A Greek tragedy via Moscow - Operation Barbarossa

As politicians from around Europe try to work out how to sort out the Greek financial crisis and the potential domino-effect across Southern European nations, the prospects for a generation of young Europeans does not look prosperous in terms of employment or financial stability. One of the main issues that economists and political commentators have pointed out was the fact that the creation of the Euro was built on a premise of political union and advancement, without the framework of a single European economic policy. However, politicians and people from across mainland Europe, despite the uncertainty, have been pursuing such a goal for the past 60 years. The rebuilding of Europe after World War 2 was both cosmetic and political. It provided a framework to pursue peace and a bulwark against Soviet Russia in the East. Even after the Berlin Wall came down twenty years ago, politicians including British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the French President Francois Mitterrand believed a reunited Germany could spell danger for the future of Europe. The whole purpose of European unity was to keep Germany down and central to its future, something it was battling against seventy years ago to this day.

If one battle is to define World War Two then it must be Operation Barbarossa. Launched with five of Hitler’s armies across the Eastern European frontier it set out to destroy Bolshevik Russia and to expand Germany into the distant East. Eventually five million German soldiers would die to fighting, the cruel Russian winter or disappear in to the work camps in the Arctic North. Russia’s gamble saw it lose over 27 million of its population, two thirds of them being civilians. Yet, despite the tremendous human loss, it is defined by historians as a battle won and lost through the eyes of Hitler and Stalin. These men were caustic and murderously driven to victory, yet they saw the battle as a chance to amend the wrongs of history and to place themselves within the annals of military legend.

Hitler’s hate and scorn for communists and the Slavic race is well documented yet during the infamous pact signed by von Ribbentrop and Molotov that sliced up the Poland and Lithuania between Russia and Germany, Stalin believed Hitler would keep his word and refrain from invasion. Yet Operation Barbarossa, named after King Frederick I of the Holy Roman Empire who set out to conquer the Holy Land in the twelfth century was deemed by Hitler to be a befitting name. On 22 June 1941 when Hitler’s tanks and troops crossed the Russian border, Stalin could not believe it. Despite intelligence from Soviet spies within Germany and on the border he chose to ignore it. Stalin was more sceptical of the British, who were relaying the same information, than his German counterparts (Britain had been Russia’s long term rival in the nineteenth century and had intervened against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War). In the first day two thirds of the Russian air force was destroyed.

Hitler’s Blitzkrieg, the lightning war that walked over Western Europe, captured Minsk, Kiev, encircled Leningrad and came within 18 miles of Moscow was flawed from the start and any essence of military history could have told Hitler this. Napoleon’s epic battles against the Russia in 1812 are best captured in Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ where the French are eventually pushed out by a disorganised Russian force. Hitler was obsessed with postcard captures rather than strategic victories. He was blinded by the fog of war and the abstractions of history that had eluded German and Prussians in the past. Like Napoleon, Hitler’s lines were stretched to the limit across a continental front. He ignored the cries from his Generals and believed he knew best. Blitzkrieg had worked but the front line still needed to be supplied.

Stalin too was also blinded by foolishness. His ignorance over intelligence and disastrous attempts to advance was an opportunity to replicate the successes of the 1812 General Kutuzov. At one stage, Stalin believed that his costly decisions would see him ousted, yet the reality as Professor Robert Service points out; he had imprisoned and killed all potential rivals – he was the only one left. He was asked to take the battle to the Nazis

While Hitler continuously gambled, Stalin used history to prevail. Like 1812, he saw this as the ‘Great Patriotic War’. He stayed in Moscow, unlike in 1812 and coordinated the battle from the Politburo in the Kremlin. He allowed generals to make decisions and employed effective propaganda to cede attempts to capture Stalingrad. Leningrad survived the Nazi siege for over 900 days. Armed by the allies, Russia was able to push back the Nazis, war weary and frozen (like Napoleon’s men) to his new prize, Berlin. After years of struggle, this was an opportunity to recapture and to take revenge, through any circumstance necessary.

During those three and half years, Eastern Europe became the blood lands of a violent and ideological war. It was rape, genocide and conflagration on an enormous scale, destroying and poisoning Europe for the following fifty years. Over 2.5 million people died in Stalingrad alone. It is easy to say that times are tough, but Europe has seen much worse.

