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.

American Journalist in Iran

What I Saw in Iran

The worst part about taking a two-week vacation to Iran happens before you ever set foot in the country. “Oh really, where are you going?” people inevitably ask over the course of a normal conversation.

And then you tell them.

Almost every response is the same: incredulity followed by a splash of gallows humor—literally, in some cases. (“Don’t get hanged! LOL!”) Some are more sophisticated (“Be sure to forward your new address at Evin Prison”) than others (“Watch out for ISIS!”). Some people are clearly joking, while others seem legitimately concerned.

At a certain point, if you’re paranoid enough, you start taking them all seriously. This is especially true if you happen to have ties to an obscure warmongering Kate Upton blog whose coverage of the Iranian regime has been less than flattering, and who employs this man. What have you gotten yourself into? Let’s see what the State Department has to say:

Some elements in Iran remain hostile to the United States. As a result, U.S. citizens may be subject to harassment or arrest while traveling or residing in Iran.

Jason Rezaian can certainly attest to this fact. The dual Iranian-American citizen and Washington Post bureau chief has spent the better part of a year in jail on unknown charges. You don’t want to end up like him. For example, what if the nuclear talks go south in a hurry after John Kerry gets tired of being yelled at all the time and takes his windsurfing board out on Lake Geneva to shred away his sorrow? Maybe the ayatollahs fancy an extra bargaining chip?

You imagine being thrown in Evin Prison for a year or twenty, and conclude that it’s probably not very nice. On the other hand, it could be a brilliant career move. Just ask Winston Churchill. The book advance would be nothing to scoff at. The screenplay would win all of the awards and tear at the heartstrings. That scene where you visit your parents’ graves? Man, that’s dark. Or meeting your girlfriend’s children like in Cast Away. Being perplexed by all the new technology, and then longing for the dreary solace of your cell while watching President Chelsea Clinton being sworn in for a second term.

But eventually—as in, a couple hours before takeoff—you consider the possibility that you should chill the f—k out. This particular Persian excursion, after all, is sponsored by none other than the New York Times, the esteemed paper of record that, in case you hadn’t noticed, is quickly transforming itself into a travel agency of some renown, offering an array of exhilarating (and expensive) cultural journeys for the sophisticated traveller.

Looking for a “people to people experience” in communist Cuba? The Times has you covered. Eager to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Ditto. Keen to “retrace the footsteps of some of the world’s greatest explorers” in Antarctica? There’s a trip for that. It’s not clear whose footsteps you’ll be retracing aboard the “297-foot luxury expedition yacht” the Times has commissioned, but why quibble? Rates start at $15,695. Carlos Slim must be loving this.

No Times Journey, as they’re called, is as popular as “Tales from Persia.” Ours is the inaugural voyage, but there’s been so much interest that they’ve already had to increase the number of offerings this year from three to five, all of which are sold out. At the end of the day, no one—not even the ayatollah—is going to f—k with the Times. That’s what you’re counting on, anyway. Although the Gray Lady has certainly gone to great lengths to ensure her release from liability:

Without limitation, we are not responsible for any injury, loss, or damage to personal property, death, delay or inconvenience in connection with the provision of any goods or services occasioned by or resulting from, but not limited to, acts of God, acts of government, weather, force majeure, acts of war or civil unrest, insurrection or revolt, strikes or other labor activities, criminal or terrorist activities or the threat thereof…

But even if it comes to that—getting yanked into a windowless room upon arrival at Imam Khomeini International Airport—you’ve settled on a failsafe strategy: blame everything on the Jews. Before you know it, your Qatar Airways flight to Tehran (connecting through Doha, site of the 2022 World Cup final) is preparing for takeoff. There’s a large compass displayed on a big screen at the front of the cabin. One arrow points towards Mecca, the holiest of Muslim holy sites, and another (for some reason) towards Gaithersburg, Md.

‘Welcome to Iran’

Tehran, in all it's polluted glory. (Andrew Stiles)

I arrive in Tehran and head straight for passport control. The ceilings are low and the lights are hot. I’m exhausted and sweating suspiciously while trying to avoid eye contact with the security camera pointed right at my face. Behind the row of guards, there’s a wall-off area marked “Fingerprinting Room.” This should be fun.

If the Iranian commitment to airport inconvenience is any indication, their willingness to embrace Western culture may be underestimated. The line I’m in is moving at an excruciating pace. So, nothing out of the ordinary. After a nerve-wracking three-quarter hours, I’m next. Until I’m not. The guard seems to be waving me over to another station, and has exquisitely timed it so that I’m just seconds too late to beat out the professional soccer team arriving from Abu Dhabi. Typical soccer. The additional forty-five minutes I’m forced to wait is only slightly more tedious than watching them play.

