The Anti-Nazi Resistance: Diverse Groups of People Motivated by Diverse Thinkers

In the 1930s and 1940s, a person who lived in Nazi-controlled territories who secretly or openly opposed Hitler was taking an enormous risk. In fact, it was less a risk and more a probability that such a person would be arrested, beaten, imprisoned, and murdered. Yet many people resisted anyway.

Why would people face death, when they could survive and go on living by simply accepting the National Socialist Party?

There is more than one reason which motivated people to actively resist the National Socialist. People from different parts of society had different inspirations. Yet these diverse groups all worked at the same time to achieve the same goals: to make sure that the Nazis would fail, to see to it that the Germans would be liberated from Nazi oppression, and to save the lives of as many Jews as possible.

The National Socialists oppressed Germany for twelve years, from 1933 to 1945. People of sincere faith could meet only secretly. Hitler had ordered that all churches be turned into Nazi propaganda centers.

Writing about one of the many groups of anti-Nazi resistance groups, historian Uwe Siemon-Netto explains:

More than six decades ago, scores of Germans were rounded up and tortured to death, hanged, guillotined, or executed by firing squads for their attempt to overthrow the National Socialist tyranny. Almost all of them were Christians; some were Roman Catholic, and some were Lutheran. The most famous among the latter group were Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian, and Carl Friederich Goerdeler, the former mayor of Leipzig. Goerdeler would have become Germany’s chancellor had the July 20, 1944 coup succeeded.

The idea of opposing Hitler produced an impressive cooperation between different groups of people.

The German women and men who resisted the Nazis came from many different demographic groups: aristocrats, scholars, military officers, theologians, and blue-collar men from the factories. Each social group had its own style of opposing Hitler. The Lutherans, as mentioned above, “acted in accordance with Martin Luther’s teachings on how and when to resist secular authority,” according to Uwe Siemon-Netto.

Four hundred years after his time, Martin Luther, who lived from 1483 to 1546, provided encouragement for the women and men who defied Hitler and undermined the Nazi government.

These freedom fighters willingly and knowingly embraced a great risk: many were arrested, beaten, imprisoned, and murdered for their actions. They followed Martin Luther’s advocacy of “an almost foolhardy opposition against all governmental injustice,” in the words of historian Franz Lau.

Here is a great historical paradox: on the one hand, many scholars accuse Luther of fueling the anti-semitism which ultimately led to the rise of Hitler; on the other hand, other scholars see Luther as providing the inspiration for the anti-Nazi resistance movement. Which one is true? Can it be both ways?

Part of the solution to this seeming contradiction is this: Nazi propaganda was so effective that its results have outlived the actual Nazis by almost a century.

The National Socialists attempted to legitimize themselves — or more precisely, to make themselves seem legitimate — by distorting the historical record. They hoped thereby to make it seem as if almost every great thinker in history endorsed Nazi views.

Martin Luther was only one victim of this propaganda effort. Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer, both of whom stood clearly opposed to National Socialist ideas, were presented by the Nazis as if they agreed with, and predicted, the rise of Hitler and his policies. Poets like J.W. von Goethe and Ludwig Uhland were interpreted as if they were proto-Nazis. The list of brilliant authors who were portrayed as forerunners of Naziism is long — and each of them was in reality opposed to Naziism.

The Nazis were so good at lying that their propaganda has shaped the views of anti-Nazis, and their lies are molding media and authors a century later.

The notion that Martin Luther would have in any way encouraged the ideas of Naziism is a notion produced by Nazi propaganda.

Yet some people during the 1930s and 1940s were duped by the propaganda. Even now, many people have been tricked into believing it. Ironically, many sincere anti-Nazi thinkers in the twenty-first century have been deceived by Nazi propaganda, because that propaganda was so thoroughly disseminated that it has infused modern scholarship and culture.

So historian Uwe Siemon-Netto can write that, “well, yes, there were” a few “Germans who misunderstood Luther” under the influence of Nazi propaganda “and therefore did not resist the Nazis and who became Nazis themselves; and there were” many “other Germans whose internalized Lutheranism guided them in the opposite direction and made them choose the path of resistance and martyrdom.”

