Camp under the leadership of Reverend Father Komitas
Mirzakhanyan, Pastor of St. Vartan Armenian Church of
Mississauga. During the week the campers participated in a variety of
activities with each day having its own theme (e.g. Armenian Alphabet,
Holy Badarak, Armenia, and “I am special”). A variety of crafts were
made including a mosaic of Etchmiadzin, Pourvar, and Armenian flag
magnets amongothers. The children also participated in games like
Armenian Bingo, learned Armenian traditional shoorch bar and singing
Armenian songs. The children were also given the chance to play soccer
and swim.
The camp wrapped up on Friday with an exhibition of crafts, a slide
show from the camp and a performance for the parents. The campers sang
the beautiful Hye Menank song and Ayp ou Pen song which they had
learned over the past week. The campers also recited the Lord’s
Prayer, Hayr Mer to open the show.
A camp like this was a major undertaking for the St. Vartan
Mississauga parish and could not have been possible without the
contribution of time and money of various individuals.
Thank you to the team of eight counselors who assisted Der Komitas
during the week. The counselors were Steve Beler, Armen Dumanian,
Garen Hamblin, Nairi Kazazian, Arlaine MacClennan, Caroline
MacClennan, Christine Sevadjian, Peter Sevadjian, and Tanya
Sevadjian. A thank you also goes out to the parent volunteers who
helped during the camp: Taline Paroyan, Ani Badiani, Alessia Aivazian,
Ani Altounian, Christine Sakarya, Christine Ermarkaryan as well as the
organizing committee of the camp who included Ani Altounian, Taline
Paroyan, Houri Houldsworth, and Christine Ermar-karyan.
We would like to thank the following members of our community for
their donations towards the operating expenses of the camp: Ian & Seta
MacLennan,Loris & Julia Dumanian, Arlette Boghoskan, Mardig & Lilian
Sevadjian, Vic & Aida Sevadjian, John & Houri Houldsworth, Vazken &
Ani Altounian, Edouard & Taline Paroyan, Arno & Christine Ermarkaryan,
First Choice Haircutters, Kraft Canada, and Voortman Cookies.
Special thanks to the parents who supported the camp with the presence
of their children and made the 2nd annual St. Vartan Summer Day Camp
such a success!
Last but not least, a special thanks to Der Komitas for his leadership
and efforts to continue to make this camp a reality
Divan of the Diocese
Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
July 23 2004
PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN RECEIVED HEAD OF OSCE BAKU OFFICE
[July 23, 2004, 19:06:28]
President of the Azerbaijan Republic Ilham Aliyev received the newly
appointed head of the OSCE Baku Office ambassador Maurizio Pavesi, 23
July.
President Ilham Aliyev congratulated Mr. Maurizio Pavesi on his new
mission and wished success in his activity in the Country.
Noting that Azerbaijan is the OSCE member and takes regular part in
the arraignments of the Organization, head of Azerbaijan state said
that the Republic attaches great significance to cooperation with
this Organization.
Touching upon the settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorny
Karabakh conflict, President Ilham Aliyev said that OSCE Minsk Group
is engaged in resolution of the conflict, at the same time stressed
that hitherto it has failed in finding solution to the problem. Head
of Azerbaijan state underlined that the conflict jeopardizes
stability and security in the entire region and it can be settled
only in the frame of international laws and principles. He stated
that Azerbaijan makes great contribution in ensuring safety in the
region and the Republic takes active part in the regional projects.
All these serve strengthening of peace and safety in the region. Head
of Azerbaijan state underlined that in Azerbaijan economy develops
intensively and it has notable influence on the entire development of
the region, Social problems are solved successfully and a lot is
being done to better the life conditions of over one million of
refugees and IDPs who as a result of Armenian aggression were ousted
form their homelands, the president said.
Noting success of the democratization process in the Republic,
President of Azerbaijan dwelt on the active cooperation with the
international organizations. Azerbaijan has fully implemented its
obligations before the council of Europe since it became its member
three years ago.
President Ilham Aliyev expressed hope that integration of the Country
to the European structures and European family would successfully
continue in the years ahead and OSCE will assist to Azerbaijan in all
these processes.
Expressing his gratitude to President Ilham Aliyev for sincere
reception, Mr. Maurizio Pavesi said the Organization he represents
bases on principles of strengthening of cooperation in Europe, noted
that Azerbaijan and OSCE are successfully cooperating. The guest
expressed confidence that this cooperation would further continue and
he personally would make his contribution to the existing relations
between Azerbaijan and the Organization.
Head of the foreign relations department of President Administration
Novruz Mammadov took part at the reception.
PRESS RELEASE
Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
138 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7810
Fax: 212-689-7168
e-mail: [email protected]
Website:
Contact: Iris Papazian
Crossroads E-Newsletter July 22, 2004
PRELATE WILL ATTEND DIVINE LITURGY AND
BANQUET AT STS. VARTANANTZ CHURCH, NEW JERSEY
Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan will be in New Jersey this weekend. On
Sunday he will be with the faithful of Sts. Vartanantz Church, Ridgefield,
New Jersey, where he will preside over the Divine Liturgy and the farewell
luncheon for the parish priest, Rev. Fr. Khachadour Boghossian.
Rev. Fr. Khachadour was recently reassigned to the pastorship of Holy
Trinity Church in Worcester, Massachusetts. Parishioners of Sts. Vartanantz
will have the opportunity to bid a fond farewell to Der Hayr, Yeretzgeen and
their family.
ANEC AWARDS SETIAN COINS
The Armenian National Education Committee (ANEC) recently announced the
winners of the annual awards of ancient Armenian coins to a select number of
students who have excelled in Armenian studies. Mr. Gary Setian of
Massachusetts provides these annual awards. This year, the coins were from
the Cilician period of King Levon I.
ANEC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL ATTEND CONFERENCES
Gilda B. Kupelian, Executive Director of the Armenian National Education
Committee (ANEC) will attend two major conferences this summer. From August
5 to 7, 2004, Ms Kupelian will attend the International Educational
Conference organized by the Catholicate of the Great House of Cilicia. The
conference will take place in Antelias, Lebanon, under the presidency of His
Holiness Catholicos Aram I.
From August 27 to 29, Ms Kupelian will participate in the “First
Pan-Armenian Educational Conference,” which will take place in Yerevan,
Armenia, under the auspices of the Armenian Ministry of Education and
Science.
ANEC is co-sponsored by the Eastern Prelacy and the Armenian Relief
Society.