Finally, I am stamped through. After a brief, wordless exchange, the Iranian guard had unsuccessfully searched his desk for what I assume was the foreigner fingerprinting/detention worksheet, and could not have been less enthusiastic about the prospect of getting up from his seat to find one. I am shrugged over the line onto Iranian soil, where I collect my bag and am instantly greeted by one of our local tour guides, Cyrus, who is holding a sign with my name on it. “I was expecting someone much older,” he says. “Welcome to Iran.”

Our group of 20 is staying at the Laleh International Hotel in Tehran. Lonely Planet calls it “the best choice among the fading prerevolutionary luxury hotels.” The former InterContinental was a favorite haunt of Western visitors in the days of the shah, including the foreign journalists who accompanied Ayatollah Khomeini on his triumphant return from exile in Paris. (The New York Times reporter accompanying our group, Elaine Sciolino, was among them.) Judging by the rooms, very little has changed since the days of the Islamic Revolution. The toilets are American Standard. The plumbing, as I will soon realize, is Iranian substandard.

The television seems modern enough, so I flip on Press TV, Iran’s premiere English-language news channel. George Galloway, the cantankerous British lawmaker, is yelling about imperialism. Apparently he has his own show on the network. Galloway tries to take a call from a viewer named “Blair,” but the connection is down. Without missing a beat, he launches into a soliloquy denouncing the “treasonous” regime of Tony Blair. Galloway, who makes Ed Schultz seem sedate by comparison, insists the former prime minister “will be brought to justice,” before reminding viewers that he’s up for reelection to the House of Commons in May.

As much as I’d like to keep watching, it’s getting late, and before I turn in for the night I need to get online and let the folks back home know that I’ve arrived. When I call reception for the internet access code, the gentleman says he’ll call back in five minutes, which is a bit strange. Fifteen minutes later I am logged on and providing proof of life. My laptop kindly alerts me to the possibility that “other people might be able to see information you send over this network.”

Our New York Times crew assembles in the lobby at 10 a.m. the next morning. It’s immediately clear what Cyrus was talking about back at the airport. Nearly all of my fellow tourists are old enough to be my grandparents. This doesn’t really come as a surprise, but I had hoped to be a little less conspicuous. If the Iranians ever suspect the CIA has infiltrated our group, it’s pretty obvious who will be first in line for the strip search.

As far as I can tell, I am initially regarded by the group with a skepticism and contempt that, given my young age and the hefty price tag of this trip, is not unwarranted. But everyone seems nice enough and wealthy enough and liberal enough. Exactly what one should expect for a trip organized by the New York Times.

I learn that most of my travel companions arrived a day or two before me, including one couple who shared a Turkish Airlines flight from Istanbul with none other than former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was returning home after hanging out with his good buddy Erdogan, and was reportedly mobbed by children asking for photographs. Did they mention he was sitting in coach?

We head out to the parking lot to board our VIP tour bus, a spacious beast with a Times Journeys logo affixed to the front window. An assortment of flags lines the street in front of the hotel. The United States, obviously, is not represented, but the colors of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea hang proudly in the still air.

After a brief squabble over seat belts, we’re off. I’m eager to get my first glimpse of Tehran. One of my guide books describes it as “a huge polluted agglomeration,” which is both accurate and somewhat charitable. The surrounding Alborz Mountains offer a scenic touch, assuming you can see them through the smog. I’m jolted from my jetlagged stupor when our tour leader, Hadi, fires up the on-board microphone. I’m instantly reminded of why I’ve never taken a guided bus tour.

“Louder,” an old woman yells from the back.

Our first stop is outside a government complex housing the Iranian criminal justice system and Supreme Court. “It is forbidden to take a photo,” Hadi says. Our pre-trip material repeatedly warned us against shooting (as it were) anything that could conceivably be a government building, including the airport. Everyone gets off and immediately starts taking photos. Not of the building itself, to be fair, but of the giant Ayatollah Khomeini billboard down the block, something that will become less interesting once we realize there’s one on practically every block in the country.

Golestan Palace. (Andrew Stiles)

We walk around the corner to the Golestan Palace, once the residence of the royal Qajar family and the site of Mohammad Reza Shah’s coronation in 1967. It’s a perfectly nice palace, though its grandeur is slightly undermined by the drab concrete of the criminal justice building towering over it. The teacher’s pets are wasting no time making themselves known, asking all sorts of questions about where King so and so was coronated during the such and such dynasty. Others, meanwhile, offer some unsolicited gripes about John Boehner and the Citizens United ruling. “Why can’t America be more like France?”

