Putin: A Step to a New Molotov Ribbentropf Pact

If you want to understand the immediate and future mission of Putin and Russia you must know about the Molotov Ribbentropf Pact. Below is a very long explanation with citations and dates.

In the meantime, Putin was asked about this agreement and he is in full favor of it.

Vladimir Putin says there was nothing wrong with Soviet Union’s pact with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany

Russian president says he sees nothing wrong with treaty with Nazi Germany that led to the carve-up of Poland – and blames Britain for destroying any chance of an anti-fascist front

Vladimir Putin has said there was nothing bad about the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the non-aggression treaty which led to the carve-up of Poland at the outset of the Second World War, suggesting Britain and France were to blame for Adolf Hitler’s march into Europe.

The Russian president made the comments at a meeting with young historians in Moscow, during which he urged them to examine the lead-up to the war, among other subjects.

The comments are likely to cause dismay in eastern Europe, amid wider debate in Russia about growing attempts to use history as a means of shoring up Mr Putin’s rule.

Mr Putin said that Western historians today try to “hush up” the 1938 Munich Agreement, in which France and Britain – led by Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister – appeased Adolf Hitler by acquiescing to his occupation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland.

“Chamberlain came, waved a piece of paper and said, ‘I’ve brought you peace’ when he returned to London after the talks,” Mr Putin, who is a keen amateur historian, said on Wednesday, according to a Kremlin transcript.

“To which Churchill, I think, said somewhere to a small group of people, ‘That’s it, now war is inevitable’. Because compromise with an aggressor in the form of Hitlerite Germany was clearly leading to a large-scale future military conflict, and some people understood that.”

Mr Putin appeared to think Moscow’s own agreement with Hitler – the 1939 Nazi-Soviet or Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – was fine, however.

(Original document of this pact, thought to be lost, were presented during the Nuremberg trials)

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the Nazi German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, officially the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,[lower-alpha 1] and also known as the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact or Nazi–Soviet Pact, was a non-aggression pact signed in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939.

The pact’s publicly stated intentions were a guarantee of non-belligerence by either party towards the other, and a commitment that neither party would ally with or aid an enemy of the other party. This latter provision ensured that Germany would not support Japan in its undeclared war against the Soviet Union along the Manchurian-Mongolian border, ensuring that the Soviets won the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.[2]

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet “spheres of influence“, anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region.

The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by invading the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

Of the territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1940, the region around Białystok and a minor part of Galicia east of the San river around Przemyśl were the only ones returned to the Polish state at the end of World War II. Of all other territories annexed by the USSR in 1939–40, the ones detached from Finland (Karelia, Petsamo), Estonia (Ingrian area and Petseri County) and Latvia (Abrene) remained part of the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union, after 1991. Northern Bukovina, Southern Bessarabia and Hertza remain part of Ukraine.

Tajny protokoł 23.08

Text of the secret protocol (in German)

 

 

 

 

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact is also known as the Nazi–Soviet Pact, Hitler–Stalin Pact, German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact and sometimes the Nazi–Soviet Alliance[4] or Communazi Pact[5]

 

The outcome of the First World War was disastrous for both the German Reich and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. During the war, the Bolsheviks struggled for survival, and Vladimir Lenin had no option except to recognize the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Moreover, facing a German military advance, Lenin and Trotsky were forced to enter into the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk,[6] which ceded massive western Russian territories to the German Empire. After Germany’s collapse, a multinational Allied-led army intervened in the Russian Civil War (1917–22).[7]

On 16 April 1922, Germany and the Soviet Union entered the Treaty of Rapallo, pursuant to which they renounced territorial and financial claims against each other.[8] The parties further pledged neutrality in the event of an attack against one another with the 1926 Treaty of Berlin.[9] While trade between the two countries fell sharply after World War I, trade agreements signed in the mid-1920s helped to increase trade to 433 million Reichsmarks per year by 1927.[10]

At the beginning of the 1930s, the Nazi Party‘s rise to power increased tensions between Germany and the Soviet Union along with other countries with ethnic Slavs, who were considered “Untermenschen” (inferior) according to Nazi racial ideology.[11] Moreover, the anti-Semitic Nazis associated ethnic Jews with both communism and financial capitalism, both of which they opposed.[12][13] Consequently, Nazi theory held that Slavs in the Soviet Union were being ruled by “Jewish Bolshevik” masters.[14] In 1934, Hitler himself had spoken of an inescapable battle against both Pan-Slavism and Neo-Slavism, the victory in which would lead to “permanent mastery of the world”, though he stated that they would “walk part of the road with the Russians, if that will help us.”[15] The resulting manifestation of German anti-Bolshevism and an increase in Soviet foreign debts caused German–Soviet trade to dramatically decline.[lower-alpha 2] Imports of Soviet goods to Germany fell to 223 million Reichsmarks in 1934 as the more isolationist Stalinist regime asserted power and the abandonment of post–World War I Treaty of Versailles military controls decreased Germany’s reliance on Soviet imports.[10][17]

In 1936, Germany and Fascist Italy supported Spanish Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War, while the Soviets supported the partially socialist-led Second Spanish Republic under the leadership of president Manuel Azaña.[18] Thus, in a sense, the Spanish Civil War became also the scene of a proxy war between Germany and the USSR.[19] In 1936, Germany and Japan entered the Anti-Comintern Pact,[20] and were joined a year later by Italy.[18][21]

Hitler’s fierce anti-Soviet rhetoric was one of the reasons why the UK and France decided that Soviet participation in the 1938 Munich Conference regarding Czechoslovakia would be both dangerous and useless.[22] The Munich Agreement that followed[23] marked a partial German annexation of Czechoslovakia in late 1938 followed by its complete dissolution in March 1939,[24] which as part of the appeasement of Germany conducted by Chamberlain’s and Daladier‘s cabinets.[25] This policy immediately raised the question of whether the Soviet Union could avoid being next on Hitler’s list.[26] The Soviet leadership believed that the West wanted to encourage German aggression in the East[27] and that France and Britain might stay neutral in a war initiated by Germany, hoping that the warring states would wear each other out and put an end to both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.[28]

For Germany, because an autarkic economic approach or an alliance with Britain were impossible, closer relations with the Soviet Union to obtain raw materials became necessary, if not just for economic reasons alone.[29] Moreover, an expected British blockade in the event of war would create massive shortages for Germany in a number of key raw materials.[30] After the Munich agreement, the resulting increase in German military supply needs and Soviet demands for military machinery, talks between the two countries occurred from late 1938 to March 1939.[31] The third Soviet Five Year Plan required massive new infusions of technology and industrial equipment.[29][32] German war planners had estimated massive raw materials shortfalls if Germany entered a war without Soviet supply.[33]

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany’s defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia,[34] the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee the independence of Poland, Belgium, Romania, Greece, and Turkey.[35] On 6 April Poland and the UK agreed to formalize the guarantee as a military alliance, pending negotiations.[36] On 28 April, Hitler denounced the 1934 German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact and the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement.[37]

Starting in mid-March 1939, in attempts to contain Hitler’s expansionism, the Soviet Union, Britain and France traded a flurry of suggestions and counterplans regarding a potential political and military agreement.[38][39] Although informal consultations commenced in April, the main negotiations began only in May.[39] At the same time, throughout early 1939, Germany had secretly hinted to Soviet diplomats that it could offer better terms for a political agreement than Britain and France.[40][41][42]

The Soviet Union feared Western powers and the possibility of “capitalist encirclements”, had little faith either that war could be avoided, or faith in the Polish army, and wanted nothing less than an ironclad military alliance with France and Britain[43] that would provide a guaranteed support for a two-pronged attack on Germany;[44] thus, Stalin’s adherence to the collective security line was purely conditional.[45] Britain and France believed that war could still be avoided, and that the Soviet Union, weakened by the Great Purge,[46] could not be a main military participant,[44] a point that many military sources were at variance with, especially after the sound thrashing administered to the Japanese Kwantung army on the Manchurian frontier.[47] France was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than was Britain; as a continental power, it was more willing to make concessions, more fearful of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany.[48] These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for an alliance with Britain and France while secretly considering propositions from Germany.[48]

By the end of May drafts were formally presented.[39] In mid-June the main Tripartite negotiations started.[49] The discussion was focused on potential guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise.[50] The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an “indirect aggression” towards the Soviet Union.[51] Britain opposed such proposals, because they feared the Soviets’ proposed language could justify a Soviet intervention in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany.[52][53] The discussion about a definition of “indirect aggression” became one of the sticking points between the parties, and by mid-July the tripartite political negotiations effectively stalled, while the parties agreed to start negotiations on a military agreement, which the Soviets insisted must be entered into simultaneously with any political agreement.[54]

Beginning of Soviet–German secret talks

From April–July, Soviet and German officials made statements regarding the potential for the beginning of political negotiations, while no actual negotiations took place during that time period.[55] The ensuing discussion of a potential political deal between Germany and the Soviet Union had to be channeled into the framework of economic negotiations between the two countries, because close military and diplomatic connections, as was the case before mid-1930s, had afterward been largely severed.[56] In May, Stalin replaced his Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, who was regarded as pro-western and who was also Jewish, with Vyacheslav Molotov, allowing the Soviet Union more latitude in discussions with more parties, not only with Britain and France.[57]

In late July and early August 1939, Soviet and German officials agreed on most of the details for a planned economic agreement,[58] and specifically addressed a potential political agreement,[59][60][61][lower-alpha 3] which the Soviets stated could only come after an economic agreement.[63]

August negotiations

In early August, Germany and the Soviet Union worked out the last details of their economic deal,[64] and started to discuss a political alliance. They explained to each other the reasons for their foreign policy hostility in the 1930s, finding common ground in the anti-capitalism of both countries.[65][66][67]

At the same time, British, French and Soviet negotiators scheduled three-party talks on military matters to occur in Moscow in August 1939, aiming to define what the agreement would specify should be the reaction of the three powers to a German attack.[52] The tripartite military talks, started in mid-August, hit a sticking point regarding passage of Soviet troops through Poland if Germans attacked, and the parties waited as British and French officials overseas pressured Polish officials to agree to such terms.[68][69] Polish officials refused to allow Soviet troops on to Polish territory if Germany attacked; as Polish foreign minister Józef Beck pointed out, they feared that once the Red Army entered their territories, it might never leave.[70][71]

On August 19, the 1939 German–Soviet Commercial Agreement was finally signed.[72] On 21 August the Soviets suspended Tripartite military talks, citing other reasons.[40][73] That same day, Stalin received assurance that Germany would approve secret protocols to the proposed non-aggression pact that would place half of Poland (border along the Vistula river), Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Bessarabia in the Soviets’ sphere of influence.[74] That night, Stalin replied that the Soviets were willing to sign the pact, and that he would receive Ribbentrop on 23 August.[75]

The secret protocol

‘Following completion of the Soviet–German trade and credit agreement, there has arisen the question of improving political links between Germany and the USSR.