Tweeting in a war zone.

As the world adapts to new technologies and new communications, it is changing the way we interact with each other socially and is changing the way the world operates politically. Propaganda is nothing new and its proliferation has been used to amass armies and turn nations against each other. Repressed people are now able to voice their subversions through Twitter and broadcast the acts of violence by governments through YouTube. The internet has emancipated the voices to the West and to pressurise the governments of secretive and cruel regimes. Yet, how effective is it and are governments now catching up with this technological proliferation?

The ‘Green Revolution’ during the 2009 elections Iran was the inaugural example of a digital rebellion. After questionable results were returned and the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed electoral victory, young Iranians poured onto the streets of Tehran to protest at the result. With hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters amassing across the capital and the world’s attention heaping pressure on the Iranian Government, the Ministry of Information banned all foreign journalists. Their expulsion saw the Revolutionary Guard turn violent against its own people, without the world’s gaze scrutinising its every move. Yet, they didn’t account for mobile phones recording every move and the use of Twitter to organise public rallies. Although it did not force the government out, it highlighted their ability to turn violent on its own people and the disharmony among the Iranian population.

The recent uncertainty in Syria has been difficult to report due to the government in Damascus closing the borders to foreigners. Despite regime change in the region, with the help of new communications, the Syrian government has been effective in curbing the use of the internet. Not only has it switched off the network to prevent protests but more concerning it has forced protestors to deny unrest and promote the regime’s values online. What is also concerning is the inability of Western organisations to discern what is true and what might not be true. This week saw the press duped into the abduction of a lesbian Syrian blogger, it turned out it was a man from Scotland. Wars are now fought with public relations teams; the recent conflicts in Israel and Libya have been notorious through the role of government spokesmen. Journalists are driven around warzones like city tour buses and press releases are issued as prolifically as canon fire.

We may be unable to understand the truth fully and unfortunately more people may lose their lives before anything changes. The ability of the Chinese Government to control its firewall shows how effective these measures can be implemented. However, leaders can no longer prevent news of uprisings from escaping their borders. Long gone are the days of Glasnost and State TV monopolising the news channels, the BBC and CNN are simply a click away. Assassins come in the form of the sniper and blogosphere.

It's the economy, dumbass!

The political change taking place across the Middle East and North Africa has surprised most commentators and politicians in terms of its success and speed. Many of the countries that have changed during the ‘Arab Spring’ had been controlled by strongmen who had been in charge for decades. Hosni Mubarak, who stood down from Egypt after thirty years, was only the third president since the 1952 revolution. What has interested me most besides the timing, has been the reaction of the world’s major countries, particularly America. The US has been a major player in the region in the past sixty years, providing aid (and arming) Israel, placing sanctions on Iran and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The US has a varying record across the world but it is always unanimous when it comes to promoting and pushing values of democracy and liberty.

These values are mentioned dozens of times in any presidential speech and evolve ultimately from America’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. American troops are deployed all around the world to protect the love of their country and the values it evokes. Yet despite the vivid portrayals of flags and parades adjoined to the rhetoric from the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I wonder whether America is perhaps over-democratised and whether its ‘brand’ of politics is tarnishing the way the system works?

To many, 20 January 2009 was a historical day across the world, but particularly in America. Barack Obama was sworn in as the first black US President. It was a magical moment to watch and the banners for change were painted across cities and small towns in America through the ubiquitous ‘Hope’ posters that will come to define a generation. Yet since that day the obvious stalling of the American economy has defined Obama’s first term as President and with that an infectious antagonism has developed between the President’s Democrats and the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Republicans.