Hadi tells us that the royal garden, where we appear to be standing, was arranged in honor of a water goddess. And, in fairness, the extensive fountain system would make for an impressive sight, if there was any water in it. About half a dozen frustrated men seem to be struggling to fix that, while in the grass off to the side an unattended garden hose gushes freely.

Eventually we end up at the main bazaar. I’m reminded that my mother, who collects Christmas ornaments, had made a passing comment that maybe I could pick something up for her collection. Dad quickly pointed out the long odds of fulfilling this request in the Islamic Republic of Iran. But Iran is full of surprises.

Outside the main entrance to the bazaar, for example, young kids are selling what looks like lingerie out of a cardboard box to women covered in black sheets. The locals don’t seem very impressed with our entourage. I think this apathy has something to do with the fact that the bazaar is jam packed with Iranians buying gifts for Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, and we’re blocking traffic while trying to record videos on our iPads. Our opportunities to interact with average Iranians have been limited, and our guides seem pretty determined to keep it that way.

On the way back to hotel, we drive by the old U.S. embassy. You know, the one from Argo. It is currently home to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and an impressive collection of anti-American graffiti. There’s also a museum inside, where visitors can see the charred wreckage of Jimmy Carter’s failed attempt to liberate our hostages, but I don’t think we’re invited. Our guides promise an in-depth discussion of the hostage crisis at a later date.

‘Other people might be able to see information you send over this network’

(Andrew Stiles)

There’s no cell phone service in Iran. Even if you wanted to enable roaming and call home for $12 a minute, you couldn’t, thanks to international sanctions. Fortunately, there’s Viber, an app that lets you make calls and send texts for free over a Wi-Fi connection. In places like Iran, using Viber is a great way to keep and touch with friends and family back home. Until it isn’t.

Our bus is leaving Tehran in less than an hour, so I return to my room after breakfast to finish packing. I’m trying to work out which hotel items I can feasibly smuggle out in my suitcase without causing a scene when there’s a knock at the door. After shoving everything I can manage into my bag and struggling to zip it shut, I peer through the peephole. This would be easier if the door had a peephole.

I can’t see my visitor’s face when I open the door. This is largely due to the fact that there is a smart phone inches from my own face. There’s an obnoxious clicking sound as my photo is taken.

“Good morning, sir. Are you Turkish?” says the sweaty, bespectacled young man standing in front of me. He has a backpack draped over one arm, and a neck pillow on the other, like he just got off a plane. I don’t know what to tell him.

“Can I take photo?”

“No, but I think you already did.”

“Can I come inside your home?”

“No. Why?”

He pulls out an ID card, which I obviously can’t read, and tells me he’s a student at a local university who happens to be conducting a research project on an app called Viber. He shows me his phone. “Do you know?”

This can’t be good. The Basij can’t be far behind, and my screenplay draft is a mess. I’m frantically trying to remember anything incriminating I may have said or done in the last 24 hours. Maybe I complained about the lack of alcohol? Perhaps I expressed some skepticism at Cyrus’s claim that Hillary Clinton personally created ISIS?

This is an extraordinary coincidence, I explain with as much credulity as I can muster. Of course I know about Viber. In fact, I was just using it. Your research sounds fascinating. Why don’t we discuss this further in the lobby with my Iranian guides?

I wait until we’re in the elevator to drop a Columbo on him. “Just one more thing, [whatever his name was]. How did you find my room?” He pretends not to understand the question, but I know he does. When I repeat it for him, he continues to stare blankly. “I asked reception,” he finally says. “I thought you were Turkish.” I hope my guides are around to sort this out.

Fortunately, they are waiting in the lobby. I introduce them to my new friend so they can hash things out in Farsi. They start talking, and he shows them the “student” ID. After a few minutes, he turns to me and apologizes before walking away. “He is a student,” Cyrus explains. “But his research methodology is flawed. Research requires data, not anecdotes.” Says the guy who thinks Hillary spawned the Islamic State.

Hey look, a Jew

The tomb of Esther and Mordecai. (Andrew Stiles)

We arrive in the town of Hamadan on the eve of Purim, the Jewish holiday commemorating the heroic efforts of Queen Esther, a former sex slave, and her cousin Mordecai to save the Persian Jews from extermination at the hand of King Ahasuerus. So we might as well visit the tombs of Esther and Mordecai while we’re here.

One imagines they’d be underwhelmed by the state of Iranian Jewry today. Maybe no one considered that Haman (Ahasuerus’s Jew-hating viceroy) was playing the long game. We are accompanied by Najad, a member of the thriving Jewish community in Hamadan that currently numbers 15, who leads us into the tomb. It’s located in a fenced off complex in the middle of a crowded avenue. The act of crossing the street in Iran, by the way, is practically indistinguishable from the act of committing suicide by automobile. The river of cars never stops; you just have to pray that, like Esther’s people, you’ll be spared. The tomb is cold and damp and solemn, as tombs are. When we emerge, an old man is glaring at us from the street. He doesn’t look very excited to see us.