DIKRAN AND DIANA HADJETIAN ESTABLISH PUBLICATIONS FUND
AT CATHOLICATE OF CILICIA IN MEMORY OF
ARCHBISHOP MESROB ASHJIAN
The Catholicate of the Great House of Cilicia recently announced that a
Publications Fund in memory of Archbishop Mesrob Ashjian was established
through a generous donation of $50,000 by Dikran and Diana Hadjetian of
Canada. The Hadjetians are faithful supporters of the Armenian Church and
were very supportive of the late Archbishop’s charitable projects in
Armenia.
ST. SARKIS CHURCH PARISHIONERS AND FRIENDS
WILL MAKE A PILGRIMAGE TO ARMENIA AND ARTSAKH
More than thirty parishioners and friends of St. Sarkis Church,
Douglaston, New York, are preparing for their pilgrimage to Armenia and
Artsakh, which will begin August 16 and continue to August 30. The pilgrims
will be led by Very Rev. Fr. Anoushavan Tanielian, pastor of St. Sarkis
Church and Vicar General of the Prelacy.
ARCHBISHOP OSHAGAN ATTENDS
ARS CONVENTION IN FLORIDA
Archbishop Oshagan offered the opening prayer at the convention of the
Eastern Region of the Armenian Relief Society, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
His Eminence praised the members of this great charitable organization for
their past and present endeavors and urged the membership to continue their
much-needed humanitarian and educational projects.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RETURNS FROM ARMENIA
Vazken Ghougassian, the Executive Director of the Eastern Prelacy,
returned from Armenia, where he spent two weeks meeting with the office
staff of the St. Nerses the Great Charitable Organization, the Prelacy’s
charitable establishment for projects in Armenia and Artsakh. Dr.
Ghougassian was impressed with the explicit and professional work of the
staff.
During his visit Dr. Ghougassian guided the implementation of two new
programs: The renovation of the Noubarashen Orphanage and the Aid to Elderly
program.
The first phase of the renovation of the Noubarashen Orphanage has
started and will be completed by the end of August. The first phase entails
the complete renovation and replacement of the roof of the orphanage. Once
the exterior of the building is secured from the elements, renovation of the
inside will begin. During the next three years each of the three floors of
the orphanage will be completely renovated and refurbished. The Noubarashen
Orphanage project is being made possible through the estate of the late
Edward Malkonian, who established a permanent fund with the stipulation that
70% of the annual income is to be allocated to an orphanage in Armenia. Mr.
Malkonian established the fund in memory of his parents, Mardiros and
Marguerite Malkonian.
The second program, food aid to the elderly, is being made possible
through a grant made by Dr. Bedros Mangikian, who established a fund in
memory of his mother and sister, the Ardemis Mangikian and Yeran Mangikian
Garian Memorial Fund for Needy Senior Citizens of Armenia and Artsakh.
Quarterly distribution of food and provisions will be made to needy senior
citizens. The first distribution to approximately 115 elderly citizens will
begin the first week of August.
FORMER WCC LEADER DIES IN ACCIDENT
Archbishop Edward Scott, the 10th primate of the Anglican Church of
Canada, and former Moderator of the Executive and Central Committees of the
World Council of Churches (WCC), died last week in a car accident near
Toronto. The Archbishop was a well-known and respected leader of the
Ecumenical Movement. He was a close friend of Catholicos Karekin I, of
blessed memory, and Catholicos Aram I who currently is the Moderator of the
Executive and Central Committees of the WCC.
Catholicos Aram sent his condolences and described Archbishop Scott as a
gifted minister and strong leader. He served his church with firm commitment
and profound love. Archbishop Scott also served the Ecumenical Movement in
general and the World Council of Churches in particular with a clear vision
of the unity of the church. As Moderator from 1975 to 1983, through his
reports and reflections, Archbishop Scott emphasized the centrality of the
local church and the critical importance of the pastoral dimension in our
ecumenical engagement. The Ecumenical Movement owes a great deal to the
ecumenical contribution of Archbishop Scott. May God accept his soul in His
eternal kingdom.
CELEBRATING SAINTS THADDEUS AND SANDOUKHT
This Saturday, July 24, the Armenian Church remembers Saints Thaddeus
and Sandoukht.
St. Thaddeus is one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. After the
ascension of Jesus, Thaddeus began his mission preaching in Edessa and then
in Armenia. He was able to evangelize the royal palace where he baptized
Sandoukht, the beautiful daughter of King Sanatrouk. She embraced
Christianity and became a disciple of Thaddeus. Displeased, the king tried
to bring his daughter back into the fold of the old pagan faith. Sandoukht
remained loyal to her Christian faith and she was imprisoned and subjected
to torture and deprivation and finally death, thus becoming the first saint
of the Armenian Church. She is also considered to be the first witness for
Christianity in Armenia and an apostle because of the role she played in
converted others.
Thaddeus was put to death a few days after Sandoukht. Before his
martyrdom Thaddeus had already preached the new faith and established a
monastery, which to this day bears the name of Thaddeus, or Thade. The
monastery of St. Thaddeus today is within the borders of Iran. Large annual
pilgrimages are made to the monastery every July.
SUMMER RELIGION
When the mercury goes up, spirituality often comes down. So say the
experts. Certainly church attendance comes down. What does the Good Book
have to say about this? You can look it up.
Remember the Sabbath Day (Exodus 20:8).
Be persistent whether the time is favorable or not (2 Timothy
4:2).
Bless the Lord at all times (Psalm 34:1).
Let us not grow weary in doing what is right (Galatians 6:9).
Be steadfast (1 Corinthians 15:58).
Rejoice in the Lord always (Philippians 4:4).
Keep awake (Matthew 25:13).
THIS WEEK IN THE GARDEN
In spite of the cooler than usual summer thus far (at least in our area
of the country) our garden is beginning to yield its harvest. Watching the
miracle of seed to seedling, to plant, to fruit, reminds us of a poem we
read a while ago. We remember only the first verse and sadly have forgotten
the name of the author:
There is no unbelief;
Whoever plants a seed beneath the sod
And waits to see it push away the clod,
Trusts in God.
Visit our website at
21 July, 2004
”Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology”
Over the last twelve years, it has become customary to refer to the
Russian military establishment as decayed, under-armed, under-trained,
and under-supplied, thereby effectively writing it off as
second-rate. Russia’s long war in Chechnya seems to reinforce the
above sentiments, and current writings and reports on the Russian
armed forces all point to the dire need for reform and financial
assistance across the board. In essence, current analysis seems to
indicate that Russia stopped being a viable competitor to the American
military sometime after 1992. The media coverage of Russian military
technological achievements has been limited to coverage of its fighter
jet crashes at international air shows, and an occasional
complimentary article on a recent Russian entrant at a military show
or exposition.