History is messy. History is complicated. Figuring out who the real Martin Luther is, and separating him from the fake ideas about Martin Luther which the Nazis presented, is not easy. Some people in the 1930s and 1940s were fooled. Some people today are fooled.

But some people, then and now, were and are aware of how the Nazis attempted — and often succeeded — in warping and twisting the words and actions of the real Martin Luther. Those who have explored the ideas of Luther see that he inspired resistance against Hitler and against National Socialism.

The resistance movement was multifaceted: while Luther inspired the Lutheran freedom fighters, a different group of writers inspired the Roman Catholic underground, and philosophers and poets inspired the academics who resisted Hitler. Just as the resistance movement was composed of diverse groups of people, so the inspiration behind that movement was a diverse group of authors and thinkers.

How the Germans Fought the Nazis

It is far too easy to not only associate, but even equate, “Germans” with “Nazis” — especially given the cliches from Hollywood — when studying the history of central Europe from 1933 to 1945. The student is tempted to believe that, during those years, Germans were Nazis and Nazis were Germans.

But that’s not the way it was.

Most Germans weren’t Nazis. Quite a few Nazis weren’t Germans.

The population of Germany, just before WW2 started, was a bit over 79,000,000. The peak membership of the Nazi Party was between 8,000,000 and 8,500,000. Approximately 90% of the German population were not Nazis.

Even in the German armed forces — the Wehrmacht — Nazis were in the minority.

Not only were the majority of Germans not Nazis; many of them were active anti-Nazis. They were engaged, not only in an intellectual rejection of National Socialism, but in concrete actions which slowed the war effort and saved the lives of thousands of Jews.

From the moment Hitler took power in 1933, groups of resistance formed among the Germans. A diverse group of Germans worked simultaneously to defeat the National Socialist: aristocrats, academics, military officers, theologians, and working-class men from the factories. Some of these groups were networked with other groups, forming a larger resistance web. Other groups worked in isolation. Together, they weakened the military resources of the Nazis and saved the lives of thousands of Jews, as historians Gordon Thomas and Greg Lewis write:

There were people in the uniforms of the Third Reich who not only had plotted to overthrow Hiter but also hoped to assassinate him.

Lieutenant-Colonel Hans Oster, a talkative, open, and honest man who had served bravely in the Great War, despised Hitler and his “politicization” of all aspects of German society; among friends, he would insist on only referring to the Führer dismissively as “Emil.” His senior role in German military counterintelligence, the Abwehr, allowed him to discover the real truth behind the torture of political dissidents, Jews, and religious figures, and of the concentration camps. Oster, a pastor’s son, believed Hitler intended to drive Germany’s Jews to destruction and felt a growing responsibility before God for their rescue.

His friend Hans von Dohnanyi — a studious-looking man with dark hair swept to one side and this metal-rimmed glasses — was collecting a Chronicle of Shame, a legal file of Hitler’s crimes to be used in a prosecution of the Führer following a coup.

Oster was intent not only on resisting the Nazi regime, but also on removing Hitler.

Hans Oster was part of one particular resistance nexus which was organizing assassination attempts. Some of the civilian members of these networks were morally opposed to killing a human being, but soon they understood that by assassinating Hitler, they would save the lives of thousands of others. Parallel to the projected death of Hitler, these groups planned a coup which would overthrow the entire National Socialist government and put an authentically German government in place to end the war and stop the oppression of the civilian population.

He had already planned one coup and was now planning another. For Oster there would be no trial of Adolf Hitler. He planned to kill him.

Altogether, there would be more than twenty-five separate assassination attempts on Hitler between 1932 and 1944.

While none of these attempts was successful in killing Hitler, they did hinder the political leadership of the Reich and thereby reduced the effectiveness of the war effort.

The members of the German resistance understood earlier than the Allies what Hitler intended to do, and how repulsively evil it would be. The resistance members developed a passionate and urgent need to work against Hitler, long before the French, British, or Americans understood how horrifying the Nazi regime would be.

