US Had A ‘Pretty Supportive Attitude’ Toward Fascism In 1930s

The State Department described Hitler as a moderate who was holding off the forces, the dangerous forces of the left … and of the right, namely the extremist Nazis,’ explained the noted scholar.

Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator, speaks at the dedication ceremonies of Sabandia, central Italy, on Sept. 24, 1934.

Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator, speaks at the dedication ceremonies of Sabandia, central Italy, on Sept. 24, 1934.

MUNICH — While the typical narrative of American history positions the United States as a supporter of democracy and opponent of fascism which helped to defeat the Nazis, key figures in Washington also supported dangerous dictators in Italy and Germany in their early days of power.

Noam Chomsky, the renowned political philosopher, historian and scholar, examined the flip side of U.S. opposition to dictatorship in a conversation with Zain Raza, a senior editor at the independent media outlet acTVism Munich. An excerpt from the conversation was published Sept. 30 as part of acTVism Munich’s “Reexamining History” series.

Speaking to Raza about Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, Chomsky said President Franklin Roosevelt was “pretty supportive of Mussolini’s fascism.”

Mussolini took power in Italy in 1922, and by 1925, he had dropped the pretense of democracy and openly embraced dictatorial rule. Under his leadership, the Italian government brutally suppressed labor rights and socialist movements, as well as virtually all other political opposition through violence, assassination and the use of secret police. He was also a key ally of Germany under the Nazis.

“I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with the admirable Italian gentleman,” Roosevelt wrote in a 1933 letter, referring to Mussolini.

In another letter to an American envoy, he wrote:

“I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble.”   

With Mussolini having a reputation for efficiency (even if that reputation may have been undeserved), Chomsky noted that he was a favorite of the U.S. business community, too. He continued:

“[T]he power systems in the United States were highly supportive of Mussolini. In fact even parts of the labor bureaucracy were. Fortune Magazine, for example, the major business journal, I think in 1932, had an issue with the headline, I’m quoting it: ‘The wops are unwopping themselves.’
The ‘wop’ is a kind of a derogatory term for Italians, and the ‘wops’ are finally ‘unwopping’ themselves, under Mussolini they’re becoming part of the civilized world.’”

Even Adolf Hitler, who died an enemy of the United States, was initially seen as a “moderate” force in German politics, Chomsky explained. Recalling a 1937 report from the State Department, he continued:

“The State Department described Hitler as a moderate who was holding off the forces, the dangerous forces of the left, meaning the Bolsheviks, the labor movement and so on, and of the right, namely the extremist Nazis. Hitler was kind of in the middle, and therefore we should kind of support him.“

Ultimately, however, it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which finally drew the United States fully into World War II.

Perhaps comparing historic support for fascist leaders to modern U.S. foreign policy, Chomsky added: “This is a pretty familiar stance, incidentally, like many other cases.”

Today, for example, the United States boasts Saudi Arabia as a key ally in the Middle East, despite the latter’s brutal record on women’s rights and ongoing war crimes in Yemen. And, in Syria, the United States backs so-called “moderate” rebels, even though they’ve been linked to everything from beheading children to the use of chemical weapons.

Watch “Reexamining History with Noam Chomsky: US Elite’s view of European Fascism before WW2:

Clinton: Destroy Syria for Israel

A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.”

In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death.

Clinton-Syria-destruction

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

C05794498-1

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s “atom bomb” program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to “justify” destroying Syria in the name of Israel.

READ  Mexico Archaeology Dig Reveals Details of 1520 AD Aztec Cannibalism

She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iran’s “atom bomb” program threatens Israel’s “monopoly” on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.

Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.

It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.

The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clinton—whose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of people—could become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.

Clinton’s public assertion that, if elected president, she would “take the relationship with Israel to the next level,” would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.

2016-05-22

By The New Observer Staff

Source: The New Observer

hitleri-syria