We arrive at the hotel just in time to catch the tail end of Benjamin’s Netanyahu’s address to Congress, which is being carried on Press TV. There’s an intended audience for this speech, but it’s not us. Some folks are listening intently, while others simply scowl at the screen. Netanyahu invokes the story of Esther, who “gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies”—especially relevant, he says, now that Jews “face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.” It’s agreed among the group that we can’t wait to read the scathing editorial response in the New York Times tomorrow morning. The unstoppable power of the Jewish lobby is discussed over dinner.

Squatting towards Khorramabad  

IROINYT 089

The hours-long bus rides are excruciating at times, but at least the scenery is breathtaking. Flat plains lined on either side by massive, snow-covered peaks. Winding our way through the mountains, we drive past the mud huts of lakeside villages that look untouched since Biblical times. The rest stops along the highway are not as scenic. The bathroom facilities are exclusively of the squat variety, and could all use a good pressure washing. This is a less than ideal situation given the contingency of senior citizens in our group with bad knees.

Like every large transport vehicle in the country, our bus is equipped with a GPS system that must be regularly inspected by the highway patrol in order to monitor our driver’s speed and time behind the wheel. At least that’s what we’re told. It occurs to me that this is one of several reasons why Iran should not be mistaken for a libertarian utopia. I also learn while waiting at these stops that the morbid nature of American “don’t text and drive” campaigns has nothing on the Iranian version, which includes the public display of charred vehicles on spikes along the highway.

We have an “important announcement” on the bus. Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations has written a New York Times op-ed in response to the Israeli prime minister’s speech to Congress. “Netanyahu’s Nuclear Deceptions” is read aloud by a member of the group, and receives a round of applause. The initial reviews are positive. (“Very powerful.” “Powerfully written.”) The Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate a peace deal are “incredibly courageous,” and likely to succeed. There are murmured suggestions that we also read the latest Tom Friedman column, but I am in no mood to have to throw myself off a moving bus. But this reminds me that before the trip is over I should find at least one local taxi driver to bombard with metaphors.

Our bus rolls into Khorramabad, a mid-sized town in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains. Our tour of the local citadel stumbles upon a curious group of school children. They regale us with a barrage of memorized English phrases (“What time is it?”) and, after some lobbying, agree to sing us a song. It’s pretty adorable. Now they want us to sing for them. Someone suggests “God Bless America,” but we ultimately settle on “Do-Re-Mi” from the Sound of Music. I anchor the bass section.

(Andrew Stiles)

The restaurant we’re supposed to eat at needs a few minutes to set up our tables, so a few of us decide to go for a wander. We pop inside a grocery store, and are immediately drawn to a colorful display at the center—condoms. Every variety (and flavor) imaginable is represented. There is even a “Fun Time” variety pack with a vibrating ring. I doubt Ayotallah Khomeini would approve, given that he sought to disband family planning clinics in the early days of the Islamic Republic with the explicit goal of spurring population growth. The neighboring aisle boasts an impressive selection of toy guns for children.

Ostrich kabob is something of a local specialty in Khorramabad, so that’s what I order for lunch. It’s a little chewy but tastes of ground beef. Not bad. The food in general has been a disappointment. Until now, practically every meal has featured the same menu of options: Lamb kabob, chicken kabob, or fried fish, with or without rice, and a pile of stale, dimpled bread that looks like it was manufactured on a 3-D printer. The lamb kabob is my favorite, but its presentation leaves something to be desired. Think “turd on a plate.”

To keep the lengthy bus trips interesting and enhance our cultural experience, we’ve started an informal lecture series. As it turns out, this is far more enjoyable than discussing U.S. energy policy with liberal Times readers. (“If a train can take you anywhere you want to go in Paris, why not in America?”) Our Iranian guides, Hadi in particular, share fascinating stories about their experiences during the early years of the Islamic Revolution.

A former air traffic controller, Hadi was on duty at Tehran International Airport on Sept. 22, 1980, the first day of the Iran-Iraq War. He describes how he and his colleagues followed standard operating procedure in response to a group of unidentified aircraft approaching the airport. After repeatedly failing to make contact, and operating under the assumption that there was an emergency on board, they proceeded to clear the runways and divert all other air traffic as emergency units gathered on the ground. Moments later, the convoy of Iraqi bombers came into view, and military hotlines started ringing off the hook.