That’s why these German freedom fighters took such great risks in undermining the National Socialist regime.

German Officers in Uniform Oppose Hitler: Appearances Can Be Deceiving

It’s easy to think that the German military during WW2 was a Nazi organization. It’s helpful to know a few words: The German Army was the Heer. The German Navy was the Kriegsmarine. The German Air Force was the Luftwaffe. The overarching term for the complete military — army, navy, and airforce together — was the Wehrmacht.

But most of the military weren’t Nazis.

Most historians estimate that 29% of the officers in the Wehrmacht were members of the National Socialist Party. Among those officers, 33% of the junior officers were members, while significantly less than 29% of the senior officers were members. Among the enlisted men, even fewer were members.

The majority of both officers and enlisted men in the German military were not members of the Nazi Party.

A significant number of them were active in the resistance. Not only were they not National Socialists, but they were taking specific concrete steps both to undermine the war effort and to impair the extermination of the Jews. These soldiers and officers helped the Allies to defeat the Nazis and liberate Germany, and saved thousands of Jewish lives in the process.

The general public in the first quarter of the twenty-first century is accustomed to seeing black-and-white photos of German soldiers and officers in uniform, and simply equating them with Nazis. Yet the majority of them were not Nazis, and many of them fought vigorously against the Nazis.

One such example is Harro Schulze-Boysen. He was a well-respected officer in the Luftwaffe who’d worked his way up to a responsible position. In the word of historians Gordon Thomas and Greg Lewis, Harro Schulze-Boysen worked “in the air force intelligence division, scanning foreign press reports and writing briefings for one of the most powerful figures in the Third Reich, Hermann Göring.”

By outward appearances, Schulze-Boysen was loyally supporting the Nazi war effort. But the reality was different:

Schulze-Boysen was in fact a daring, sometimes reckless anti-Nazi. Aided by his wife, Libertas, he planned not only to reveal some of the regime’s most heinous crimes, but also to turn over its military secrets to the enemy. As war consumed the world, he would become one of the most significant spies at the heart of the Third Reich.

Schulze-Boysen made contacts in the military and outside the military in order to form a resistance network. One of his contacts was Arvid Harnack.

Arvid Harnack was “one of the nation’s greatest academic minds,” having obtained both a doctorate in legal studies and a doctorate in philosophy. He had a job working in the Economics Ministry, where people supposed that he was making sure that Hitler’s plans were well-financed.

But in reality, Harnack was at the center of a growing opposition movement to Hitler, and was already sharing some of the Reich’s most confidential secrets with both Washington and Moscow.

In April 1939, before the war started, he and his wife Mildred were “busy passing Harnack’s secrets to America’s only spy in Germany.” Mildred was an American who’d moved to Germany. She was eager to protect the Germans from the Nazis.

Both Harro Schulze-Boysen and Arvid Harnack lived and worked in Berlin. Together they formed a group which sent Nazi military secrets to the Allies. Their efforts were effective and made a real difference in helping the Allies to defeat the Nazis.

They were discovered by the Nazi secret police, the Gestapo, and murdered in 1942.

Germans vs. Nazis: The Resistance Undermines Hitler’s Plans

In January 1933, two things happened. Adolf Hitler’s Nazis completed their political scheme to seize power and begin oppressing the people of Germany, and thousands of Germans began organizing a resistance movement which to reduce the effectiveness of Nazi war machine and save the lives of thousands of Jews.

The resistance took different forms in different times and places. Many of the leaders were Aristocrats, academics, military officers, and Christians. But some leaders were blue-collar factory workers. They had several things in common: they were opposed to Hitler’s “National Socialist” movement, and they were determined to oppose it in concrete and effective ways.

Such an explicit refusal to accept National Socialism was dangerous, and more than dangerous, as historians Gordon Thomas and Greg Lewis write:

These are the ones who through a love of Germany committed treason against it, rejecting the shackles of a warped, corrupt, and evil state.

They stood up in the knowledge that almost all dissent would be punished by death.

They gave their lives with one thing foremost in their minds: that through their actions they might redeem the honor of their nation.