At the same time, there has been wide and detailed coverage of
American achievements in the development of numerous military
technologies, especially after the 1991 Gulf War. The United States’
military interest is concentrated on continuing the process of
revolutionizing its military affairs with new technologies and tactics
that were learned in conflicts and wars very different from the
once-possible war between the U.S. and Russia on the European plains.
Meanwhile, the Russian military is forced to make do with weapons that
should have been retired in late 1980s.
However, even in the current dire circumstances, Russia never stopped
being a powerful entity that produced state-of-the-art military
technologies — a trend that continued from its inception as a modern
state. While its army, navy and air force are in dangerously derelict
conditions, every part of the formula for Russia’s resurgence as a
military powerhouse is still in place. Russia has been consistently
fielding top-notch military technology at various international trade
shows, and has been steady in the demonstration of its capabilities.
In spite of financial and economic difficulties, Russia still produces
state-of-the-art military technologies that continue to impress the
world. One of its best achievements after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union has been its armored fighting vehicle BMP-3, which has
been chosen over Western vehicles in contracts for the United Arab
Emirates and Oman, long located in Washington’s sphere of
influence. Russia’s surface-to-air missile systems, the S-300, and its
more powerful successor, the S-400, are reported to be more potent
than American-made Patriot systems. The once-anticipated military
exercise between the Patriot and the S-300 never materialized, leaving
the Russian complex with an undisputed, yet unproven, claim of
superiority over the American system. Continuing this list is the
Kamov-50 family of military helicopters that incorporate the latest
cutting-edge technologies and tactics, making them an equal force to
the best Washington and the West has to offer.
Additional proof of the strength of Russian military technology is the
recently held joint Indo-American air force exercises, the results of
which were widely covered in the media. Modern Russian-made Su-30
fighters in service with the Indian Air Force out maneuvered
American-made F-15 planes in a majority of their engagements,
prompting U.S. Air Force General Hal Homburg to admit that Russian
technology in Indian hands has given the U.S. Air Force a “wake-up
call.” Furthermore, the Russian military establishment is continuing
to design other helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles that are on
par with the best that the West has to offer. In addition, Mexico,
long a customer of U.S. military technology, has expressed an
interest in a limited amount of Russian weapon systems.
Part of such success — limited, but nonetheless crucial to the
survival of the Russian military industry — stems from the fact that
even in these difficult times, some of Russia’s military factories and
its covert cities, once the sites of ultra-secret projects, are still
operational and continue to work on essentially the same projects as
before the demise of the Soviet Union: the development of military
technologies that are on par or better than those available in the
West. Since the American military will be fighting its future wars
against armies possessing Russian weapons — or derivatives thereof —
Washington should pay closer attention to what is happening across the
wide spaces of the Russian Federation for three reasons.
One is the simple fact that weapons export is one of the best ways for
Russia to earn much-needed hard currency. Already, Russia is the
second-largest worldwide exporter of military technology after the
United States. As reported in various magazines, journals and
periodicals, at present, Russia’s modern military technology is more
likely to be exported than supplied to its own armies due to the
existing financial constraints and limitations of Russia’s armed
forces. This has implications for America’s future combat operations
since practically all insurgent, guerrilla, breakaway or terrorist
armed formations across the globe — the very formations that the
United States will most likely face in its future wars — are fielded
with Russian weapons or its derivatives. Even if the Russian
government exercises control over the sale and export of its military
technologies, given the present derelict state of its military and
lack of proper checks and balances, its state-of-the-art technology
might end up in the wrong hands.
The second reason has to do with Russia’s growing assertiveness in its
“near abroad,” or the states of the former Soviet Union. Russia
considers these states in its rightful economic, political and
military sphere of influence, and has acted accordingly in some of the
U.S.S.R.’s former republics, such as Georgia and Armenia. This
justification is particularly applied to oil- and natural gas-rich
Central Asian states. Already, Russia is slowly growing weary of the
American military presence in that region, and is seeking to bolster
its own presence there through closer contacts and military bases. In
order for Russia to fully exercise its influence, it would have to
field a viable, high-tech military force that is capable of projecting
its strength if the need for that arises. Given the developing
competition between the United States and Russia for Central Asia, the
Russian military will have to field the above-described technologies
in order to truly protect and exercise its sphere of influence.
The third reason has to do with Russia’s current military doctrine,
which adheres to the concept of multipolarity. The articles of the
doctrine state Russia’s conviction that the social progress, stability
and international security can only be accomplished in a multipolar
world. The doctrine further states that the Russian Federation will
work towards the establishment of such a world with all the means at
its disposal. Russia cannot be one of the potential powers in this
multipolar scenario if its military lacks advanced technologies and if
it cannot be considered a state-of-the-art military force on par with
U.S. and Western armies. Therefore, it is to be expected that Russia
will attempt to field its armies with the country’s best military
achievements.
If U.S.-Indian exercises were indeed a “wake-up call,” it is
conceivable that more such lessons for the United States can
follow. While the United States currently spends more on its military
strength than all of its potential competitors combined, one only
needs to turn to history to remember that it took Russia less than two
decades to build a state-of-the-art navy at the dawn of the 18th
century, with which it took on major powers of the day and firmly
established itself as one of the world’s superpowers. While the
current state of the Russian military is far from where the Russian
leadership wants it to be, the country’s support for modern
technological developments, and its historical ability to succeed in a
short period of time in spite of internal economic weaknesses, should
not be underestimated. Russia has yet the chance and ability to
someday rival the most technologically advanced states.
Report Drafted By:
Yevgeny Bendersky
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR).
In Defense of Marxism, UK
July 21 2004
The truth about the Second World War
Part One
By Alan Woods
Sixty years ago last month, under cover of darkness on a bleak
storm-lashed morning, Allied troops landed on the beaches of
Normandy. This was D-Day, the long-postponed invasion of Europe. One
week after the official ceremonies I visited the Normandy beaches
with some friends and comrades. Today the same beaches are placid and
tranquil. Strolling on the beaches in glorious June sunshine, it was
difficult to imagine the terrible scenes of mayhem and carnage of
sixty years ago, when not even half the men succeeded in getting onto
Omaha Beach before they were cut down by the murderous fire from
German guns.
The story of D-Day has been told many times. It has made a powerful
impression on the public through films such as The Longest Day and,
more recently, Saving Private Ryan. The recent celebrations,
accompanied by a steady stream of television documentaries, have
revived the stories about the heroic invasion of France, the terrible
cost in human lives, the sacrifice and the bravery. All of this is
true. But it does not tell anything like the full story.