Excerpt from the article “On Soviet–German Relations” on Soviet newspaper Izvestia, August 21, 1939.[76]
 

Mucha 8 Wrzesien 1939 Warszawa

“The Prussian Tribute in Moscow”, satirical newspaper “Mucha”, September 8, 1939, Warsaw

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H27337, Moskau, Stalin und Ribbentrop im Kreml

Ribbentrop and Stalin at the signing of the Pact

On 22 August, one day after the talks broke down with France and Britain, Moscow revealed that Ribbentrop would visit Stalin the next day. This happened while the Soviets were still negotiating with the British and French missions in Moscow. With the Western nations unwilling to accede to Soviet demands, Stalin instead entered a secret Nazi–Soviet pact.[77] On 24 August a 10-year non-aggression pact was signed with provisions that included: consultation; arbitration if either party disagreed; neutrality if either went to war against a third power; no membership of a group “which is directly or indirectly aimed at the other.”

File:Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian4.gif
Editing Molotov-Ribbentrop-German5

Most notably, there was also a secret protocol to the pact, revealed only after Germany’s defeat in 1945, according to which Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were divided into German and Soviet “spheres of influence“.[78] In the north, Finland, Estonia and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere.[78] Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its “political rearrangement”—the areas east of the river, Narev, Vistula and river rivers going to the Soviet Union while Germany would occupy the west.[78] Lithuania, adjacent to East Prussia, would be in the German sphere of influence, although a second secret protocol agreed to in September 1939 reassigned the majority of Lithuania to the USSR.[79] According to the secret protocol, Lithuania would be granted the city of Vilnius – its historical capital, which was under Polish control during the inter-war period. Another clause of the treaty was that Germany would not interfere with the Soviet Union’s actions towards Bessarabia, then part of Romania; as the result, Bessarabia was joined to the Moldovan ASSR, and become the Moldovan SSR under control of Moscow.[78]

At the signing, Ribbentrop and Stalin enjoyed warm conversations, exchanged toasts and further addressed the prior hostilities between the countries in the 1930s.[80] They characterized Britain as always attempting to disrupt Soviet–German relations, stated that the Anti-Comintern pact was not aimed at the Soviet Union, but actually aimed at Western democracies and “frightened principally the City of London [i.e., the British financiers] and the English shopkeepers.”[81]

On 24 August, Pravda and Izvestia carried news of the non-secret portions of the Pact, complete with the now infamous front-page picture of Molotov signing the treaty, with a smiling Stalin looking on (at the top of this article).[40] The news were met with utter shock and surprise by government leaders and media worldwide, most of whom were aware only of the British–French–Soviet negotiations that had taken place for months.[40] The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was received with shock by Nazi Germany’s allies, notably Japan, by the Comintern and foreign communist parties, and by Jewish communities all around the world.[82] So, that day, German diplomat Hans von Herwarth, whose grandmother was Jewish, informed Guido Relli, an Italian diplomat,[83] and American chargé d’affaires Charles Bohlen on the secret protocol regarding vital interests in the countries’ allotted “spheres of influence”, without revealing the annexation rights for “territorial and political rearrangement”.[84][85]

Time Magazine repeatedly referred to the Pact as the “Communazi Pact” and its participants as “communazis” until April 1941.[86][87][88][89][90][91][92]

Soviet propaganda and representatives went to great lengths to minimize the importance of the fact that they had opposed and fought against the Nazis in various ways for a decade prior to signing the Pact. Upon signing the pact, Molotov tried to reassure the Germans of his good intentions by commenting to journalists that “fascism is a matter of taste”.[93] For its part, Nazi Germany also did a public volte-face regarding its virulent opposition to the Soviet Union, though Hitler still viewed an attack on the Soviet Union as “inevitable”.[citation needed]

Concerns over the possible existence of a secret protocol were first expressed by the intelligence organizations of the Baltic states[citation needed] scant days after the pact was signed. Speculation grew stronger when Soviet negotiators referred to its content during negotiations for military bases in those countries (see occupation of the Baltic States).

The day after the Pact was signed, the French and British military negotiation delegation urgently requested a meeting with Soviet military negotiator Kliment Voroshilov.[94] On August 25, Voroshilov told them “[i]n view of the changed political situation, no useful purpose can be served in continuing the conversation.”[94] That day, Hitler told the British ambassador to Berlin that the pact with the Soviets prevented Germany from facing a two front war, changing the strategic situation from that in World War I, and that Britain should accept his demands regarding Poland.[95]

On 25 August, surprising Hitler, Britain entered into a defense pact with Poland.[95] Consequently, Hitler postponed his planned 26 August invasion of Poland to 1 September.[95][96] Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the sovereignty of Poland,[citation needed] so they declared war on Germany on 3 September.

Ribbentrop-Molotov

Consequences in Finland, Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia

Poland never will rise again in the form of the Versailles treaty. That is guaranteed not only by Germany, but also … Russia.

Adolf Hitler in a public speech in Danzig at the end of September 1939[97]
 

Initial invasions

On 1 September, Germany invaded Poland from the west.Roberts 2006, p. 82 Within the first few days of the invasion, Germany began conducting massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians and POWs.[98][99] These executions took place in over 30 towns and villages in the first month of German occupation alone.[100][101][102] The Luftwaffe also took part by strafing fleeing civilian refugees on roads and carrying out an aerial bombing campaign.[103][104][105][106] The Soviet Union assisted German air forces by allowing them to use signals broadcast by the Soviet radio station at Minsk allegedly “for urgent aeronautical experiments”.[107]

Stalin did not instantly interpret the protocol as permitting the Soviet Union to grab territory. Stalin was waiting to see whether the Germans would halt within the agreed area, and also the Soviet Union needed to secure the frontier in the Far East.[108] On 17 September the Red Army invaded Poland, violating the 1932 Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. This was followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland.[109]

Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada

Common parade of Wehrmacht and Red Army in Brest at the end of the Invasion of Poland. At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein

Polish troops already fighting much stronger German forces on its western side desperately tried to delay the capture of Warsaw. Consequently, Polish forces were not able to mount significant resistance against the Soviets. The Soviet Union marshaled 466,516 soldiers, 3,739 tanks, 380 armored cars, and approximately 1,200 fighters, 600 bombers, and 200 other aircraft against Poland.[110] The Polish armed forces in the East consisted mostly of lightly armed border guard units of the Border Protection Corps (Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza, KOP). In the Northeast of Poland, only a few cities were defended[citation needed] and after a heavy but short struggle Polish forces withdrew to Lithuania where they were interned. Some of the Polish forces which were fighting the Soviets in the far South of the nation withdrew to Romania.

On 21 September, the Soviets and Germans signed a formal agreement coordinating military movements in Poland, including the “purging” of saboteurs.[111] A joint German–Soviet parade was held in Lvov and Brest-Litovsk, while the countries commanders met in the latter location.[112] Stalin had decided in August that he was going to liquidate the Polish state, and a German–Soviet meeting in September addressed the future structure of the “Polish region”.[112] Soviet authorities immediately started a campaign of Sovietization[113][114] of the newly acquired areas. The Soviets organized staged elections,[115] the result of which was to become a legitimization of Soviet annexation of eastern Poland.[116] Soviet authorities attempted to erase Polish history and culture,[117] withdrew the Polish currency without exchanging roubles,[118] collectivized agriculture,[119] and nationalized and redistributed private and state-owned Polish property.[120] Soviet authorities regarded service for the pre-war Polish state as a “crime against revolution”[121] and “counter-revolutionary activity”,[122] and subsequently started arresting large numbers of Polish citizens.

Modifying the secret protocols

Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-013-0068-18A, Polen, Treffen deutscher und sowjetischer Soldaten

Soviet and German soldiers in Lublin

Eleven days after the Soviet invasion of the polish Kresy, the secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was modified by the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation,[123]) allotting Germany a larger part of Poland and transferring Lithuania’s territory (with the exception of left bank of river Scheschupe, the “Lithuanian Strip”) from the envisioned German sphere to the Soviets.[124] On 28 September 1939, the Soviet Union and German Reich issued a joint declaration in which they declared:

Mapa 2 paktu Ribbentrop-Mołotow

Second Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact” of 28 September 1939. Map of Poland signed by Stalin and Ribbentrop adjusting the German–Soviet border in the aftermath of German and Soviet invasion of Poland.