(Andrew Stiles)

These lectures can also inspire some heated discussions, mostly because even the liberal New York Times crowd can’t abide some of the sizzling hot takes served up by our Iranian guides. Members of the group routinely push back against their rosy depictions of the human rights situation, and bizarre claims that Western culture is to blame for domestic violence in Iran.

Cyrus has read Hillary Clinton’s latest memoir cover to cover. It contains indisputable proof, he says, that her goal as Secretary of State was to travel the world creating ISIS. This is an especially bold claim to make in front of a busload of prospective Hillary Clinton donors, and it does not go over well. However, it’s pretty clear that this general belief—that the United States is actively facilitating the rise of ISIS—is not uncommon in Iran. Hadi chimes in to suggest that the President of Turkey might be working for the CIA, given his tacit support for the Islamic State. “I’m just raising the question.”

What the West called “Holocaust denial,” we’re told, is actually a call for additional “research.” And when someone brings up Khomeini’s fatwa against the author Salman Rushdie, it is dismissed as merely rhetorical, not unlike Barack Obama saying “all options are on the table” regarding the Iranian nuclear program. In any event, Rushdie is an MI-6 operative who was ordered to publish The Satanic Verses in order to embarrass the Supreme Leader. Cyrus eventually concedes that he has “not seen any documents to confirm this.”

Dance like nobody’s watching (because it’s probably illegal) 

When we arrive at our lodging for the night—the centuries old castle—it’s already dark. We were running late so we had to cancel our planned stop in Khomein, site of the Supreme Leader’s family home. After checking in, the Cheng brothers (a pair of sixty-something Taiwanese-Americans) and I stumble upon a group of Iranian tourists from nearby Isfahan. They are celebrating the coming of Nowruz by jumping over a fire they’ve prepared in the central courtyard. It’s the sort of celebration Ayatollah Khomeini tried to stamp out in the early days of the revolution, only to be met with strong popular resistance. We are promptly invited to join them in the common room area for what appears to be a dance party.

I sort of feel bad for the Cheng brothers. Their English is harsh and difficult to understand, but they are by far the most gregarious and adventurous members of our tour. Iranians are constantly asking them where they’re from, but never believe them when they say America. “You look China,” one of the Isfahani partiers tells them. “Chop sticks.” We agree to let this blatant microaggression slide.

Dancing to the irregular beat of traditional Iranian music without appearing epileptic is no easy task. Attempting this in the absence of alcohol is especially ill advised. When your dance partner is a 50-year-old Iranian man, well, you have a sense of what I was up against. The locals, of course, were highly amused.

A lovely young lady saunters and we begin. There’s no way this is allowed. You’re not even supposed to shake hands with an Iranian woman unless she initiates. I resolved long before coming here to never allow myself to be honey potted. But this seems like a safe space. Some of the women seated around us have removed their obligatory headscarves. F—k the revolution. My dance partner launches into the universally recognized “Change The Light Bulb” maneuver. I counter with “The Shopping Cart,” and the crowd goes wild.

The Chengs and I are beckoned to the dining hall for dinner—another bland kebab. Ed, a geological expert, complains about the lack of internet access. When we return to the party, the mood has changed. Our guides have situated themselves at the front next to the band, stone-faced. They’re not having any fun, and want to make sure no one else is either. The women are covered. My Persian lady friend leans against the wall with her head down. Four sad dudes attempt to get things going on the dance floor. I am one of them. The music dies down in short order. “Good dancing,” Cyrus says on the way out. “But you need to work on your technique.”

(Andrew Stiles)

Americans in Iran are generally regarded with a degree of skepticism, but not for the reason you might think. Iranians want to know what you’re doing in Iran, not because they suspect you of plotting a coup, but because they know American passport holders could spend their vacations anywhere else on earth (give or take a few tin-pot communist police states), and feel sorry for you. They are almost always friendly and eager to tell you there are no hard feelings. “Ninety percent of Iranians love America,” is a widely cited statistic, though it’s not clear if this is based on actual data. Eventually, this becomes rather eerie, as if everyone is reading off the same approved script.

Nazri, a student studying computer animation, offered the boldest riff on the “We love America” line, leaning in close to whisper “and Israel,” though I am not convinced this is a 90-10 issue. Moments later, a mullah in a black turban strolled by and leered in our direction. “Very dangerous,” Nazri said after he passed. “I f—king hate them.” Also, can I get him a job in California? Not everyone is so gracious toward Americans. A few (say 10 percent) of the locals, mostly older men, simply said, “Okay,” and sauntered away after I told them my nationality.