The military cemeteries, with their endless lines of crosses, laid
out in strict formation, provide no hint of what it was like. The
American cemetery is like a beautifully manicured park, with
background music from bells that play tunes like The Battle Hymn of
the Republic and old men adorned with medals weep for their lost
companions and their lost youth.
One curious thing was pointed out to me. The crosses in the American
cemetery record only the date of death. There are no dates of birth.
Soldiers, it seems, are never born. They only die. That is, in fact,
their main function in this life. They die so that others can live in
peace and democracy. That is the official legend, at any rate. The
truth about war is somewhat different. But on anniversaries such as
this, the last thing that is wanted is the truth.
The official celebrations of D-day were like an elaborate piece of
theatre. And like all theatre it has to be carefully orchestrated and
rehearsed. This year the role of impresario was skilfully played by
Jacques Chirac and the French government. As might be expected, they
played it with great panache. The villages and towns were all covered
with flags of the Allies and placards with slogans such as “Welcome,
Liberators” (in English) and “Thank you”. It was all very moving.
Moving, yes, but also a little surprising. This was, after all, the
sixtieth anniversary. On the fiftieth anniversary, which is a far
more logical time to celebrate, the scene was very different. The
celebrations then were on a far smaller scale. The official
ceremonies were practically limited to a handful of dignitaries. In
fact, many of them were actually cordoned off so as to exclude the
public altogether.
What is the difference this time? Clearly more was at stake than a
historical memory. It had far more to do with our own times, and the
fact that, following the row between Europe and the USA over Iraq,
the European governments, and France in the first place, are
anxiously trying to mend broken bridges. Stung by American criticisms
of “ingratitude”, the French government was trying to prove its
sincere commitment to the North Atlantic Alliance. The D-day
anniversary was the perfect excuse.
The many former US servicemen who visited France in recent weeks were
undoubtedly sincerely moved by the welcome they received from
ordinary French people, who in turn were sincere in their desire to
pay tribute to the soldiers who risked everything fighting a bloody
war against fascism. When ordinary men and women speak of their
desire to live in peace and freedom, there is never any doubt about
their sincerity. But the words and deeds of ordinary people is one
thing, those of the governments and ruling classes are another thing
altogether.
Germany’s weakness
The cross-Channel invasion in the summer of 1944 was undoubtedly a
massive feat of military planning, involving colossal resources and
manpower. The Germans had fortified the coastline with concrete
bunkers and artillery – a huge defence system known as the Atlantic
Wall. Despite heavy bombardments the German forces retained
considerable strength. I was surprised to see that, even today, a
number of German bunkers (some with guns still inside) still remain,
like grotesque ruined castles, surrounded by deep bomb craters,
defying time.
But the history of warfare shows that walls and bunkers are of little
use if there are no serious forces to defend them. In 1940, the
French felt secure behind the supposedly impregnable defences of the
Maginot Line, until the German army swept round them. The German
commander Rundstedt complained to close associates that the wall was
nothing but a gigantic bluff, a “propaganda wall.” He believed that
the invaders had to be hit hard while they were still on the beaches,
and driven back into the sea. This required mobile armour, not static
defences. Unfortunately, Rundstedt knew his forces were depleted and
of generally poor quality:
“Most of the troops left in France were either over-age, or untrained
boys, or else Volksdeutschef ethnic Germans from eastern Europe.
There were even Soviet prisoners of war -Armenians, Georgians,
Cossacks, and other ethnic groups who hated the Russians and wanted
to rid their homelands of communism. The weaponry of the coastal
divisions was also second-rate, much of it being foreign-made and
obsolete.” (M. Veranov, The Third Reich at War, p. 490.)
Alarmed by the prospect of an Allied invasion in France, Hitler
dispatched Germany’s most famous general, the legendary Field Marshal
Erwin Rommel, former commander of the Afrikakorps, to assess the
coastal defences. The German high command expected to benefit from
Rommel’s experience and sound technical knowledge, and also hoped
that his presence would calm the German public and worry the Allies.
But Rommel was shocked by the relative weakness of the German
defences and particularly the lack of effective fighting forces.
“Rommel was dismayed by what he found. He was so shocked by the lack
of an overall strategic plan that, at first, he dismissed the whole
idea of the Atlantic Wall as a figment of Hitler’s imagination,
calling it a Wolkenkucksheim, cloud-cuckoo-land. He rated the army
troops he saw as no more than barely adequate, and he wrote off the
navy and the air force as all but useless. The Luftwaffe could muster
no more than 300 serviceable fighter planes to meet the thousands of
British and American aircraft that could be expected to cover the
skies over the invasion beaches, and the navy had only a handful of
ships
“Given the manifest weakness of the German forces, Rommel could see
no alternative except to make every effort to stop the invaders at
the water’s edge. From his experience in North Africa, he was
convinced that Allied fighter planes and bombers would preclude any
large-scale movement of German troops hoping to counter-attack
against an established beachhead.” (M. Veranov, The Third Reich at
War, p. 490.)
The only possibility for the Germans was to halt the invasion on the
beaches. As the above lines show, this tactic was determined by
weakness, not strength. The Germans concentrated all their best
forces for this purpose, with deadly results. Near Saint Laurent, a
powerful 88mm anti-tank canon inside a massive protective bunker can
still be seen to this day. From this strategic position, with a clear
sighting range across the length of Omaha beach, it is easy to
imagine the devastating effect of such guns, combined with an
incessant hale of machine-gun fire raking the shore, destroying tanks
and cutting down soldiers by the score.
Such was the intensity of the German fire that one naval commander
prematurely unloaded 29 supposedly amphibious Sherman tanks, too far
from the calmer waters near the beach, sending 27 of the tanks
straight to the sea-bed with their crews. This left the men of the
116th Regiment without vital tank cover once they were on the beach.
On the first day alone, over 2,000 British and American men were
killed, wounded or missing.
Despite the heavy losses on the beaches of Normandy, once the British
and American forces had landed, the result was a foregone conclusion.
The German forces were too weak to offer effective resistance. The
reason for this lamentable state of affairs is clear. Hitler had been
draining the reserves based in France, in order to make good the
heavy losses on the Russian front.
Imperialist intrigues
The Normandy landings were an impressive and costly military
operation, but they cannot be compared to the scale of the Red Army’s
offensive in the east. This was quite clear to anyone with the
slightest knowledge of the conduct of the war, including the Allied
commanders and the governments they represented. In August 1942 the
US Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up a document that said:
“In World War II, Russia occupies a dominant position and is the
decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe.