After the Government of the German Reich and the Government of the USSR have, by means of the treaty signed today, definitively settled the problems arising from the collapse of the Polish state and have thereby created a sure foundation for a lasting peace in the region, they mutually express their conviction that it would serve the true interest of all peoples to put an end to the state of war existing at present between Germany on the one side and England and France on the other. Both Governments will therefore direct their common efforts, jointly with other friendly powers if occasion arises, toward attaining this goal as soon as possible.Should, however, the efforts of the two Governments remain fruitless, this would demonstrate the fact that England and France are responsible for the continuation of the war, whereupon, in case of the continuation of the war, the Governments of Germany and of the USSR shall engage in mutual consultations with regard to necessary measures.[125]

On 3 October, Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg, German ambassador in Moscow, informed Joachim Ribbentrop that the Soviet government was willing to cede the city of Vilnius and its environs. On 8 October 1939, a new Nazi–Soviet agreement was reached by an exchange of letters between Vyacheslav Molotov and the German Ambassador.[126]

The Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were given no choice but to sign a so-called Pact of defence and mutual assistance which permitted the Soviet Union to station troops in them.[124]

The Soviet war with Finland and Katyn Massacre

Lithuania territory 1939-1940

Lithuania between 1939 and 1941. Nazi Germany had requested the territory west of the Šešupė River (area in pink) in the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty but relinquished its claims for a compensation in the amount of $7.5 million

After the Baltic states were forced to accept treaties,[127] Stalin turned his sights on Finland, confident that Finnish capitulation could be attained without great effort.[128] The Soviets demanded territories on the Karelian Isthmus, the islands of the Gulf of Finland and a military base near the Finnish capital Helsinki,[129][130] which Finland rejected.[131] The Soviets staged the shelling of Mainila and used it as a pretext to withdraw from the non-aggression pact.[132] The Red Army attacked in November 1939.[133] Simultaneously, Stalin set up a puppet government in the Finnish Democratic Republic.[134] The leader of the Leningrad Military District Andrei Zhdanov commissioned a celebratory piece from Dmitri Shostakovich, entitled “Suite on Finnish Themes” to be performed as the marching bands of the Red Army would be parading through Helsinki.[135] After Finnish defenses surprisingly held out for over three months while inflicting stiff losses on Soviet forces, the Soviets settled for an interim peace. Finland ceded southeastern areas of Karelia (10% of Finnish territory),[133] which resulted in approximately 422,000 Karelians (12% of Finland’s population) losing their homes.[136] Soviet official casualty counts in the war exceeded 200,000,[137] while Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev later claimed the casualties may have been one million.[138]

At around this time, after several Gestapo–NKVD Conferences, Soviet NKVD officers also conducted lengthy interrogations of 300,000 Polish POWs in camps[139][140][141][142] that were, in effect, a selection process to determine who would be killed.[4] On March 5, 1940, in what would later be known as the Katyn massacre,[4][143][144] orders were signed to execute 25,700 Polish POWs, labeled “nationalists and counterrevolutionaries”, kept at camps and prisons in occupied western Ukraine and Belarus.[145]

The Soviet Union occupies the Baltic Republics and part of Romania

Commemoration of Nazi-Soviet Pact, Alytus, 23 Aug 2013

Commemoration of Nazi-Soviet Pact, Alytus, 23 Aug 2013

In mid-June 1940, when international attention was focused on the German invasion of France, Soviet NKVD troops raided border posts in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.[124][146] State administrations were liquidated and replaced by Soviet cadres,[124] in which 34,250 Latvians, 75,000 Lithuanians and almost 60,000 Estonians were deported or killed.[147] Elections were held with single pro-Soviet candidates listed for many positions, with resulting peoples assemblies immediately requesting admission into the USSR, which was granted by the Soviet Union.[124] The USSR annexed the whole of Lithuania, including the Scheschupe area, which was to be given to Germany.

Finally, on 26 June, four days after France sued for an armistice with the Third Reich, the Soviet Union issued an ultimatum demanding Bessarabia and, unexpectedly, Northern Bukovina from Romania.[148] Two days later, the Romanians caved to the Soviet demands and the Soviets occupied the territory. The Hertza region was initially not requested by the USSR but was later occupied by force after the Romanians agreed to the initial Soviet demands.[148]

Holocaust beginnings, Operation Tannenberg and other Nazi atrocities

At the end of October 1939, Germany enacted the death penalty for disobedience to the German occupation.[149] Germany began a campaign of “Germanization“, which meant to assimilate the occupied territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich.[150][151][152] 50,000–200,000 Polish children were kidnapped to be Germanized.[153][154]

Polish Hostages preparing in Palmiry by Nazi-Germans for mass execution 2

Polish hostages being blindfolded during preparations for their mass execution in Palmiry, 1940

Elimination of Polish elites and intelligentia was part of Generalplan Ost. The Intelligenzaktion, a plan to eliminate the Polish intelligentsia, Poland’s ‘leadership class’, took place soon after the German invasion of Poland, lasting from fall of 1939 till spring of 1940. As the result of this operation in 10 regional actions about 60,000 Polish nobles, teachers, social workers, priests, judges and political activists were killed.[155][156] It was continued in May 1940 when Germany launched AB-Aktion,[153] More than 16,000 members of the intelligentsia were murdered in Operation Tannenberg alone.[157]

Germany also planned to incorporate all land into the Third Reich.[151] This effort resulted in the forced resettlement of 2 million Poles. Families were forced to travel in the severe winter of 1939–40, leaving behind almost all of their possessions without recompense.[151] As part of Operation Tannenberg alone, 750,000 Polish peasants were forced to leave and their property was given to Germans.[158] A further 330,000 were murdered.[159] Germany eventually planned to move ethnic Poles to Siberia.[160][161]

Although Germany used forced labourers in most occupied countries, Poles and other Slavs were viewed as inferior by Nazi propaganda, thus, better suited for such duties.[153] Between 1 and 2.5 million Polish citizens[153][162] were transported to the Reich for forced labour, against their will.[163][164] All Polish males were required to perform forced labour.[153] While ethnic Poles were subject to selective persecution, all ethnic Jews were targeted by the Reich.[162] In the winter of 1939–40, about 100,000 Jews were thus deported to Poland.[165] They were initially gathered into massive urban ghettos,[166] such as 380,000 held in the Warsaw Ghetto, where large numbers died under the harsh conditions therein, including 43,000 in the Warsaw Ghetto alone.[162][167][168] Poles and ethnic Jews were imprisoned in nearly every camp of the extensive concentration camp system in German-occupied Poland and the Reich. In Auschwitz, which began operating on 14 June 1940, 1.1 million people died.[169][170]

Romania and Soviet republics

In the summer of 1940, fear of the Soviet Union, in conjunction with German support for the territorial demands of Romania’s neighbors and the Romanian government’s own miscalculations, resulted in more territorial losses for Romania. Between 28 June and 4 July, the Soviet Union occupied and annexed Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region of Romania.[171]

On 30 August, Ribbentrop and Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano issued the Second Vienna Award giving Northern Transilvania to Hungary. On 7 September, Romania ceded Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria (Axis-sponsored Treaty of Craiova).[172] After various events in Romania, over the next few months, it increasingly took on the aspect of a German-occupied country.[172]

The Soviet-occupied territories were converted into republics of the Soviet Union. During the two years following the annexation, the Soviets arrested approximately 100,000 Polish citizens[173] and deported between 350,000 and 1,500,000, of whom between 250,000 and 1,000,000 died, mostly civilians.[174][lower-alpha 4] Forced re-settlements into Gulag labour camps and exile settlements in remote areas of the Soviet Union occurred.[114] According to Norman Davies,[180] almost half of them were dead by July 1940.[181]

Further secret protocol modifications, settling borders and immigration issues

Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-121-0011-20, Polen, deutsch-sowjetische Siegesparade

German and Soviet soldiers meeting in Brest

On 10 January 1941, Germany and the Soviet Union signed an agreement settling several ongoing issues.[182] Secret protocols in the new agreement modified the “Secret Additional Protocols” of the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty, ceding the Lithuanian Strip to the Soviet Union in exchange for 7.5 million dollars (31.5 million Reichsmark).[182] The agreement formally set the border between Germany and the Soviet Union between the Igorka river and the Baltic Sea.[183] It also extended trade regulation of the 1940 German–Soviet Commercial Agreement until August 1, 1942, increased deliveries above the levels of year one of that agreement,[183] settled trading rights in the Baltics and Bessarabia, calculated the compensation for German property interests in the Baltic States now occupied by the Soviets and other issues.[182] It also covered the migration to Germany within two and a half months of ethnic Germans and German citizens in Soviet-held Baltic territories, and the migration to the Soviet Union of Baltic and “White Russian” “nationals” in German-held territories.[183]

Soviet–German relations during the Pact’s operation

Early political issues

Before the pact’s announcement, Communists in the West denied that such a treaty would be signed. Future member of the Hollywood Ten Herbert Biberman denounced rumors as “Fascist propaganda”. Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party USA, stated that “there is as much chance of agreement as of Earl Browder being elected president of the Chamber of Commerce.”[184] Beginning in September 1939, the Soviet Comintern suspended all anti-Nazi and anti-fascist propaganda, explaining that the war in Europe was a matter of capitalist states attacking each other for imperialist purposes.[185] Western Communists acted accordingly; while before they supported protecting collective security, now they denounced Britain and France going to war.[184]

When anti-German demonstrations erupted in Prague, Czechoslovakia, the Comintern ordered the Czech Communist Party to employ all of its strength to paralyze “chauvinist elements.”[185] Moscow soon forced the Communist Parties of France and Great Britain to adopt an anti-war position. On 7 September, Stalin called Georgi Dimitrov,[Clarification needed] and the latter sketched a new Comintern line on the war. The new line—which stated that the war was unjust and imperialist—was approved by the secretariat of the Communist International on 9 September. Thus, the various western Communist parties now had to oppose the war, and to vote against war credits.[186] Although the French Communists had unanimously voted in Parliament for war credits on 2 September and on 19 September declared their “unshakeable will” to defend the country, on 27 September the Comintern formally instructed the party to condemn the war as imperialist. By 1 October the French Communists advocated listening to German peace proposals, and Communist leader Maurice Thorez deserted from the French Army on 4 October and fled to Russia.[187] Other Communists also deserted from the army.