Talking to locals seems to always paint a slightly different picture of the country than the one we received from our guides on the bus. One day I stumbled upon a coffee shop run by Armenian Christians. The barista disagreed with Cyrus’s assessment that religious minorities were valued members of Iranian society, and could practice their faith openly without harassment. “No, it’s not good,” he told me. “If I could, I’d leave.”

Visions of Valerie

(Andrew Stiles)

On the road to Shiraz, birthplace of renowned senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Our resident geologist gives a lecture about Iranian rock formations and oil deposits, which inevitably turns into a discussion about fracking. He notes in passing that most of the alleged environmental concerns are bogus. But what does he know? A group of women sitting behind me aren’t buying it, and begin discussing the virtues of government imposed energy quotas for individuals and households. “I’d kill myself,” says the lone dissenter.

Our bus pulls off the side of the road. This can’t be good. In fact, we’ve reached our destination. Well, almost. To get there, we have to essentially trespass through a rustic township and walk about a quarter of a mile through a dry, rocky riverbed. This isn’t the easiest of tasks for some of our less able-bodied tour members. There is a sort of hieroglyph carved into the rock face commemorating an ancient king. It must have been pretty majestic back when there was still a river here. Now there’s just a bunch of trash and some puddles.

The Times has put us up in the Hotel Shiraz, a towering structure on the edge of town that has been plastered onto the side of a mountain overlooking some ruins. Its “five star” accreditation is purely arbitrary, though it is fancier than previous hotels, and even offers a wide range of spa services. When we arrive, the lobby is scattered with bandaged men who look like they’ve all sustained the same injury to the back of the head. Or maybe it’s a religious thing? What we hadn’t considered was that Iran was, apparently, something of a regional mecca for hair transplant surgery, among other procedures. (Only Thailand performs more sex change operations.) It doesn’t take long for us to realize that we might be the only people staying at this hotel who aren’t here for some type of cosmetic surgery.

Taxicab confessions

(Andrew Stiles)

My Tom Friedman moment has finally arrived. Eager for a night on the town in Valerie’s old stomping grounds, the Cheng brothers and I skip dinner and set off in search of an English-speaking cab driver. His name is Arman, and whether his stories are true or completely made up, they tell you everything you need to know about Iran. The world is a flat circle. Or something like that.

Arman, 28, graduated from university with a degree in petroleum engineering. That’s a pretty good degree in the United States. In Iran, it gets you a cab-driving gig working long hours, seven days a week, for a salary of about $6,000 a year, which is roughly in line with the national average. Like most unmarried Iranians his age, he lives with his parents.

Shiraz is a lively town. Local merchants seem to be competing with one another for the prize of most blindingly obnoxious Times Square-style storefront. Like most places in Iran, there used to be a river here. It has a reputation for being more “relaxed,” but unless I can locate some booze—and I obviously can’t—that seems a distinction without a difference.

The Chengs are absolutely raring to go. It’s slightly unnerving. George, the older one, caused a minor commotion days earlier during a visit to a madrasa when he wandered into a classroom and starting taking photos. That’s just how he rolls. Turn your back on him for a second, and sooner or later he will emerge surrounded by a group of adolescent schoolgirls, smiling incessantly, and taking photos. When the schoolgirls inevitably take an interest in me—solely because I’m the one in our group within 20 years of them—and start lining up to request photos and autographs, George seems genuinely disappointed in me for failing pursue romantic relations with these children. So, naturally, he’s trying to get Arman to take to the hippest hangouts where the hot young Iranians congregate and get up to no good.

As politely as possible, Arman tries to explain that the type of place we’re looking for does not exist. Sure, kids like to party, but this usually happens on the weekends, when groups of friends will load up on booze and go camping in the country, away from the watchful eye of the Islamic Republic. He estimates that roughly half of young Iranians consume alcohol on a semi-regular basis. All you need is a reliable dealer and a lot of cash. A bottle of Johnny Walker Red will set you back about $60—triple what you’ll pay in the United States.

We settle on a hookah lounge Arman has recommended. Despite being reasonably crowded, the place is soul-crushingly silent, apart from the Titanic theme song playing softly in the background. Because we have nothing better to do, we bring Arman with us and start grilling him about politics. Our discussion of the Iranian hostage crisis doesn’t get very far, however, mostly because Arman has never heard of it. But he’s not afraid to criticize the Iranian regime. Like most people who speak English well enough to convey the sentiment, he thinks Ahmadinejad ruined the country. Every Iranian election is a choice between “bad and less bad.”

Arman hopes for better relations between our countries, mostly because he hates it here and wants more than anything to come live in the United States. His uncle has a friend in Louisville, Kentucky. Do I know of any girls back home who would fake marry him for money? I’ll have to get back to him. I ask if he’s ever considered pretending to be gay and claiming refugee status. “Yes,” he says. As if on queue, “Show Me The Meaning of Being Lonely” comes on over the sound system.