While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the USA are being
opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving the
attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies
open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a
secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the
main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated
in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes
precarious.” (quoted in V. Sipols, The Road to Great Victory, p.
133.)
These words accurately express the real position that existed at the
time of the D-day landings. Yet an entirely different (and false)
version of the war is assiduously being cultivated in the media
today.
The truth is that the war against Hitler in Europe was fought mainly
by the USSR and the Red Army. For most of the war the British and
Americans were mere spectators. Following the invasion of the Soviet
Union in the Summer of 1941, Moscow repeatedly demanded the opening
of a second front against Germany. But Churchill was in no hurry to
oblige them. The reason for this was not so much military as
political.
The policies and tactics of the British and American ruling class in
the Second World War were not at all dictated by a love of democracy
or hatred of fascism, as the official propaganda wants us to believe,
but by class interests. When Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, the
British ruling class calculated that the Soviet Union would be
defeated by Germany, but that in the process Germany would be so
enfeebled that it would be possible to step in and kill two birds
with one stone. It is likely that the strategists in Washington were
thinking on more or less similar lines.
But the plans of both the British and US ruling circles were
fundamentally flawed. Instead of being defeated by Nazi Germany, the
Soviet Union fought back and inflicted a decisive defeat on Hitler’s
armies. The reason for this extraordinary victory can never be
admitted by the defenders of capitalism, but it is a self-evident
fact. The existence of a nationalised planned economy gave the USSR
an enormous advantage in the war. Despite the criminal policies of
Stalin, which nearly brought about the collapse of the USSR at the
beginning of the war, the Soviet Union was able to swiftly recover
and rebuild its industrial and military capacity.
In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000
tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft. The Nazis,
with all the huge resources of Europe behind them, also stepped up
production, turning out 73,000 pieces of artillery, 10,700 tanks and
assault guns and 19,300 combat aircraft. (See V. Sipols, The Road to
a Great Victory, p. 132.) These figures speak for themselves. The
USSR, by mobilising the immense power of a planned economy, managed
to out-produce and outgun the mighty Wehrmacht. That is the secret of
its success.
There was another reason for the formidable fighting capacity of the
Red Army. Napoleon long ago stressed the decisive importance of
morale in warfare. The Soviet working class was fighting to defend
what remained of the gains of the October Revolution. Despite the
monstrous crimes of Stalin and the Bureaucracy, the nationalized
planned economy represented an enormous historic conquest. Compared
with the barbarism of fascism – the distilled essence of imperialism
and monopoly capitalism, these were things worth fighting and dying
for. The working people of the USSR did both on the most appalling
scale.
The real turning point of the War was the Soviet counteroffensive in
1942, culminating in the Battle of Stalingrad and later in the even
more decisive Battle of Kursk. After a ferocious battle lasting one
week, the German resistance collapsed. To the fury of Hitler, who had
ordered the Sixth Army to “fight to the death,” General Paulus
surrendered to the Soviet army. Even Churchill, that rabid
anti-Communist, was compelled to admit that the Red Army had “torn
the guts out of the German army” at Stalingrad.
This was a shattering blow to the German army. Though accurate
figures are not available, it seems that half of the 250,000 men of
the Sixth Army died in combat, or from cold, hunger and disease.
About 35,000 reached safety, but of the 90,000 who surrendered,
barely 6,000 ever saw Germany again. The Russian victory had cost
them about 750,000 men dead, wounded or missing. The cumulative
picture was even blacker. In just six months fighting since
Mid-November 1942, the Wehrmacht had lost an astonishing 1,250,000
men, 5,000 aircraft, 9,000 tanks and 20,000 pieces of artillery. Over
a hundred divisions had either been destroyed or ceased to exist as
effective fighting units.
Martin Gilbert writes: “In the first weeks of 1943 the resurgent Red
Army seemed to be on the attack everywhere. Operation Star was a
massive Soviet advance west of the river Don. On 14 February the
Russians captured Kharkov, and further south they were approaching
the Dnieper river.” (M. Gilbert, Second World War) Far more than the
Normandy landings, the battle of Kursk in July 1943 was the most
decisive battle of the Second War. The German army lost over 400
tanks in this epic struggle.
After this shattering blow, the Russian armies began to push the
Germans on a long front back towards the west. This was the greatest
military offensive in all of history. It immediately caused the alarm
bells to ring in London and Washington. The real reason for the
Normandy landings was that if the British and Americans had not
immediately opened the second front in France, they would have met
the Red Army on the Channel.
The reason for the Churchill-Roosevelt conflict
Already at that time, the ruling circles in Britain and the USA were
preparing for the coming conflict between the West and the USSR. The
real reason why they hastened to open the second front in 1944 was to
ensure that the Red Army’s advance was halted. George Marshall
expressed the hope that Germany would “facilitate our entry into the
country to repel the Russians.” (ibid., p. 135.).
The conflicts between Churchill and Roosevelt on the question of
D-day were of a political and not a military character. Churchill
wanted to confine the Allies’ war to the Mediterranean, partly with
an eye on the Suez Canal and the route to British India, and partly
because he was contemplating an invasion of the Balkans to bloc the
Red Army’s advance there. In other words, his calculations were based
exclusively on the strategic interests of British imperialism and the
need to defend the British empire. In addition, Churchill had still
not entirely given up the hope that Russia and Germany would exhaust
themselves, creating a stalemate in the east.
The interests of US imperialism and British imperialism were entirely
contradictory in this respect. Washington, while formally the ally of
London, was all the time aiming to use the war to weaken the position
of Britain in the world and particularly to break its stranglehold on
India and Africa. At the same time it was concerned to halt the
advance of the Red Army and gain control over a weakened Europe after
the war. That explains the haste of the Americans to open the second
front in Europe and Churchill’s lack of enthusiasm for it. Harry
Hopkins, Roosevelt’s main diplomatic representative, complained that
Churchill’s delaying tactics had “lengthened the timing of the war.”
In August 1943 Churchill and Roosevelt met in Quebec against the
background of a powerful Soviet offensive. The Soviet victories at
Stalingrad and Kursk forced the British and Americans to act. The
remorseless Soviet advance obliged even Churchill to reconsider his
position. Reluctantly, Churchill gave in to the insistent demands of
the American President. Even so, the opening of the second front was
delayed until the Spring of 1944.
All along the conduct of the war by the British and US imperialists
was dictated, not by the need to defeat fascism and defend democracy,
but by the cynical considerations of great power politics. The
divisions between London and Washington arose because the interests
of British and US imperialism were different, and even antagonistic.