The Communist Party of Germany featured similar attitudes. In Die Welt, a communist newspaper published in Stockholm[lower-alpha 5] the exiled communist leader Walter Ulbricht opposed the allies (Britain representing “the most reactionary force in the world”[189]) and argued: “The German government declared itself ready for friendly relations with the Soviet Union, whereas the English–French war bloc desires a war against the socialist Soviet Union. The Soviet people and the working people of Germany have an interest in preventing the English war plan.”[190]

Despite a warming by the Comintern, German tensions were raised when the Soviets stated in September that they must enter Poland to “protect” their ethnic Ukrainian and Belorussian brethren therein from Germany, though Molotov later admitted to German officials that this excuse was necessary because the Soviets could find no other pretext for the Soviet invasion.[191]

While active collaboration between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union caused great shock in western Europe and amongst communists opposed to Germany, on 1 October 1939, Winston Churchill declared that the Russian armies acted for the safety of Russia against “the Nazi menace.”[192]

When a joint German–Soviet peace initiative was rejected by Britain and France on 28 September 1939, Soviet foreign policy became critical of the Allies and more pro-German in turn. During the fifth session of the Supreme Soviet on 31 October 1939 Molotov analysed the international situation thus giving the direction for Communist propaganda. According to Molotov Germany had a legitimate interest in regaining its position as a great power and the Allies had started an aggressive war in order to maintain the Versailles system.[193]

Molotov declared in his report entitled “On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union” (31 October 1939) held on the fifth (extraordinary) session of the Supreme Soviet, that the Western “ruling circles” disguise their intentions with the pretext of defending democracy against Hitlerism, declaring “their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism. […] There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.”[194]

Expansion of raw materials and military trading

Germany and the Soviet Union entered an intricate trade pact on February 11, 1940, that was over four times larger than the one the two countries had signed in August 1939.[195] The trade pact helped Germany to surmount a British blockade of Germany.[195] In the first year, Germany received one million tons of cereals, half a million tons of wheat, 900,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates and considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria.[citation needed] These and other supplies were being transported through Soviet and occupied Polish territories.[195] The Soviets were to receive a naval cruiser, the plans to the battleship Bismarck, heavy naval guns, other naval gear and thirty of Germany’s latest warplanes, including the Me-109 and Me-110 fighters and Ju-88 bomber.[195] The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment, locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine tools and samples of Germany artillery, tanks, explosives, chemical-warfare equipment and other items.[195]

The Soviets also helped Germany to avoid British naval blockades by providing a submarine base, Basis Nord, in the northern Soviet Union near Murmansk.[185] This also provided a refueling and maintenance location, and a takeoff point for raids and attacks on shipping.[185] In addition, the Soviets provided Germany with access to the Northern Sea Route for both cargo ships and raiders (though only the commerce raider Komet used the route before the German invasion), which forced Britain to protect sea lanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.[196]

Summer deterioration of relations

The Finnish and Baltic invasions began a deterioration of relations between the Soviets and Germany.[197] Stalin’s invasions were a severe irritant to Berlin, as the intent to accomplish these was not communicated to the Germans beforehand, and prompted concern that Stalin was seeking to form an anti-German bloc.[198] Molotov’s reassurances to the Germans, and the Germans’ mistrust, intensified. On June 16, as the Soviets invaded Lithuania, but before they had invaded Latvia and Estonia, Ribbentrop instructed his staff “to submit a report as soon as possible as to whether in the Baltic States a tendency to seek support from the Reich can be observed or whether an attempt was made to form a bloc.”[199]

In August 1940, the Soviet Union briefly suspended its deliveries under their commercial agreement after their relations were strained following disagreement over policy in Romania, the Soviet war with Finland, Germany falling behind in its deliveries of goods under the pact and with Stalin worried that Hitler’s war with the West might end quickly after France signed an armistice.[200] The suspension created significant resource problems for Germany.[200] By the end of August, relations improved again as the countries had redrawn the Hungarian and Romanian borders, settled some Bulgarian claims and Stalin was again convinced that Germany would face a long war in the west with Britain’s improvement in its air battle with Germany and the execution of an agreement between the United States and Britain regarding destroyers and bases.[201] However, in late August, Germany arranged its own occupation of Romania, targeting oil fields.[202] The move raised tensions with the Soviets, who responded that Germany was supposed to have consulted with the Soviet Union under Article III of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.[202]

German–Soviet Axis talks

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1984-1206-523, Berlin, Verabschiedung Molotows

Ribbentrop welcoming Molotov in Berlin, November 1940

After Germany entered a Tripartite Pact with Japan and Italy, Ribbentrop wrote to Stalin, inviting Molotov to Berlin for negotiations aimed to create a ‘continental bloc’ of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR that would oppose Britain and the USA.[203] Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis and potentially enjoy the spoils of the pact.[204][205] After negotiations during November 1940 on where to extend the USSR’s sphere of influence, Hitler broke off talks and continued planning for the eventual attempts to invade the Soviet Union.[203][206]

Late relations

Europe before Operation Barbarossa, 1941 (in German)

Situation in Europe by May/June 1941, immediately before Operation Barbarossa

In an effort to demonstrate peaceful intentions toward Germany, on 13 April 1941, the Soviets signed a neutrality pact with Axis power Japan.[207] While Stalin had little faith in Japan’s commitment to neutrality, he felt that the pact was important for its political symbolism, to reinforce a public affection for Germany.[208] Stalin felt that there was a growing split in German circles about whether Germany should initiate a war with the Soviet Union.[208] Stalin did not know that Hitler had been secretly discussing an invasion of the Soviet Union since summer 1940,[209] and that Hitler had ordered his military in late 1940 to prepare for war in the east regardless of the parties’ talks of a potential Soviet entry as a fourth Axis Power.[210]

Hitler breaks the Pact

Nazi Germany terminated the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with its invasion of the Soviet Union at 03:15 on 22 June 1941.[211] Stalin had ignored several warnings that Germany was likely to attack,[212][213][214] and ordered no full-scale mobilization of forces.[215] After the launch of the invasion, the territories gained by the Soviet Union due to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact were lost in a matter of weeks. Within six months, the Soviet military had suffered 4.3 million casualties[216] and Germany had captured three million Soviet prisoners.[217] The imports of Soviet raw materials into Germany over the duration of the countries’ economic relationship proved vital to Operation Barbarossa. Without Soviet imports, German stocks would have run out in several key products by October 1941, and Germany would have already run through its stocks of rubber and grain before the first day of the invasion.[218]

Aftermath

EasternBloc BorderChange38-48

Soviet expansion, change of Central European borders and creation of the Eastern bloc after World War II

Denial of the Secret Protocol’s existence by the Soviet Union

The German original of the secret protocols was presumably destroyed in the bombing of Germany,[219] but in late 1943, Ribbentrop had ordered that the most secret records of the German Foreign Office from 1933 on, amounting to some 9,800 pages, be microfilmed. When the various departments of the Foreign Office in Berlin were evacuated to Thuringia at the end of the war, Karl von Loesch, a civil servant who had worked for the chief interpreter Paul Otto Schmidt, was entrusted with these microfilm copies. He eventually received orders to destroy the secret documents but decided to bury the metal container with the microfilms as a personal insurance for his future well-being. In May 1945, von Loesch approached the British Lt. Col. Robert C. Thomson with the request to transmit a personal letter to Duncan Sandys, Churchill’s son-in-law. In the letter, von Loesch revealed that he had knowledge of the documents’ whereabouts but expected preferential treatment in return. Colonel Thomson and his American counterpart Ralph Collins agreed to transfer von Loesch to Marburg in the American zone if he would produce the microfilms. The microfilms contained a copy of the Non-Aggression Treaty as well as the Secret Protocol.[220] Both documents were discovered as part of the microfilmed records in August 1945 by the State Department employee Wendell B. Blancke, head of a special unit called “Exploitation German Archives” (EGA).[221]

The treaty was published in the United States for the first time by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 22, 1946, in Britain by the Manchester Guardian. It was also part of an official State Department publication, Nazi–Soviet Relations 1939–1941, edited by Raymond J. Sontag and James S. Beddie in January 1948. The decision to publish the key documents on German–Soviet relations, including the treaty and protocol, had been taken already in spring 1947. Sontag and Beddie prepared the collection throughout the summer of 1947. In November 1947, President Truman personally approved the publication but it was held back in view of the Foreign Ministers Conference in London scheduled for December. Since negotiations at that conference did not prove constructive from an American point of view, the document edition was sent to press. The documents made headlines worldwide. State Department officials counted it as a success: “The Soviet Government was caught flat-footed in what was the first effective blow from our side in a clear-cut propaganda war.”[222]

Despite publication of the recovered copy in western media, for decades, it was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret protocol.[223] The secret protocol’s existence was officially denied until 1989. Vyacheslav Molotov, one of the signatories, went to his grave categorically rejecting its existence.[224] The French Communist Party did not acknowledge the existence of the secret protocol until 1968, as the party de-Stalinized.[187]