The list of individual Germans who worked to defend their country from the Nazi oppressors is long. Specific names, dates, places, and actions reveal the ways in which this underground movement reduced the effectiveness of the National Socialist plans, weakened the Nazis, and assisted the Allies in the effort to liberate Germany.

One example is Robert Scholl. He and his wife Magdalena lived in the city of Ulm with their children. He’d been active in politics: he’d been the mayor Ulm at one point in time. When Hitler took power, Scholl could see the hidden intentions behind the Nazi propaganda, and realized that the National Socialists were preparing for war:

Fiercely independent-minded, he “translated” the Nazi propaganda on the radio for his family and told them war was coming. He had maintained his friendships with Jewish friends and associates in Ulm when others shunned them.

When some of Scholl’s neighbors draped Nazi banners from their windows, the Scholl family did not: “There were no flags flying from their windows.” Robert Scholl “was a man of deep conviction and strongly held” Christian and civic “beliefs.” Scholl’s children agreed with the ideas they found in the sermons of Bishop Galen: Real Christians must oppose the Nazi practice of treating human life as worthless.

Among Scholl’s children, two of them — Hans and Sophie — would become the most influential in the resistance movement. They saw the National Socialists as insulting to Christ. True Christians could not support a party which offended God by murdering innocent people.

Opposition to the National Socialists had a unifying effect: academics and factory workers found themselves supporting the cause; military officers and pacifists joined forces; Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists found common ground. There was a terrible tension: on the one hand, basic humanity demanded opposition to the Nazis; on the other hand, such opposition not only risked one’s life, but more likely guaranteed the end of one’s life.

So it was that the entire Scholl family persevered solidly in their efforts against the National Socialists:

Scholl had brought up his five surviving children in his image. Hans, the elder boy, was the dominant character among them, but Sophie matched him in spirit. As they learned about the treatment of Jews across Germany, the words of one friend struck them deeply: “They are crucifying Christ a second time, as people!”

For the Scholls, opposition to Hiter was a moral imperative, a simple question of right versus wrong. No matter what the consequences. In the horrors that Hitler would create in the coming years, the family would pay a terrible price for its desire for a better Germany.

The price paid was this: Hans and Sophie would be executed by the Nazis in 1943 for their conscientious resistance.

In the blue-collar neighborhood of Neukölln in Berlin, Jews and non-Jews worked closely together. Led by Herbert Baum, they engaged in a number of actions to undermine National Socialist propaganda. They printed and distributed their own writings against the Nazis, and when the Nazis set up an exhibition about the Soviet Union, Baum and his colleagues set it on fire. Gordon Thomas and Greg Lewis report:

In areas like working-class Neukölln, Jews and Gentiles found common ground in their hatred of the Nazis. Many congregated around electrician Herbert Baum and his wife, Marianne, who were developing a flair for the dramatic, creating their own antifascist propaganda to counter that of Goebbels. They had already humiliated the “poison dwarf” once and intended to do so again.

The Baums and their Jewish friends intended to fight back.

Like Hans and Sophie Scholl, Herbert and Marianne Baum were murdered by the Nazis.

The underground resistance efforts against the National Socialists ultimately came from all income levels, from all regions of Germany, from Christians and Jews, from the highly educated and the blue-collar. Those who were part of the efforts understood that they were essentially signing away their lives, but they also understood that they were doing so in order to hasten the end of the evil which the Nazis were perpetrating.

Conspiracies Hidden within Conspiracies: The Agenda Is Never the Agenda

The political class seems never to tire of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism.’ There are those who openly embrace, by name, this single phenomenon which carries these two labels: those who speak fondly of socialism.

There are also those who embrace this one political spirit without using either of its names, having learned that ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ are still uncomfortable words for much of the public.

Finally, there are a few brave individuals who openly oppose socialism and communism, and are stigmatized both by their peers in the political class and by news media.

A majority of the people in each of the above-named three categories have at least this one thing in common: whether they openly support, covertly support, or directly oppose the international communist conspiracy, they do not realize that what they are supporting or opposing is merely one component of a much larger movement — a movement which is not communism or socialism, and which has nothing to do with what these people support or oppose.