American imperialism did not want Hitler to succeed because that
would have created a powerful rival to the USA in Europe. On the
other hand, it was in the interests of US imperialism to weaken
Britain and its empire, because it aimed to replace Britain as the
leading power in the world after the defeat of Germany and Japan.
The decision to open a second front in Italy was dictated mainly by
the fear that, following the overthrow of Mussolini in 1943, the
Italian Communists would take power. The main aim of the British and
Americans was, therefore, to prevent the Italian Communists from
taking power. So at a time when the Red Army was taking on the full
weight of the Wehrmacht in the battle of Kursk, the British and
Americans were wading ashore on the beaches of Sicily. In vain
Mussolini pleaded with Hitler to send him reinforcements. All
Hitler’s attention was focused on the Russian front.
Churchill’s attention was fixed on the Mediterranean, a position
determined by the strategic concerns and interests of British
imperialism and its empire. However, from late 1943 it became clear
to the Americans that the USSR was winning the war on the eastern
front and if nothing was done, the Red Army would just roll through
Europe. That is why Roosevelt pressed for the opening of the second
front in France. On the other hand, Churchill was constantly arguing
for delay. This led to severe frictions between London and
Washington. One recent article on the subject states:
“The Normandy landings were long foreshadowed by a considerable
amount of political manoeuvring amongst the allies. There was much
disagreement about timing, appointments of command, and where exactly
the landings were to take place. The opening of a second front had
been long postponed (it had been initially mooted in 1942), and had
been a particular source of strain between the allies. Stalin had
been pressing the Western Allies to launch a ‘second front’ since
1942. Churchill had argued for delay until victory could be assured,
preferring to attack Italy and North Africa first.”
()
The concerns of the imperialists were openly expressed in a meeting
of the Joint British and American Chiefs of Staff that took place in
Cairo on November 25, 1943. They noted that “the Russian campaign has
succeeded beyond all hope and expectations [that is, the hopes of the
Russians and the expectations of their “allies”] and their victorious
advance continues.” Yet Churchill continued to argue for a
postponement of Operation Overlord.
Conflicts with Stalin
The date of the invasion had been fixed for 1 May, but a Note
submitted to the meeting stated: “We must not, however, regard
`Overlord’ on a fixed date as the pivot of our whole strategy on
which all else turns. In actual fact, the German strength in France
next Spring may, at one end of the scale, be something which makes
Overlord Completely impossible.” It would “inevitably paralyse action
in other theatres.” (Public Record Office, Prem. 3/136/5, vol. 2, pp.
77-8.)
What “other theatres” are referred to here? The answer was provided
in another Note entitled “Entry of Turkey into the War.” It stated
that for Turkey to declare war on Germany would spark off hostilities
in the Balkans which “would involve the postponement of `Overlord’ to
a date that might be as late as the 15th of July.” (Public Record
Office, Prem. 3/136/5, vol. 2, pp. 106-7.). In other words, Churchill
was still concentrating on the Mediterranean and the Balkans.
Referring to this, George Marshall told the US Joint Chiefs of Staff
that “the British might like to ditch `Overlord’ now in order to go
into the Balkans.” (John Ehrman, Grand Strategy, vol. V, August
1943-September 1944, p. 117.)
The argument about the second front continued in Teheran, where
Stalin met Churchill and Roosevelt on November 28, 1943. The next
day, the following exchange took place between Stalin and Churchill:
“Stalin: If possible, it would be good to undertake Operation
Overlord during the month of May, say, on the 10th, 15th or 20th.
“Churchill: I cannot give such a commitment.
“Stalin: `If Overlord were to be undertaken in August, as Churchill
said yesterday, nothing would come out of that operation because of
the bad weather during that period. April and May are the most
convenient months for Overlord.
“Churchill: […] I do not think that many of the possible operations
in the Mediterranean should be neglected as insignificant merely for
the sake of avoiding a delay in Overlord for two or three months.
“Stalin: The operations in the Mediterranean Churchill is talking
about are really only diversions.” (The Teheran Conference, p. 97.)
That was absolutely correct. The Mediterranean operations were a
sideshow compared to the titanic battles on the eastern front. To
make matters worse, the British and US forces in Italy, although they
had a considerable superiority over the German army, were slowing
their advance, allowing the Wehrmacht to move forces from Italy to
the Russian front. On November 6, 1943, Molotov had pointed out that
the Soviet Union was “displeased by the fact that operations in Italy
have been suspended,” allowing for this transfer of troops to the
eastern front. “True,” he said, “our forces are gaining ground, but
they are doing so at the cost of heavy losses.” (Quoted by Sipols, p.
161.)
The slowness of the Allied advance in Italy was no coincidence. It is
now common knowledge that the British and American forces could have
taken Rome without having to battle it out for months at
Montecassino. They organised a landing at Anzio, further up the coast
from Montecassino, and if they had marched quickly towards Rome they
could have cut off the German troops who had dug in around the Abbey
of Montecassino. Instead they wasted precious time in building their
bridgehead on the beach. This allowed the German army to regroup and
build a defensive line that basically kept the Allied troops on the
beach of Anzio. Once this happened there remained no alternative but
to fight their way through the formidable German defence lines at
Montecassino. The Allies lost a huge number of soldiers and were
bogged down for months as result.
What is evident is that the British and Americans were worried that
the partisans could come to power long before the arrival of the
Allied forces. Their view was that it was better to let the Nazis
fight it out with the partisans and thus weaken the resistance
forces. Thus while the Allies were fighting the Germans in Italy,
there was an undeclared and tacit agreement between the two sides
when it came to stopping the common class enemy, in this case the
Italian working class.
However, going back to the question of the second front, it was clear
that Roosevelt took a rather different position to Churchill. The
Americans had their own reasons for wanting to satisfy the demands of
the USSR to open the second front in Europe. They were involved in a
bloody war with Japan in the Pacific, where their troops had to
capture heavily defended islands, one by one. They realised that, to
take on the powerful land armies of Japan on the Asian mainland would
be a formidable task, unless the Red Army also launched an offensive
against the Japanese in China, Manchuria and Korea. Stalin let it be
known that the Red Army would attack the Japanese, but only after the
German army had been defeated. This was a weighty reason for
Roosevelt to agree to Russia’s demand to launch `Overlord’ and
overrule the objections of the British.