On 23 August 1986, tens of thousands of demonstrators in 21 western cities including New York, London, Stockholm, Toronto, Seattle, and Perth participated in Black Ribbon Day Rallies to draw attention to the secret protocols.[citation needed]

Stalin’s Falsifiers of History and Axis negotiations

In response to the publication of the secret protocols and other secret German–Soviet relations documents in the State Department edition Nazi–Soviet Relations (1948), Stalin published Falsifiers of History, which included the claim that, during the Pact’s operation, Stalin rejected Hitler’s claim to share in a division of the world,[225] without mentioning the Soviet offer to join the Axis. That version persisted, without exception, in historical studies, official accounts, memoirs and textbooks published in the Soviet Union until the Soviet Union’s dissolution.[225]

The book also claimed that the Munich agreement was a “secret agreement” between Germany and “the west” and a “highly important phase in their policy aimed at goading the Hitlerite aggressors against the Soviet Union.”[226][227]

Denunciation of the pact

For decades, it was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret protocol to the Soviet–German Pact. It was only after the Baltic Way demonstrations of 23 August 1989, where two million people created a human chain set on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Pact that this policy changed.[citation needed] At the behest of Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev headed a commission investigating the existence of such a protocol. In December 1989, the commission concluded that the protocol had existed and revealed its findings to the Congress of People’s Deputies of the Soviet Union.[219] As a result, the first democratically elected Congress of Soviets passed the declaration confirming the existence of the secret protocols, condemning and denouncing them.[228][229] Both successor-states of the pact parties have declared the secret protocols to be invalid from the moment they were signed. The Federal Republic of Germany declared this on September 1, 1989 and the Soviet Union on December 24, 1989,[230] following an examination of the microfilmed copy of the German originals.[231]

The Soviet copy of the original document was declassified in 1992 and published in a scientific journal in early 1993.[231]

In August 2009, in an article written for the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin condemned the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as “immoral.”[232]

In spite of such statements the present Russian government and media have to some extent moved back to the Soviet position, again using the term “falsifiers of history”. They assert that the invasions of Poland were unconnected to the pact and that, by the Munich agreement, Britain and France were at least as culpable for the outbreak of war as the USSR.[233][234]

Post-war commentary regarding the motives of Stalin and Hitler

Some scholars believe that, from the very beginning of the Tripartite negotiations between the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France, it was clear that the Soviet position required the other parties to agree to a Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania,[42] as well as for Finland be included in the Soviet sphere of influence.[235]

Regarding the timing of German rapprochement, many historians agree that the dismissal of Maxim Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed unfavorably by Nazi Germany, removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany.[57][236][237][238][239][240][241][242] Stalin immediately directed Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews.”[243][239][244] Given Litvinov’s prior attempts to create an anti-fascist coalition, association with the doctrine of collective security with France and Britain, and pro-Western orientation[245] by the standards of the Kremlin, his dismissal indicated the existence of a Soviet option of rapprochement with Germany.[246][lower-alpha 6] Likewise, Molotov’s appointment served as a signal to Germany that the USSR was open to offers.[246] The dismissal also signaled to France and Britain the existence of a potential negotiation option with Germany.[39][248] One British official wrote that Litvinov’s disappearance also meant the loss of an admirable technician or shock-absorber, while Molotov’s “modus operandi” was “more truly Bolshevik than diplomatic or cosmopolitan.”[249] Carr argued that the Soviet Union’s replacement of Foreign Minister Litvinov with Molotov on May 3, 1939 indicated not an irrevocable shift towards alignment with Germany, but rather was Stalin’s way of engaging in hard bargaining with the British and the French by appointing a proverbial hard man, namely Molotov, to the Foreign Commissariat.[250] Historian Albert Resis stated that the Litvinov dismissal gave the Soviets freedom to pursue faster-paced German negotiations, but that they did not abandon British–French talks.[248] Derek Watson argued that Molotov could get the best deal with Britain and France because he was not encumbered with the baggage of collective security and could negotiate with Germany.[251] Geoffrey Roberts argued that Litvinov’s dismissal helped the Soviets with British–French talks, because Litvinov doubted or maybe even opposed such discussions.[252]

Edward Hallett Carr, a frequent defender of Soviet policy,[253] stated: “In return for ‘non-intervention’ Stalin secured a breathing space of immunity from German attack.”[254][[[|page needed]]] According to Carr, the “bastion” created by means of the Pact, “was and could only be, a line of defense against potential German attack.”[254][[[|page needed]]] According to Carr, an important advantage was that “if Soviet Russia had eventually to fight Hitler, the Western Powers would already be involved.”[254][[[|page needed]]][255] However, during the last decades, this view has been disputed. Historian Werner Maser stated that “the claim that the Soviet Union was at the time threatened by Hitler, as Stalin supposed … is a legend, to whose creators Stalin himself belonged.[256] In Maser’s view, “neither Germany nor Japan were in a situation [of] invading the USSR even with the least perspective [sic] of success,” and this could not have been unknown to Stalin.[257] Carr further stated that, for a long time, the primary motive of Stalin’s sudden change of course was assumed to be the fear of German aggressive intentions.[258]

Some critics of Stalin’s policy, such as the popular writer Viktor Suvorov, claim that Stalin’s primary motive for signing the Soviet–German non-aggression treaty was his calculation that such a pact could result in a conflict between the capitalist countries of Western Europe.[citation needed] This idea is supported by Albert L. Weeks.[259][[[|page needed]]] Claims by Suvorov that Stalin planned to invade Germany in 1941 are debated by historians with, for example, David Glantz opposing such claims, while Mikhail Meltyukhov supports them.[citation needed] The authors of The Black Book of Communism consider the pact a crime against peace and a “conspiracy to conduct war of aggression.”[260]

Soviet sources have claimed that soon after the pact was signed, both the UK and US showed understanding that the buffer zone was necessary to keep Hitler from advancing for some time, accepting the ostensible strategic reasoning;[261] however, soon after World War II ended, those countries changed their view. Many Polish newspapers published numerous articles claiming that Russia must apologize to Poland for the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.[262]

Two weeks after Soviet armies had entered the Baltic states, Berlin requested Finland to permit the transit of German troops, followed five weeks thereafter by Hitler’s issuance of a secret directive “to take up the Russian problem, to think about war preparations,” a war whose objective would include establishment of a Baltic confederation.[263]

Remembrance

The European Parliament has proclaimed 23 August 2009, the anniversary of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, as a European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, to be commemorated with dignity and impartiality.[264]

In connection with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe parliamentary resolution condemned both communism and fascism for starting World War II and called for a day of remembrance for victims of both Stalinism and Nazism on 23 August.[265] In response to the resolution, the Russian lawmakers threatened the OSCE with “harsh consequences”.[265][266]

During the re-ignition of Cold War tensions in 1982, the U.S. Congress during the Reagan Administration established the Baltic Freedom Day to be remembered every June 14 in the United States.[267]

What About the P5+1 and Iran/North Korea

If you are inclined to read about the technical cooperation agreement between North Korea and Iran go here.

 

Ed Schroeder’s Military Intelligence Report: Does Iran Have Secret Nukes in North Korea?

In October 2012, Iran began stationing personnel at a military base in North Korea, in a mountainous area close to the Chinese border. The Iranians, from the Ministry of Defense and associated firms, reportedly are working on both missiles and nuclear weapons. Ahmed Vahidi, Tehran’s minister of defense at the time,denied sending people to the North, but the unconfirmed dispatches make sense in light of the two states announcing a technical cooperation pact the preceding month.

The P5+1—the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany—appear determined, before their self-imposed March 31 deadline, to ink a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its nuclear energy program, which is surely a cover for a wide-ranging weapons effort. The international community wants the preliminary arrangement now under discussion, referred to as a “framework agreement,” to ensure that the country remains at least one year away from being able to produce an atomic device.

The P5+1 negotiators believe they can do that by monitoring Tehran’s centrifuges—supersonic-speed machines that separate uranium gas into different isotopes and upgrade the potent stuff to weapons-grade purity—and thereby keep track of its total stock of fissile material.

The negotiators from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China are trying to get Tehran to adhere to the Additional Protocol, which allows anytime, anyplace inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog. If Iran agrees to the IAEA’s intrusive inspections, proponents of the deal will claim a major breakthrough, arguing for instance that Iran will not be able to hide centrifuges in undisclosed locations.

There were so many North Korean nuclear and missile scientists, specialists, and technicians at Iran’s facilities that they took over their own coastal resort there.

But no inspections of Iranian sites will solve a fundamental issue: As can be seen from the North Korean base housing Tehran’s weapons specialists, Iran is only one part of a nuclear weapons effort spanning the Asian continent. North Korea, now the world’s proliferation superstar, is a participant. China, once the mastermind, may still be a co-conspirator. Inspections inside the borders of Iran, therefore, will not give the international community the assurance it needs.

The cross-border nuclear trade is substantial enough to be called a “program.” Larry Niksch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., estimates that the North’s proceeds from this trade with Iran are “between $1.5 billion and $2.0 billion annually.” A portion of this amount is related to missiles and miscellaneous items, the rest derived from building Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

Iran has bought a lot with its money. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, thought to be Tehran’s chief nuclear scientist, was almost certainly in North Korea at Punggye-ri in February 2013 to witness Pyongyang’s third atomic test. Reports put Iranian technicians on hand at the site for the first two detonations as well.

The North Koreans have also sold Iran material for bomb cores, perhaps even weapons-grade uranium. The Telegraph reported that in 2002 a barrel of North Korean uranium cracked open and contaminated the tarmac of the new Tehran airport.