This can be made clear by considering the following two questions: (1) Why is there a clique of ultra-wealthy individuals who are prominent advocates for socialism and communism? (2) Why do these same individuals ensure that their personal wealth is not touched by whichever measures are implemented to advance the causes of socialism and communism?

Why would people who have billions of dollars embrace and support movements which have the stated goal of confiscating that money? If they truly believe in helping those in poverty, would they not already be giving that money to worthy charities, rather than waiting for some future day when the socialist plan is ultimately implemented?

Under the slogan demanding that citizens “pay their fair share,” the incremental programs and legislations which advance the socialist agenda nonetheless seem to leave the ultra-wealthy in possession of their billions and hundreds of billions, while middle-class wage earners pay ever higher tax rates.

The most reasonable explanation is that these advocates of socialism do not want socialism, but rather have found that they can harness the socialist movement to do other, different, tasks. Rather than using the movement to advance socialism, they have found ways to use it to advance their own personal agendas.

At this level of operation, the difference between ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ is a nuance left to academic debates. The vocabulary is chosen for its political leverage, not for precise definition of ideologies.

The international communist conspiracy is a small part of a far bigger, and very different, conspiracy, as historian Gary Allen writes:

What you call "Communism" is not run from Moscow or Peking, but is an arm of a bigger conspiracy run from New York, London and Paris. The men at the apex of this movement are not Communists in the traditional sense of that term.

The paradox of individuals who have hundreds of billions of dollars making common cause with the “workers of the world” presents a contradiction. This contradiction points to the hidden agenda. The prima facie agenda is the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Clearly, the billionaires have proven by their actions that they have no desire to relinquish their wealth. When it appears that two disparate parties are united to achieve a shared aim, and that shared aim is clearly detrimental to one of the parties, and that party has already shown that it in truth does not embrace this allegedly shared aim, then the conclusion is that there is a different hidden aim.

The power brokers who are fueling the socialist movements, and whose names are well-known as proponents of socialism, “feel no loyalty to” to these movements and ideologies. They feel no loyalty to socialist governments and parties around the globe, even as they passionately advocate for them.

Individuals who live in first-world democracies, and who have hundreds of billions of dollars, are products of, and depend upon, free-market economies. Socialism and communism would destroy them. Why, then, do they promote these redistributionist ideologies? Only because they have found a different, hidden purpose for which they can use these ideologies — or more precisely, for which they can use these movements and parties.

Gary Allen explains how the ultra wealthy utilize these ideologies for their own purposes:

They are loyal only to themselves and their undertaking. And these men certainly do not believe in the clap-trap pseudo-philosophy of Communism. They have no intention of dividing their wealth. Socialism is a philosophy which conspirators exploit, but in which only the naive believe. Just how finance capitalism is used as the anvil and Communism as the hammer to conquer the world will be explained in this book.

At this level, both capitalism — “finance capitalism” as Gary Allen phrases it — and communism are merely tools for the powerful to gain yet more power.

The capitalists and socialists who fight each other in the trenches of street-level politics are equally pawns in a game being played at a higher level. Gary Allen continues:

The concept that Communism is but an arm of a larger conspiracy has become increasingly apparent throughout the author's journalistic investigations. He has had the opportunity to interview privately four retired officers who spent their careers high in military intelligence. Much of what the author knows he learned from them. And the story is known to several thousand others. High military intelligence circles are well aware of this network. In addition, the author has interviewed six men who have spent considerable time as investigators for Congressional committees. In 1953, one of these men, Norman Dodd, headed the Reece Committee's investigation of tax-free foundations. When Mr. Dodd began delving into the role of international high finance in the world revolutionary movement, the investigation was killed on orders from the Eisenhower-occupied White House. According to Mr. Dodd, it is permissable to investigate the radical bomb throwers in the streets, but when you begin to trace their activities back to their origins in the "legitimate world," the political iron curtain slams down.

The Reece Committee discovered, e.g., that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a list of its members, but maintained a separate list of clandestine members. This finding raises many questions.