Fears in London and Washington
The rapid advance of the Red Army in Europe at last forced Churchill
to change his mind about Overlord. From a position of supine
inactivity in Europe, the Allies hurriedly moved into action. The
fear of the Soviet advance was now the main factor in the equations
of both London and Washington. So worried were the imperialists that
they actually worked out a new plan, Operation Rankin, involving an
emergency landing in Germany if it should collapse or surrender. They
were determined to get to Berlin before the Red Army. “We should go
as far as Berlin […]”, Roosevelt told the Chiefs of Staff on his way
to the Cairo meeting. “The Soviets could then take the territory to
the east thereof. The United States should have Berlin.” (FRUS, The
Conferences at Cairo and Teheran, 1943, p. 254.)
Despite the successes of the Red Army, Hitler still had considerable
forces at his disposal. The Wehrmacht remained a formidable fighting
machine, with over ten million men, over six and a half million of
them in the field. But what is never made clear in the West is that
two-thirds of these were concentrated on the Russian front. The only
contribution of the British and Americans was the bombing campaigns
that devastated German cities like Hamburg and killed a huge number
of civilians, but which completely failed either to destroy the
Germans’ fighting spirit or halt war production.
The German forces on the eastern front had 54,000 guns and mortars,
more than 5,000 tanks and assault guns and 3,000 combat aircraft. In
spite of the Allied bombing raids, Hitler’s war industries were
increasing their production in 1944. They produced 148,200 guns, as
against 73,700 in 1943. Production of tanks and assault guns
increased from 10,700 to 18,300 and of combat aircraft from 19,300 to
34,100.
The Red Army launched a huge offensive in late December, 1943, which
swept all before it. After liberating the Ukraine, they pushed the
German forces back through Eastern Europe. The fact is that both
Roosevelt and Churchill (not to mention Hitler) had underestimated
the Soviet Union. In the event, the Allies met the Red Army, not in
Berlin but deep inside Germany. If they had not launched Overlord
when they did, they would have met them on the English Channel. That
is why the D-Day landings were launched when they were.
The fact is that even after the Normandy landings of June 1944, the
eastern front remained the most important front of the war in Europe.
The British and US armies got as far as the borders of Germany but
were halted there. On the other hand, the advance of the Red Army was
the most spectacular in the whole history of warfare. In December
1944, the German High Command decided to launch a counteroffensive in
the Ardennes (the “Battle of the Bulge”), with the aim of cutting off
the British and US forces in Belgium and Holland from the main Allied
forces. The aim of this offensive was more political than military.
Hitler hoped to force the British and Americans to sign a separate
peace. But the German forces on the western front were too weak to
inflict a decisive blow, since most were concentrated on the main
theatre of operations in the East. The Wehrmacht advanced some ninety
kilometres before being halted.
Churchill wrote to Stalin on January 6, 1945:
“The battle in the West is very heavy and, at any time, large
decisions may be called for from the Supreme Command. You know
yourself from your own experience how very anxious the position is
when a very broad front has to be defended after temporary loss of
the initiative. It is General Eisenhower’s great desire and need to
know in outline what you plan to do, as this obviously affects all
his and our major decisions […] I shall be grateful if you can tell
me whether we can count on a major Russian offensive on the Vistula
front, or elsewhere, during January […] I regard the matter as
urgent.” (Correspondence between the Chairman of the Council of
Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidents of the United States and
the Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War
of 1941-1945, vol. 1, Moscow, 1957, p. 294.)
The Soviet forces did advance on January 12, pushing the German army
back on a broad front. The British and US imperialists were placed in
a difficult position. On the one hand, as Churchill’s letter shows,
they were dependent on the military power of the USSR to defeat
Hitler. On the other hand, they were terrified of revolution in
Eastern Europe and the rapid advance of the Red Army and the power of
the USSR.
Behind the German lines on the Eastern Front, many thousands of
Soviet workers and peasants engaged in a heroic and desperate
partisan war. On the night of June 19, 1944, more than ten thousand
demolition charges laid by Soviet partisans damaged beyond immediate
repair the whole German rail network west of Minsk. On the next two
nights, a further forty thousand charges blew up the railway lines
between Vitebsk and Orsha, and Polotsk and Molodechno. The essential
lines for German reinforcements, linking Minsk with Brest-Litovsk and
Pinsk, were also attacked, while 140,000 Soviet partisans, west of
Vitebsk and south of Polotsk, attacked German military formations.
Martin Gilbert writes: “All this, however, was just the opening
prelude to the morning of June 22, when the Red Army opened its
summer offensive. Code-named Operation Bagration, after the tsarist
General, it began on the third anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of
Russia, with a force larger than that of Hitler’s in 1941. In all,
1,700,000 Soviet troops took part, supported by 2,715 tanks, 1,355
self-propelled guns, 24,000 artillery pieces and 2,306 rocket
launchers, sustained in the air by six thousand aircraft, and on the
ground by 70,000 lorries and up to a hundred supply trains a day. In
one week, the two-hundred-mile-long German front was broken, and the
Germans driven back towards Bobruisk, Stolbtsy, Minsk and Grodno,
their hold on western Russia broken for ever. In one week, 38,000
German troops had been killed and 116,000 taken prisoner. The Germans
also lost two thousand tanks, ten thousand heavy guns, and 57,000
vehicles. German Army Group North, on which so much depended, was
broken into two segments, one retreating towards the Baltic States,
the other towards East Prussia.” (M. Gilbert, Second World War, p.
544.)
Offensive operations on the Western front were renewed in February.
In fact, the British and US forces met with little serious
resistance, because the great majority of Hitler’s effective fighting
forces were fighting on the eastern front. This enabled the British
and American forces to advance all along the length of the Rhine.
Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force
in Europe, admitted that they had not encountered any serious
opposition. The two US divisions that made the assault suffered only
thirty-one casualties. (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe, New
York, 1948, p. 389, my emphasis, AW.)
The fighting spirit of the German army was broken. An average of
10,000 German soldiers surrendered to the British and Americans every
day. Yet on the eastern front they continued to fight desperately on.
The reason for this must be found in the policies of Stalin. Under
Lenin and Trotsky, the Bolsheviks had pursued an internationalist
policy. During the bloody Civil War that followed the October
revolution, Soviet Russia was invaded by 21 foreign armies of
intervention. At one time the Soviet power was reduced to the area
around Moscow and Petrograd – little more than the territory of
ancient Muscovy. Yet the Revolution succeeded in defeating the
imperialists. The reason was that the Bolsheviks carried out
internationalist propaganda among the imperialist troops.