In addition, the Kim Jong Un  regime appears to have helped the Islamic Republic on its other pathway to the bomb. In 2013, Meir Dagan, a former Mossad director,charged the North with providing assistance to Iran’s plutonium reactor.

The relationship between the two regimes has been long-lasting. Hundreds of North Koreans have worked at about 10 nuclear and missile facilities in Iran. There were so many nuclear and missile scientists, specialists, and technicians that they took over their own coastal resort there, according to Henry Sokolski,  the proliferation maven, writing in 2003.

Even if Iran today were to agree to adhere to the Additional Protocol, it could still continue developing its bomb in North Korea, conducting research there or buying North Korean technology and plans. And as North Korean centrifuges spin in both known and hidden locations, the Kim regime will have a bigger stock of uranium to sell to the Iranians for their warheads. With the removal of sanctions, as the P5+1 is contemplating, Iran will have the cash to accelerate the building of its nuclear arsenal.

So while the international community inspects Iranian facilities pursuant to a framework deal, the Iranians could be busy assembling the components for a bomb elsewhere. In other words, they will be one day away from a bomb—the flight time from Pyongyang to Tehran—not one year as American and other policymakers hope.

The North Koreans are not the only contributors to the Iranian atom bomb. Iran got its first centrifuges from Pakistan, and Pakistan’s program was an offshoot from the Chinese one.

Some argue that China proliferated nuclear weapons through the infamous black market ring run by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. There is no open source proof of that contention, but Beijing did nothing while Khan merchandised Chinese parts, plans, and knowhow—its most sensitive technology—from the capital of one of its closest allies. Moreover, Beijing did its best to protect the smuggler when Washington rolled up his network in the early part of last decade. The Chinese, for instance, supported General Pervez Musharraf’s controversial decision to end prematurely his government’s inquiry, which avoided exposing Beijing’s rumored involvement with Khan’s activities.

And there are circumstances suggesting that Beijing, around the time of Khan’s confession and immediate pardon in 2004, took over his proliferation role directly, boldly transferring materials and equipment straight to Iran. For example, in November 2003 the staff of the IAEA had fingered China as one of the sources of equipment used in Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons effort. And as reported in July 2007 by The Wall Street Journal, the State Department had lodged formal protests with Beijing about Chinese enterprises violating Security Council resolutions by exporting to Tehran items that could be used for building atomic weapons.

Since then, there have been continual reports of transfers by Chinese enterprises to Iran in violation of international treaties and U.N. rules. Chinese entities have been implicated in shipments of maraging steel, ring-shaped magnets, and valves and vacuum gauges, all apparently headed to Iran’s atom facilities. In March 2011, police in Port Klang seized two containers from a ship bound to Iran from China. Malaysian authorities discovered that goods passed off as “used for liquid mixing or storage” were actually components for potential atomic weapons.

In the last few years, there has been an apparent decline in Chinese shipments to Iran. Beijing could be reacting to American pressure to end the trade, but there are more worrying explanations. First, it’s possible that, after decades of direct and indirect illicit transfers, China has already supplied most of what Iran needs to construct a weapon. Second, Beijing may be letting Pyongyang assume the leading proliferation role. After all, the shadowy Fakhrizadeh was reported to have traveled through China on his way to North Korea to observe the North’s third nuclear test.

Fakhrizadeh’s passage through China—probably Beijing’s airport—suggests that China may not have abandoned its “managed proliferation.” In the past, China’s proxy for this deadly trade was Pakistan. Then it was China’s only formal ally, North Korea. In both cases, Chinese policymakers intended to benefit Iran.

In a theoretical sense, there is nothing wrong with an accommodation with the Islamic Republic over nukes, yet there is no point in signing a deal with just one arm of a multi-nation weapons effort. That’s why the P5+1 needs to know what is going on at that isolated military base in the mountains of North Korea. And perhaps others as well.

Poll Results: Larger Threat Obama or Putin

Sheesh, is there a difference? Actually, Putin has a policy that is good for Russia, the policy of Obama seems to only be good for Iran and global adversaries.

Reuters Asks “Who Is More Of A Threat: Obama Or Putin”, Surprised By The Answer

 

People in the United States feel under threat, both from beyond our borders and within them and as Reuters reports, when asked about both U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, it was a pretty darn close call. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds a third of Republicans believe President Barack Obama poses an imminent threat to the United States, outranking concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The blame, according to one sociologist, “the TV media here, and American politics, very much trade on fears.”

On the bright side for the Administration, ISIS and Al Qaeda still outrank him as more imminent threats… so that’s good (considering he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner).

 

 

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll asked more than 3,000 Americans what they see as some of the biggest threats to themselves and the country. Overall it was close – 20% saw Putin as an imminent threat compared to 18% who said the same about Obama.

I think it’s safe to say that a national security expert might not agree with the public’s choices.

 

More people fear Boko Haram, a scary but ragged Islamic radical group in Nigeria that might have trouble paying for plane tickets to the United States, than Russia, which recently invaded a major European country. And a whopping 34 percent consider Kim Jong-un, the leader of impoverished North Korea, an imminent threat. Kim may have a couple of nukes, but otherwise his nation is a basket case, so poor that it relies on international aid to feed itself. Though considering how fast Sony Pictures pulled “The Interview” from theaters, I guess the public’s not alone in being afraid of the young man with the unique hairstyle.

 

Perhaps the most disturbing part, however, is how Americans view each other, simply because of the political party they favor. Thirteen percent of us see the Republican and Democratic parties as an imminent threat. That’s the same number who think the Chinese might be.

The Guardian also notes, a third of Republicans believe President Barack Obama poses an imminent threat to the United States, outranking concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

People who were polled were most concerned about threats related to potential terror attacks.

 

Islamic State militants were rated an imminent threat by 58% of respondents, and al Qaeda by 43%. North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un was viewed as a threat by 34%, and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by 27%.

*  *  *
Meanwhile, the world is certainly worried about the United States.

In a Gallup survey of people in 65 countries, about one quarter named the United States as the greatest threat to world peace.

 

Maybe that should not be so surprising, as only about half of Americans know which country was the only one to ever drop a nuclear bomb.

So, What did bin Ladin Have in his Files…

Hundreds of thousands of documents were gathered at the Abbottabad compound in Pakistan that belonged to Usama bin Ladin. To date, only 17 have been released however, some others were accessible during a recent trial in New York.  Here is a sampling.

The Bureaucracy of Terror

New Secret Documents Reveal al Qaeda’s Real Challenges

By: Jennifer R. Williams

A new trove of documents that were among those seized in the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, were presented recently during the trial of Abid Naseer at the Brooklyn federal district court.

The documents—which consist of correspondence between Osama bin Laden and senior al Qaeda leaders—reveal the state of the global terror operation in the months leading up to bin Laden’s death. They paint a picture of an organization crippled by the U.S. drone campaign, blindsided by the Arab Spring, and struggling to maintain control over its affiliates—and yet still chillingly resolute in its mission to strike inside the United States.

The documents offer some insight into the effectiveness of U.S. counterterrorism efforts against al Qaeda. They also, believe it or not, provide a few laughs.

DRONES WORK

First, the documents support the argument that U.S. President Barack Obama and other proponents of the drone program have made that the strikes are effective and that the U.S. drone program is heavily constrained.

The letters show that the tactic of targeting top al Qaeda leaders had profoundly crippled the organization. In one letter, Atiyya, a key Al Qaeda leader and strategist who was killed not long after these letters were written, laments to bin Laden, “The mid-level commands and the staff members are hurt by the killings. Compensating for the loss is going slowly, God grants aid, and the ongoing war of espionage does not give us much chance…Our current view of the situation: we need to reduce operations and activities, focus on ‘persevering and survival.’ We will focus on defensive security (counterespionage) by focusing on striking the spy plane bases using special operations, and on patience, persistence, hiding as well as decreasing our presence at least this year because it is an important year.”

The documents also provide some support for Obama’s argument that the United States does not undertake drone strikes casually but rather only after substantial deliberation. One letter states, “As we see it, based on our analysis, they are constantly monitoring several potential, or possibly confirmed targets. But they only hit them if they discover a valuable human target inside, or a gathering, or during difficult times (like revenge attacks for example).” However, this last part about “revenge attacks” does call into question the argument Obama and others have made that “America does not take strikes to punish individuals.

Because drone strikes have been effective and because the United States targets them carefully, al Qaeda operatives have taken to restricting their own movement, staying inside, and avoiding gathering in large groups—all activities that are fairly integral to running a successful terrorist organization. It’s not easy to train legions of recruits on how to fire RPGs, build bombs, and shoot guns with any accuracy when you have to stay inside the house and can’t have more than five people gathered together at one time.

THREE CHEERS FOR THE NSA

The documents also reveal that the NSA is doing a really good job. Just to be clear, I’m not just saying this because I work for “Noted NSA Apologist Benjamin Wittes,” editor in chief of Lawfare. I’m saying it because the overwhelming theme that pervades these letters is the organization’s inability to communicate as a result of the NSA’s ever-watchful eyes. Because signals intelligence (SIGINT) collected by the NSA plays a critical role in the CIA’s targeted killing program, al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere are basically unable to use any kind of digital communication. In one letter, bin Laden warns Atiyya:

As for anything dangerous, we should never use any modern devices, especially for the external operations. Also, just because something can be encrypted doesn’t make it suitable for use. The enemy can easily monitor all incoming letters to areas where there are Mujahidin and can access all their messages. As you know, this science is not ours and is not our invention. That means we do not know much about it. Based on this, I see that sending any dangerous matter via encrypted email is a risky thing. It is expected that whoever made the program can open the encrypted letters no matter how it’s encrypted. Encrypting a message is done so that the general public is not able to open the message.