On our way out, Arman asks how much we paid to come on this trip. He is stunned when we tell him. “It’s too much,” he says. He’s not wrong.

Veiled privilege

Isfahan. (Andrew Stiles)

It’s been a while since I’ve checked in on Press TV. To my surprise, Daniel Pipes is on some news program (via satellite) arguing with the host over the extent of Iranian involvement in the war against ISIS. “Strictly an advisory role,” the host insists, before citing a Cato Institute paper criticizing the role of the United States. This evening’s lineup includes a documentary about Palestine—“At The Heart of Siege”—followed by a segment criticizing ISIS over its use of human shields. We’ll also get an update on the BDS movement at the University of Toledo. The host has a cousin in Cleveland.

It’s a long drive north from Shiraz to Isfahan, so our lecture series continues. There is some disagreement over whether the U.S. Navy’s downing of Iran Air 655 in 1988 was a “sheer accident” or the act of “excited soldiers looking for stories.” The discussion becomes more heated when we move on to the topic of women in Iran. One of the first acts of the revolutionary government was to abolish many of the legal protections afforded to women under the Shah, and to lower the legal age of marriage to nine, because that’s what Muhammad would have wanted.

Such things are easily dismissed as barbaric. However, the issue of female dress requirements is more complicated, especially for liberals. On the one hand, modern feminism dictates that forcing women to cover themselves in inherently wrong. On the other, criticizing other cultures is very problematic, as it is often a reflection of Western imperialism and privilege. I’m confused.

I asked a young female student I met in Shiraz about this. She liked wearing a headscarf, she said, because it made her feel “safe” from the lurid stares of the mouthbreathing male hordes. Our Iranian guides loved this little anecdote. “See, it should be a choice,” Hadi says. Except it isn’t. In fact, quite of few Iranian women treat the headscarf requirement as a joke, revealing as much hair as possible with a wisp of cloth dangling off the back of the head.

Isfahan is the most photogenic of the cities we’ve visited. It boasts a series of ornately constructed bridges and, more importantly, an actual river with water in it—but that’s only because the government has turned up the flow for Nowruz. It’s a bit of a sore subject for the locals. Ahmadinejad made a mess of things when he tried to collectivize the water supply. What a dick. What was his deal anyway? I ask Cyrus to weigh in. “You see,” he said, “Ahmadinejad really wanted to have a good relationship with the United States, but…”

“He didn’t realize that denying the Holocaust and threatening to annihilate Israel wasn’t the best way to accomplish that?”

“Exactly.”

‘Welcome to Iran’ (Again) 

On the way back to Tehran, we visit the ancient village of Abyaneh—population 250—nestled in the foothills of the Karkas Mountains. It’s said to date back thousands of years to Sassanid times, and is so isolated its residents almost missed out on the Islamic Revolution. These days, according to our guides, the villagers are just a bunch of welfare queens.

There is a pleasant silence as we stroll among the mud brick huts, and for a moment it’s like stepping back in time—until we’re suddenly overtaken by a swarm of Chinese tourists, blitzing the town with gigantic zoom lenses, snapping hundreds of photos per second, including some extreme close-ups of the locals selling dried apples on their doorsteps. Yeah, I know it’s a stereotype but this is literally what happened.

Before leaving, the Chinese manage to instigate a vicious dogfight after throwing some food scraps to the village dogs. This obviously makes for another great photo opportunity, as several members of the group assume the crouched position of professional sports photographers to capture the action. This is kind of amusing at first, until the blood start to flow and it becomes apparent that the black dog isn’t going to make it to the next round. Fortunately, one of the villagers manages to break it up with a baseball-sized rock. I suppose the silver lining in all this is that one of these days Americans are going to concede their long-held title as most obnoxious tourists. Decline has its consequences.

(Andrew Stiles)

After lunch, we are greeted by an Iranian gentleman superbly dressed in a white over coat, blue sash and sharp leather driving moccasins. He looks like he hasn’t changed clothes since 1979. He interrupts our conversation about how Iran is a peculiar place that becomes more difficult to understand the more you learn about it in order to deliver a public service announcement. “Welcome to Iran,” he says. “We are all Aryans. The Arab Semites, they are a common enemy. They are ruining the world, including your country, by building their satanic mosques. Welcome to Iran.”

We arrive back to the Laleh International in Tehran for a brief stay before heading to airport. I make sure all my electronic devices are turned off, and pick up a copy of one of the English language newspapers. “Iran, Turkmenistan sign 18 agreements,” is the lead story. Also, something about a new link between the United States and ISIS. At the airport, I begin to prepare myself for the grilling I’ll be subjected to upon arrival at Dulles. This will prove to be a waste of time when I am waved through customs without the slightest hesitation—although they did ask if I had spent any time in West Africa.