The passage of Obama’s healthcare bill that in essence extended insurance provision to the poorest in society caused fractions between both parties. Obama’s Presidential opponent, Senator John McCain called the bill ‘unconstitutional’ and the President was called a liar by Republican Joe Wilson during a joint session of Congress, a major disrespect in American conventions and in most democracies. The issues of late has been the nation’s high unemployment rate, around 9%, and the inability to agree on America’s deficit (currently America’s total debt stands at $14 trillion (and increasing)). The Democrats, who suffered defeats during the midterms, struggled to pass through the President’s budget until the last minute. Yet, the belligerent GOP who block every bill proposed by Mr Obama, have struggled to formulate their own deficit reduction plan. Congressman Paul Ryan who put forward a much tougher plan, compared to the Democrats, called the ‘Path to Prosperity’ wanted tighter reforms to healthcare and federal spending. This too was voted down. Politicians are embattled over the Treasury’s ceiling limit of American federal debt and the unrest is visible as states such as New Jersey, California and New York struggle to tackle their public spending, even the NFL nearly went on strike. Yet amongst all this, it appears we are yet again in election season.

Despite the US elections being over 18 months away, we have already descended into the hubbub of caucuses and campaigning. The Republicans candidates are still deciding whether 2014 is the best opportunity for them to run. Most headlines nationally and internationally focus on the glamorous, relentless yet fallible Sarah Palin. An ambassador of the Tea Party and a saviour to America’s right, Palin has taken herself on a tour of the US but has yet to confirm whether she will stand. The flamboyant property tycoon Donald Trump also ruled himself out after questioning Obama’s citizenship. Another unhealthy idea evolving from America’s Right is the re-emergence of Reagonomics, in honour of the Republican’s ideological God – Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan’s policy of cutting taxes yet maintaining a large military capability through borrowing seems idiotic but plays with the patriots’ hearts, despite a horrendous deficit. There appears to be plenty of choice of candidates but no one outstanding.

American electioneering has revolutionised the way democracy and politics works and moves. From the advent of Presidential debates that saw the rookie John F, Kennedy defeat the experienced Richard Nixon to the sophisticated internet campaign that saw Obama steamroll Hilary Clinton as nominee then John McCain. Presidential campaigning is a billion dollar industry and has been used over the years to the Philippines, Venezuela, even the Scottish National Party (SNP) adopted the technology in the recent local elections in the UK.

Now here is the problem, expect utterances of ‘American exceptionalism’ and the usual musings of freedom, hope etc. Yet, it appears to deflect from the big elephant in the room. Bill Clinton’s infamous election phrase, ‘It’s the economy stupid!’ America is in a safer position compared to Britain because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and developing nations are still prepared to buy US Treasury bonds. Yet the dynamics of American electioneering deflect from the intrinsic importance of policy making and sorting out the economy. The current UK coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could of course collapse at any time, coalitions do, but the five year plan to wipe out the deficit, despite its critics, is backed and understood by most members of the British public. The British economy is of course entirely different to the American, but the flexibility of the Parliamentary system, which does have its flaws, has shown that the benefits over a codified and rigorous constitutional system. America’s love of democracy isn’t helping any recovery.

America should be proud of its values and persistence to promote and enhance the lives of others across the world. Its labour markets are flexible enough to create new jobs and adapt to the global economy, yet it the constant dogmatism and disorder, perhaps over-democratisation, mixed with the professional electioneers, has caused it to stall and lose focus on important matters. By no means, would any American lust for the Chinese political system or the over bureaucratic system of India but it would aspire for year on year high economic growth and end site to potential financial meltdown. The world could not afford the American economy to default, but you wish someone would stop talking about flags and just say ‘it’s the economy stupid!’

Next stop, Mugabe.

Lord Palmerston, one of Britain’s most influential Foreign Secretaries in the nineteenth century is often remembered for his famous dictum:

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

This is true of any nation. The US delegation that visited Mao’s China in 1972 was treading on dangerous ground. History Professor David Reynolds from the University of Cambridge said at the time it is like comparing ‘America opening talks with Al Qaeda’. Every story has a context and President Richard Nixon was pursuing a policy of containment from Soviet influence with his mandarin Henry Kissinger. China, under the insular rule of Chairman Mao, were political pariahs. They had contributed in World War 2 to help defeat Imperial Japan, but several years later (after the Mao’s succession) sent forces against the West on the Korean peninsula. The US decision to open talks was made easier by the Ussuri River conflict agaisnt the USSR three years previously. Communist China and Soviet Russia were now sworn enemies. This not only allowed the US to start talks with China, particularly about containing the Vietnam War but it opened up a diplomacy that would transform the two nations economically.