However, in wars and with the capabilities of countries, particularly the one with expertise in these fields, we should not depend on encryption…We should only send letters through people to deliver them to the right person.

When you’re trying to manage a terrorist organization that spans the globe and can’t go outside or convene gatherings, not being able to use digital communications is a death blow.

It is also amusing to note that al Qaeda seems to have thought that the United States was putting “harmful substances or radiation” that “can’t be seen by the eye” on the paper money destined for al Qaeda’s hands. To protect against the poison, al Qaeda members wrote of taking the money to “banks in the big city” and going through a series of currency exchanges. It might sound like a silly, minor detail, but undertaking such elaborate security measures every time any money is received means money cannot be transferred though the organization at a sustainable speed. And every second al Qaeda loses is another second counterterrorism and intelligence agencies have to try and uncover and disrupt the next attack.

Even so, perhaps al Qaeda should have known better about U.S. operations, given all the classified documents made available by Wikileaks. However, it seems that al Qaeda—or at least bin Laden—only found out about Wikileaks thanks to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Bin Laden then issued the following instructions:

Please dedicate some brothers to download the files that were leaked out of the Pentagon in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan so that they can be translated and studied because it contains information about the enemy’s policies in the region. The Defense Secretary mentioned that these documents were leaked and that they would affect the war negatively.

Would al Qaeda still have wanted to look at the Wikileaks documents even if Robert Gates hadn’t made this statement about them? Probably. Would the group have done it right away? Who knows. But when the U.S. secretary of defense publicly announces the unauthorized release of a trove of information on “intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures” and warns that “the battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners,” it pretty much guarantees that the terrorists are going to make examining those documents a priority. Gates made his statement on July 29, 2010. The letter ordering the creation of a dedicated team of operatives tasked with poring over the documents is dated August 7, 2010. For an organization with severely limited communications capabilities, that’s pretty quick.

However the group interpreted the documents, it didn’t like how things were going. Morale was low. Operatives were afraid of poison. They couldn’t call their families, rumors of the deaths of comrades couldn’t be confirmed quickly or reliably, and the top leadership—including the charismatic individual who likely inspired the fighters to join the cause in the first place—couldn’t maintain regular contact with the foot soldiers. All of these factors led to poor performance and even defections. Several of the letters to bin Laden include statements strongly urging him to write to this commander or that operative. One letter says, “As you can see, the brothers in Somalia are suggesting that you write a message to brother Hasan Zahir Uways encouraging him, raising his morale and his commitment…” Another letter implores bin Laden:

Sheikh, I have asked you before for tapes for us, which we could preserve, about past, your life, and all…We insist on it. We consider it a duty. Dear Shiekh, some small audio messages just for the brothers here, too. We will play the recordings for them to hear, no one will take a copy. Then we will keep the recordings in our archives or destroy them according to your orders. The people need it: to reassure them about assignments and so on, to advise them to obey, be patient and steadfast, to lifting morale and give good news. May God rest his soul, al-Jawfi used to say, “I am with Osama bin Laden, but not with Al-Hafiz Sultan or Khalid al-Habib or Mahmud.” We have others like him…

THE REAL THREAT

Counterterrorism and security officials lie awake at night worrying about the threat of a terrorist group like al Qaeda using chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear warfare. That is understandable, of course—such an attack would be horrific, and the United States should make sure that its counterterrorism efforts include measures to mitigate such threats.

But these latest al Qaeda documents should serve as a reminder that terrorists don’t need weaponized bubonic plague or ricin to sow terror, and that if the United States focuses too much on terrorists with high-tech weapons or synthetic virus, it just might miss the guy with the kitchen knife in his carry-on.

One letter reports that “one of the main impediments to our work”—their “work” being carrying out terrorist attacks—“is that the brother is unable to carry out his work due to lack of the required tools (materials – weapons); hence, we had to contemplate new methods to obtain the tools or invent new methods of execution.” The letter explains that one of the ways they “tried to resolve this obstacle” was to “Guide the brothers toward new methods like using the simplest things such as household knives, gas tanks, fuel, diesel and others like airplanes, trains and cars for killing tools.”

The point is not that al Qaeda operatives wouldn’t love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon or launch some incredibly sophisticated bioterror attack—of course they would. The point is that getting that stuff is really hard. Why waste millions of dollars trying to buy nuclear material on the black market just to end up being sold a bunch of junk from an undercover CIA officer when you can build a homemade pressure-cooker bomb using materials you can buy at Bed Bath & Beyond and Home Depot and still manage to shut down a major American city?

Similarly, training recruits to operate in the West is hard. To pull off a successful terrorist attack in the United States or Western Europe, the terrorist has to be able to stay under the radar of generally very capable security and intelligence services. That means that the terrorist needs to first be able to get into the country, and then once in, to blend in relatively well and move around without drawing unnecessary attention. The terrorist probably also needs to be able to handle small arms or build a basic bomb without blowing off his own hand in the process. That requires training.

The problem is that taking frequent, extended trips to places like Pakistan or Somalia, where such training takes place, would almost certainly bring an individual to the attention of the security services back home. Therefore, recruits have to keep trips relatively short and infrequent (maybe even going only once). That doesn’t give them a whole lot of time to learn how to be good terrorists.

In fact, according to one letter, a new recruit might only be able to get what one unfortunate Western trainee apparently got: “Theoretical” explosives training. The letter reports:

Regarding the other brothers, they are new brothers whom we sent in haste to avoid any breach in their security or the expiration of their documents or their residence permits. We had trained them the best we can within the limits of time and circumstances (as an example, the moment one of the brothers reached us, the war in Mas’ud started. His residence permit was for two months. He spent one month of it on the road and waiting. He was in siege with us for two weeks during which he took a theoretical course in explosives. He went back prior to the expiration of his residence permit and for needing the time to travel). We have not heard any of their news due to communications difficulties at our side and to the strict monitoring on their side.

For some reason, it doesn’t seem like al Qaeda ever heard back from that particular recruit.

THE FAR ENEMY

One of bin Laden’s goals in creating al Qaeda was to reorient the broader jihadist movement away from fighting local regimes and toward attacking the United States. Thus, when a local jihadist group in Somalia or Yemen or somewhere else takes on the al Qaeda name and becomes an official affiliate, part of the deal is that the group is supposed to start prioritizing strikes against the United States over attacks on its home country.

Understandably, some local jihadist groups aren’t too thrilled with the idea of giving up the fight against a tyrant actively imprisoning and torturing their members to focus on Americans, nor are they at all optimistic that doing so is the best way to go about inspiring their fellow countrymen to rally to their cause.

In one letter, Atiyya diplomatically tries to explain to bin Laden, his boss, that the whole “stop fighting the local regime and focus on the Americans” thing isn’t going over so well with the guys in Yemen:

Regarding Yemen, my dear Sheikh, what you say is good and you go into depth about it, I ask God to add to your knowledge, wisdom, and soundness…However, I hope that you focus on the current situation and its particulars…Now, we are faced with the reality of how to act wisely and how to bring in our youth and men…Let us focus on the means and mechanisms for implementing your ideas, may God bless you. Issue: That we should strike the Americans, but not strike the apostates; we have explained our opinion, and you know it. Regarding the matter of completely retreating from the battle: It is dangerous and destructive as well…The young men want to go to the “front” and want “operations.” They bring up operations, opportunities, monitoring (surveillance and reconnaissance) to the command every day.

Translation: “The kids want to go play soldiers and shoot at stuff, not sit in a safe house for three years planning an operation that some other guys will end up carrying out in some American city they’ve never heard of. So, maybe cool it on the ‘Death to America’ shtick.”

It wouldn’t be surprising if bin Laden had gotten a little tired of the aforementioned kids by the end.

Part of what made bin Laden so admired by those who fought with him in the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan was the fact that, even though he came from a wealthy family and could have been living a life of leisure back in Saudi Arabia, he chose instead to come to the rugged mountains of Afghanistan and fight in miserable conditions on behalf of his fellow Muslims.

But Bin Laden was something of a one-off. In general, spoiled rich kids make lousy terrorists.

Much has been said of late about the thousands of foreign fighters who have traveled to wage war with the Islamic State—most of whom are from the Middle East. But if any of those kids are like some of the foreign fighters from the Gulf Arab countries who went to Pakistan to “fight” alongside al Qaeda, the Islamic State may find itself dealing more with entitled brats than dedicated warriors. One letter has this rather comical report from Atiyya to bin Laden:

We have some other problems…like dissent and lack of discipline from some young men (from the [Arabian] Peninsula, Kuwait and other places), who do as they wish and roam in the markets. They are not associated with any group and they have no obedience. Sometimes, some of them participate in jihad with some of the Taliban factions, while others make no contribution to jihad. A solution to the problem they represent has escaped us, but we are still trying. God grants success.”

It seems that the Islamic State has found a rather effective solution to this problem—it just kills the recruits who don’t behave. Yet another instance of the Islamic State being so brutal that it somehow manages to make al Qaeda look like the “nice jihadists” (they’re not actually very nice).

SUPPORT NETWORK

Al Qaeda and other jihadists claim that they are fighting to free Muslims from the oppression of corrupt apostate dictators and the imperialist West, both of which, they argue, steal the wealth that rightfully belongs to all Muslims and leave them languishing in poverty and despair. Of course, it isn’t clear how beheading humanitarian aid workers who traveled from their safe, comfortable homes in the West to a terrifying war zone in order to provide relief to suffering Muslims is supposed to be a furtherance of that lofty goal.