It’s great to be home.

Take that, Great Satan. (Andrew Stiles)

Mullahs. They're just like us! (Andrew Stiles)

 

Cheryl Mills, the Firewall for Hillary’s SpyNet

Cheryl Mills: The Woman Who Knew Too Much?

The New York Times reports that Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s long-time henchwoman will not be joining the Presidential campaign now presumably in the final stages of formation. Why? Perhaps Mills is, to borrow a phrase from Alfred Hitchcock, the woman who knew too much.

Mills, who was the State Department’s counselor and chief of staff during the entirety of Hillary’s tumultuous tenure, is up to her waist in the Benghazi matter, where the overwhelming evidence is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put politics before the security and safety of U.S. citizens serving their country in that hell-hole.

Earlier this month, Judicial Watch obtained emails  through a federal lawsuit which contained multiple references to the, “so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.”

Clearly Clinton, and Obama, were concerned about the “optics” and potential political fallout of the al-Qaeda 9/11 assault on the Benghazi consulate where four Americans were murdered less than 60 days from election day. The emails show Mills “running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.”

Specifically, Mills instructed then State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland “to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.” Nuland quickly demurred.

This is the same Nuland who objected to the original Benghazi talking points drafted by the CIA because they included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. Nuland worried that any mention of the the CIA warnings “could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …”

Surely Nuland was given guidance by Mills.

Mills continued the cover-up by telling State Department employees to obstruct the 2013 congressional investigation. In June, 2013 Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya during the Benghazi attack, testified to Congress that Mills was “personally instructed to allow the RSO [Regional Security Officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz.”

In true Clinton form, Hicks said in a September 2013 interview that as a result of cooperating with Congress he was “punished” and “shunted aside, put in a closet,” not receiving a new assignment from State.

Like Nixon and his White House tapes, Hillary is now arguing that the e-mails are her personal property and she should decide what the American people get to read. While serving as secretary of State, Hillary Clinton no doubt sent and received countless emails pertaining to personal issues with no relevance to State Department issues via her private account. But Supreme Court precedent in the Nixon case seems clear: she doesn’t get to decide what to release and what not to.

What does this have to do with Ms. Mills? Mills is the trusted aide who reviewed the e-mail to decide which e-mails to erase. Mills joined Hillary in eschewing government e-mail so e-mails between her and her boss are illegally kept from public view  when they conducted public business.

Mills has another darker distinction. When the Palm Beach police seized the address book of convicted billionaire pedophile and friend of Bill, Jeffrey Epstein, they found the cell phone and personal e-mail address for Mills.

What did Hillary know of Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls? What did Hillary think Bill was doing when he and his now disaffected wingman Doug Band visited Epstein’s palatial Palm Beach home where neighbors say the POTUS partied until the wee hours with scores of women who were dropped off by limousine after the arrival of the presidential motorcade.

What did Hillary think Bill was doing on Epstein’s hedonistic island retreat where he was seen in the company of two 17 year-olds flown in from New York for the former Presidents amusement? Perhaps Mills can tell us.

Mills is a member of the Clinton Foundation’s Board of Directors, now under fire for taking millions from foreign governments, particularly those in the Middle East who oppress women and deny them the most basic human rights. Perhaps Mills has seen the e-mails that show the self-dealing nexus between Hillary’s stint at State and the avalanche  of cash the Clintons have scammed from foreign powers for a charity that spends more on luxury travel for the Clintons and a huge staff of political retainers than they do on charitable works to help actual people.

Pine not for Ms. Mills. As the Clintons demonstrated when they placed Epstein’s pedophilic pimp Ghislaine Maxwell in a job at a non-profit funded by the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons sometimes buy silence. Maxwell was granted immunity for her role in procuring underage girls for Epstein to molest. She was present when Bill partied in both Palm Beach and on Epstein’s orgy island, his private retreat in the carribean. Like Mills, Maxwell knows too much.

Or perhaps Mills should be concerned. Cheryl Mills figures into every scandal dogging Hillary Clinton and probably a few we don’t know about yet. As they did with James Carville, Dick Morris, Doug Band, and others the Clinton’s have no problem discarding staff when they are no longer useful. But sometimes, as in the case of former Clinton Security Chief Jerry Parks who knew chapter and verse on Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes and whose brutal murder goes unsolved, those who know too much are silenced.

**** As an aside, my buddy Larry Klayman, at Freedom Watch filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for operating a criminal enterprise, charges of racketeering.