It is the same within the Middle East. The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was transformative, after decades of war, it showed the ability to negotiate over trade and ultimately co-exist. This asks the question of Britain and whether it is willing or able to move on and talk to the wasp’s nest in the loft, Zimbabwe and its belligerent and ailing leader Robert Mugabe.

British history in Africa is grey. Comparing it to other nations and their empires such as Belgium or Portugal then you could mistake the British for saints. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ saw land divided between other countries with the line of a ruler. Unlike places like India or Hong Kong where institutions were laid down, a loose form of indirect rule was placed with strong tribal leaders to control affairs on site, whilst decisions were made from the Colonial Office in Whitehall.

The 1960s and the ‘winds of change’ speech uttered by PM Harold MacMillan saw swathes of British Africa declare independence; The Gold Coast, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. All these nations elected their own governments and power was truly handed over from London. Yet the British exit from Rhodesia did not change much in terms of politics. Ian Smith, a white militant, took charge and retained the apartheid system that subjugated Black Rhodesians. The guerrilla war that ensued finally ended in 1979 through the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in London that ended Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence. It also introduced to the world the wily and implacable Robert Gabriel Mugabe, a product of the British Colonial system.

Why does Mugabe in particular revile the British establishment? Zimbabwe has a shocking human rights record; but what of the genocide in Darfur or the habitual rape of women and children in DR Congo? Freedom of the press – it is hardly a model system but compared to Eritrea. The dispute over land distribution is probably worse in neighbouring South Africa. If Mugabe is going to win an Oscar then it will be for his economic mismanagement, but the picture is often presented more fiendish than it is in comparison. Yet Zimbabwe, behind Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, still features highly for UK press concentration. It ultimately boiled down to the fact that Mugabe, with his agile political skills and connivance, managed to defeat the British who left an Africa unfavourably for black Africans.

Yet despite his brazenness and ferocity, Mugabe still admires his ‘mother country’. He is known to enjoy afternoon tea and like Idi Amin, the Ugandan tyrant, wistfully respects the Queen and the Royal Family. Travel bans to the EU and US not only prevented his wife from trips to Harrods but separated him from the Establishment. This of course is entirely different to his revulsion towards the British Government, they only made things worse.

This is a man that oversaw an operation translated from Shona (the majority ethnic language) meaning ‘drive out the filth’ that saw bulldozers smash through homes of voters of the MDC (now in government with Mugabe’s Zanu PF) and Zimbabwe’s other ethnic group. This is a man that caused great instability across the whole of Southern Africa. A Black African killing black Africans, driving millions of refugees into neighbouring countries and overseeing the disastrous appropriation of white farm land to black natives that caused the whole region to suffer economically and without food.

We hear rumours that Mr Mugabe, now 87, is terminally ill with prostate cancer, yet still clutching to power. His latest economic policy is to see that all foreign owned enterprises must be have least 51 per cent ‘native’ Zimbabwean investors, a policy that is unsettling big firms such as Barclays Bank. The US and EU sanctions have also seen Mugabe flirt towards the Chinese, trading diamonds for military hardware. With a breakdown in relations between Mugabe and Prime Minster Morgan Tsvangirai the elections scheduled for next year could turn out as farcical and bloody as 2007.

Is this the opportunity for Britain, like Nixon all those years ago, to reach out an olive branch to Mugabe and reset relations? Not only could it possibly heal fractious wounds and generate a new relationship akin to somewhere like Sierra Leone; but it could prevent trouble in the short term. Who is to say that when Mugabe finally releases power (probably through death) that there will not be a power struggle from rapacious generals creating more unrest ; or alternatively a backlash against Mugabe’s ‘vets’ (war veterans who are in effect work as a paramilitary, yet they were probably not old enough to have participated in the independence war.) This would not be akin to an Arab Spring but another Rwanda, with consequences across the region.

Yet both parties are too stubborn to think along these lines. Mugabe will never give way and Britain would see this as submission. However; after its mismanagement since the 1890s and post independence, this could be the Empire’s medicine and redress after decades of mistakes, and ultimately an avenue for economic cooperation as Palmerston said.