Nevertheless, many al Qaeda-linked terrorist groups—including the Islamic State—do provide services in the areas in which they operate. In a letter to Atiyya, bin Laden writes:

I have an opinion that I would like you to study, and if you like it, forward it to the brothers in Somalia. The idea is to encourage a delegation of trusted Somalia tribal leaders to visit some businessmen and ulema [religious scholars] in the Gulf to brief them about the living conditions of Muslims in Somalia and how their children are dying of extreme poverty, to remind them of the their responsibilities towards their Muslim brothers, to describe the suffering of people there using photos and statistics from the aid organizations, and to inform them that the unfortunate and the impoverished are waiting for a simple effort on their part to save the lives of their children (these impoverished Muslims are the most deserving of the Ummah’s [Muslim community’s] funds that are being hoarded by the Gulf Princes). [emphasis in original]

Bin Laden goes on to discuss detailed engineering plans for raising the water levels of the river to irrigate the lands, strategies for securing the funding needed to carry out this project (none of which involve crime or terrorism, incidentally), and even which crops should be planted in the newly irrigated land to provide the Somali people with long-term food security.

Imagine you’re a desperately impoverished Somali barely able to feed your family, and you find out that the leaders of the “terrorist” group who just took over your village have been having these kinds of discussions about how best to improve life for you, your family, and your community. That is one reason why some people in some places support some of these groups, even though they’re terrorists.

The good news (from a counterterrorism perspective) is that these groups tend to pair the provision of services with tyrannical rule, extremely strict laws that often run counter to longstanding local customs, and brutal punishments for those who violate the laws. Eventually, the locals get tired of it. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) found that out the hard way, and the al Qaeda leadership has since tried to impart this lesson to its affiliates. In that same letter, bin Laden urges, “I also hope that you remind the brothers in Somalia to show lenience…They should seek in each group the neutrality of whoever accepts to be nonaligned. There are obvious reasons for this, one of which is so that they do not become a card in the hand of the adversaries; and any provocation from our side will push them closer to the enemies.” However, it seems that AQI’s successor organization, the Islamic State, didn’t fully absorb the lesson, and only time will tell if it will face the same backlash from the local population that AQI did.

REAL THREATS

Occasionally, the letters veer into the bizarre, or, rather, the even more bizarre. While members of Congress still debate whether climate change even exists, al Qaeda is actively pursuing strategies to mitigate the future consequences of it:

You don’t fail to notice that due to climate change, there’s drought in some areas and floods in others. The brothers in Somalia must be warned so that they can take the maximum precautions possible. This lays on the shoulders of the leadership more than on the residents living along the rivers and valleys.

One of these precautions is to establish an alert system to warn the families and establish an advanced observation point on the upper part of the river to warn people when heavy rainfall and flooding occur using a wireless device.

This letter also included a note at the bottom: “Attached is a report about climate change, especially the floods in Pakistan. Please send it to Al-Jazeera.” It may seems surprising that one of the most extreme religious fundamentalist groups in the world is more open minded about science than some in the United States, but it is not actually all that shocking, considering that for centuries, the Islamic world was a wellspring of scientific and technological achievement.

And al Qaeda seems to think it has even more knowledge and intellectual property to offer. The shadowy international terrorist organization whose leaders and members are wanted criminals in just about every country in the Western world and many outside it is evidently very concerned with securing legal protection for its intellectual products.

In a discussion about making a video to mark the tenth anniversary of 9/11, bin Laden writes:

Regarding the question of copyrighted material for Al-Jazeera and Al-Sahab [Al Qaeda’s media arm], Zaydan should negotiate with Al-Jazeera to have the video footage copyrighted for them while the text and audio copyrights be for Al-Sahab. What this means is that some questions will be on the video while others will be only in audio format. Anyway, continue negotiating until a satisfactory result for Al-Sahab is achieved and keep us posted about the progress of the negotiations.

There’s just something so fantastically absurd about an organization that is entirely comfortable justifying the killing of thousands of innocent civilians, yet is concerned over the reproduction or distribution of original creative content without express written permission. One wonders how al Qaeda even thought it would protect its rights. Sue Al Jazeera for copyright infringement?

Just when you thought things couldn’t possibly get more bizarre, there’s this from bin Laden:

  • We are still waiting for the replies to what came in our last letter and that contained the nomination of a qualified brother to be in charge of a big operation inside of America.
  • If you have any brother who is knowledgeable about poetry, please let us know about it; and if you have any books about types of poetry, please send it to me.

That’s right: bin Laden goes directly from a note about finding someone qualified to carry out a massive terrorist attack inside the United States to asking if anyone has any poetry they can send him. Because after a long day of planning to strike fear into the hearts of the infidels, sometimes a guy just wants to take a relaxing bubble bath and read some Emily Dickenson. (Presumably he planned to respect all intellectual property protections on the poetry.)

Of course al Qaeda isn’t all fun and games—there’s a lot in the letters about perpetrating attacks inside the United States, discussions about relations with the Pakistani military, commentary on the Arab Spring, and various bureaucratic minutiae. And these letters offer only a partial glimpse into the organization at a particular time in history. Many more documents were collected during the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad than have been declassified by the U.S. government, and one must assume that the letters that have been released were released for a reason (and vice versa). Quite a lot has happened since bin Laden’s death, including the rise of the Islamic State, which is now engaged in a battle against al Qaeda for the leadership of the broader jihadist movement—a battle that, at the moment, it seems to be winning.

Still, the documents do provide a look at the internal dynamics of al Qaeda, and as anyone who has ever been involved with a sizeable bureaucracy well knows, change often comes at a glacial pace in large organizations; in all likelihood, al Qaeda today still faces the same kind of organizational problems and operational challenges revealed in these documents. This means that although it remains a threat, the al Qaeda of today is a far cry from the beast we faced on 9/11.

A Typical Islamic State Fighter’s Story

Lost, unsure, lack of direction. The solutions are provided by the local mosques.

Captured IS Militants Explain Why They Fought

The Islamic State fighter spoke softly, his voice unbroken by adolescence.  A prisoner of Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) forces, he sent a message to his family asking for forgiveness.  “I destroyed myself and I destroyed them along with me.”

The Syrian youth is among several IS detainees brought to a prison in al-Malikiyah, northeastern Syria. They were captured in a YPG offensive last month to regain Tal Hamis from IS control.

Both the youth and a Turkish fighter spoke separately to VOA’s Kurdish Service while in custody.  Both were hooded but unshackled, the hoods removed when they spoke.  Their names have been changed and identifying details obscured.

The Turkish prisoner, Ahmet, told a story familiar to every expert on IS recruiting.  A young man adrift – a sometime university student, sometime baker, interested in political Islam, in touch online and by phone with a friend with similar or, as it turned out, more extreme inclinations.

The friend traveled to Syria and told Ahmet he had joined the Islamic State group.  Ahmet said he was surprised but intrigued.  “I don’t find American, British or other news agencies, especially on Middle East Muslims, very trustworthy,” he told VOA.  “I wanted to see it with my own eyes.”

Fighting ‘for God’

Ahmet said he traveled to Syria in part to observe, but also because of his beliefs and what he called “the repression.”

“I wanted to get rid of this repression according to God’s order,” he said. “I came to fight for God.  When I kneel down to pray, I think about bombardments that I witnessed, the deaths of children I saw with my own eyes.  I came across all of these.”

Traveling south to a contact near the Syrian border, Ahmet said he met some Europeans, an American, someone from China and a Russian – from Dagestan, he guessed.

Once in Syria, they were divided into groups.  The local leader wanted them to go to the front right away. “We were all very confused because none of us had seen war,” he said.

Four months into his new life with IS, Ahmet said he was told to secure a village near Tal Hamis.  Then the YPG attacked: “We all started to run.”

His companions were killed; he was shot in the leg. “Thirteen, 14 kilometers I crawled with this wounded leg, for three days.”  He hid in a house until the owner came back and turned him over to the YPG.  The Kurds, he said, took him to a hospital, then to jail.

The Syrian prisoner’s tale also starts with a conversion – not online, not in the mosques, but through someone he knew.

Hussein left his family without revealing his plan, then threw himself into his new life: physical training, prayer, weapons instruction.  There were foreigners there, he said, from Senegal, France, Kazakhstan, Turkey, training in separate groups. The cook, he said, was Chinese.

Once his training was complete, Hussein said he was sent from village to village, at times deployed at checkpoints, other times taking part in battles.  He, too, was captured in the Tal Hamis campaign.

Asked about some of the more abhorrent practices of the Islamic State group, Hussein said he never witnessed beheadings, but he did see videos of them shared by cell phone.  He said he was unaware of “jihadi marriages” – women recruited for sexual use by the militants.  And he knew nothing, he said, about how children were recruited, though he added there was a 13-year-old in his group.

Hussein’s own age remained unclear.  His YPG guards said he told them he was 19.  Later the Kurdish authorities said he was born in 1997.  Despite a wisp of a moustache and the beginnings of a beard, his voice and mannerisms made him appear much younger.

Gray zone

What comes next for the prisoners is unclear. They have not been seen by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, but Kurdish officials say they would welcome any such visit.

Both sides are in a gray zone.  Despite declaring themselves Islamic State soldiers, they are non-state combatants.  Their captors are non-state actors as well.  The de  facto Kurdish government of the self-declared Rojava region is, from a legal point of view, part of Syria.  Kurdish authorities told VOA some detainees have been freed.

Hussein has no thoughts of release.  “I expect I will stay in prison, for sure,” he said.

While the Syrian youth expressed remorse, his Turkish comrade offered no such misgivings.  “I am a student,” Ahmet said, shortly before guards put the hood back over his head and led him away.

Hussein put the hood back on himself.