As a result, there were mutinies in every one of the interventionist
armies. The British prime minister Lloyd George said that the British
soldiers had to be withdrawn from Murmansk because they were
“infected with Bolshevik propaganda.” By contrast, Stalin pursued a
nationalist policy. There was no attempt to win over the ordinary
German soldier and to turn them against the Nazi SS. In effect,
Stalin’s policy was “the only god German is a dead German.” This
ensured that the German army on the eastern front fought to the
bitter end, causing terrible casualties in the Soviet army.
The problem for London and Washington was that the Red Army was
sweeping through Eastern Europe like an irresistible wave. In only 12
days the Soviet troops moved forward up to 500 kilometres – that is,
25-30 kilometres per day. The German army lost 300,000 killed and
100,000 were taken prisoner. By the time the American and British
forces had recovered from the Battle of the Bulge and recommenced
their advance on February 8 the Red Army was only 60 kilometres from
Berlin, while the British and Americans were still 500 kilometres
distant. By the beginning of April the Nazi forces had been driven
out of Poland. On April 13 the Soviet forces entered Vienna.
Imperialist manoeuvres
The Nazi leaders knew they had lost the war but a section of them
were hoping that the alliance between the USSR and the British and
Americans would break down. The idea was to surrender in the west and
keep on fighting the Russians in the east. This was not as impossible
as it might seem. Negotiations were opened in Switzerland between the
chief of American Intelligence in Europe, Allen Dulles, and the
representative of the German High Command in Italy, S.S. General
Wolff, about a German surrender in Italy.
Upon learning of these negotiations, the Russians insisted on their
right to be present in any such negotiations. They were concerned –
quite rightly – that the aim of such a surrender would be to transfer
German troops from Italy to the eastern front to hold up the advance
of the Red Army, thus permitting the British and US forces to advance
further eastwards.
Churchill wrote to Stalin with an air of hurt innocence, while
Roosevelt assured Stalin of his “truthfulness and reliability”.
(Correspondence…, vol. 2, p. 206 and vol. 1, pp. 317-8.) American
representatives said that the only contacts they had established with
the Germans were to discuss the opening of negotiations. This was a
lie. American records reveal that negotiations were already being
conducted in Bern. From this it is clear that the aim of the Nazis
was indeed to halt the fighting in Italy to transfer troops to the
eastern front. (See Bradley F. Smith and Elena Agarossi, Operation
Sunrise, The Secret Surrender, Basic Books, New York, 1979.)
In mid-April, the Red Army delivered a crushing blow to the German
forces defending Berlin. It had 2.5 million troops, 41,600 guns and
mortars, 6,250 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 7,500 combat
aircraft. They closed in on Berlin on April 25. Simultaneously, the
Soviet and US forces linked up at Torgau on the Elbe, cutting Germany
in half.
All this, however, did not mean that the British and American
imperialists had not given serious consideration to the possibility
of a war against the USSR. In fact, the ruling circles in both London
and Washington had considered the possibility, but they realised it
was impossible. After fighting a bloody war that was supposed to be a
war against fascism, the American and British soldiers would never
have been prepared to fight against the Soviet Union. The fears
aroused by the economic and military successes of the USSR were
expressed in internal memos that were only published years later. A
special document was prepared by the US State Department, which
stated:
“The outstanding fact [that] has to be noted is the recent phenomenal
development of the heretofore latent Russian military and economic
strength – a development which seems certain to prove epochal in its
bearing on future politico-military international relationships, and
which is yet to reach the full scope attainable with Russian
resources.” (FRUS, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, pp.
107-8.)
These lines startlingly reveal the real calculations of the
imperialists. At the height of the War, the British and US ruling
circles were already sizing up the situation in Europe and preparing
for a struggle against their Russian allies. The Americans considered
the possibility of a war against the Soviet Union even before Hitler
was defeated, and ruled it out – only because they correctly though
that they could not win.
The report pointed out that the USSR’s military and industrial
strength was already greater than that of Britain. Even if the USA
joined forces with Britain against the USSR, the report concluded,
with amazing frankness, they “could not, under existing conditions,
defeat Russia.” The State Department concluded that in such a
conflict the USA “would find itself engaged in a war which it could
not win.” (ibid., my emphasis, AW)
London, July 21, 2004
To be continued…
Noyan Tapan, Armenia
July 14 2004
“Bridge of hope” and “Mission East” announce a competition on the
theme of disability
“Bridge of hope” and “Mission East” announce a competition “Education
For all” on the theme of disability for the best TV/ Radio/ Newspaper
publication. The aim of the competition is to advocate education and
equal opportunities for people with disabilities by means of
elucidation of the theme in media.
Publications made from July 1 – November 20- 2004 are eligible to
participate in the competition. The results will be finalized on
December 1, 2004 and the winners will be presented with Pentium 4 for
the best publication and special prizes for the best TV program,
Radio program and Article.
INTRODUCTION OF TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEZING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WILL
ALLOW TO EXPAND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
YEREVAN, JULY 16. ARMINFO. For easy selling of agricultural products
in Armenia 2-3 years later the Ministry of Agriculture of the country
takes steps for introduction of technologies of freezing. Minister of
Agriculture of Armenia David Lokian informed during the press
conference today.
According to him, such a farsight is connected with predicted increase
of production and demand for agricultural products of Armenia in
foreign markets. Lokian mentioned that the system of consolidation of
lands in a number of communities will be introduced in Armenia under
the pilot program FAO. It will allow the peasants to reunite their
land areas and expand the agricultural production. Of course, when the
growth of the harvest a problem of selling appears, and the
possibility of freezing of products will allow to expand the foreign
market for selling fresh fruits and vegetables, he mentioned.
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen arrive in Armenia
Mediamax news agency
12 Jul 04
YEREVAN
The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group, Yuriy Merzlyakov Russia,
Henry Jacolin France and Steven Mann USA , have arrived in Yerevan.
As Mediamax news agency has reported, the co-chairmen will meet
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan. The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group will leave Yerevan
for the capital of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic on 13 July.
The co-chairmen will leave Yerevan for Baku on the morning of 15 July.
Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, FL
July 7 2004
Ararat wins at Armenian film fest
Atom Egoyan’s 2002 movie, Ararat, won the top prize at the Golden
Apricot Film Festival of works by ethnic Armenian directors,
officials said Monday.
The festival included 57 movies by directors from 20 countries.
Egoyan is a Canadian of Armenian heritage.
Ararat depicts the plight of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. Armenians
say that a 1915-1923 campaign to force Armenians out of eastern
Turkey left 1.5 million people dead and amounted to genocide. The
title refers to the mountain that Armenians regard as their national
symbol but which now is in Turkey.