The top-level conspiracy has employed the lower-level conspiracies to occupy the attention of the public. Debates between the major parties in the United States are mere sideshows. Protests and demonstrations serve to keep the news media busy reporting about them, and keep the commentators busy having opinions about them.

These distractions successfully prevent the public from discovering the true conspiracy.

At the highest levels of functioning, the conspiracy is truly global — beyond international — and is utterly indifferent to the geographical boundaries and legal domains of various nation-states. They see and treat the world as a large undifferentiated mass. They merely adjust their tactics to suit the context of locally varying conditions.

An axiom, which can be found in slightly different phrasings in the writings of those investigate such things, explains that the agenda is never the agenda, and the issue is never the issue. Despite its stated purpose, a movement is being used to achieve other and different goals — and the members of the movement are unaware.

Bilderberg: The Little-Known Group and Whether It’s Part of a Conspiracy

The average citizen or voter in any country is likely to know nothing about the Bilderberg Group. The group’s main function is to organize an annual or biannual private conference. It seems that the group has no formal membership list; people are simply invited to attend its meetings. There is a defined “steering committee,” and vague indications that there is also a separate “advisory group,” but otherwise the group seems to have little formal structure.

The group seems to be prima facie a networking and discussion group. It has no legal authority and is not recognized by, or as a part of, any national government. As of November 2022, the group’s website stated:

The Bilderberg Meeting is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-140 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, labor, academia and the media are invited to take part in the Meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately a quarter from politics and government and the rest from other fields.

The Bilderberg Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor any other participant may be revealed.

Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken and no policy statements are issued.

The group could seem to be innocent and even laudable. Perhaps it is. Yet it has continually attracted skepticism and criticism. Some historians see it as possibly part of an international conspiracy. The group’s privacy and informality fuel such conjectures.

The news media have made the phrase “conspiracy theory” a commonplace. Some allegations of conspiracy are lunatic inventions with no supporting evidence. Other conspiracies have been demonstrated, either in the legal system or by scholars, to be concrete realities.

Some scholars have attempted to link the Bilderberg Group to another possible node in a conspiracy network, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), as historian Gary Allen notes:

It should not be surprising to learn that there is on the international level an organizational equivalent of the C.F.R. This group calls itself the Bilderbergers. If scarcely one American in a thousand has any familiarity with the C.F.R., it is doubtful that one in five thousand has any knowledge of the Bilderbergers. Again, this is not accidental.

Serious scholars who investigate possible conspiracies run the risk of being categorized among the paranoid yellow journalists who publish baseless speculations. How do historians analyze the conspiracies while maintaining high academic standards?

The CFR publishes, among other things, a periodical titled Foreign Affairs. This journal includes relatively prosaic articles which don’t reek of conspiracy. On the other hand, individuals associated with the CFR include Cyrus Eaton. There are two men with that name — Cyrus Eaton, Sr. and Cyrus Eaton, Jr. — and their connection with the Soviet Socialists, i.e., with the international communist conspiracy, is clear, as historian Gary Allen explains:

Cyrus Eaton Jr. is the son of the notoriously pro Soviet Cyrus Eaton, who began his career as secretary to John D. Rockefeller. It is believed that Eaton’s rise to power in finance resulted from backing by his mentor. The agreement between Tower International and IBEC continues an old alliance. Although Eaton’s name does not appear on the CFR's membership rolls, the Reece Committee which investigated foundations for Congress in 1953, found that Eaton was a secret member.

The two entities named above — Tower International and the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) — both appear to be, at first glance, business enterprises: the former in mining and metals, the latter in agronomics. Yet both had ties to the Stalinist economic system in the USSR. Cyrus Eaton, who brought Tower International into being, was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize by the Soviet government; he had easy access to East Germany and Russia at a time when most U.S. citizens found it difficult to obtain visas and travel papers to such places. IBEC was associated with David Rockefeller, who also launched the Americas Society; between IBEC and the Americas Society, Rockefeller had numerous connections to the leaders who were hoping to give the Soviet Union a foothold in South America and Central America.

Cementing the ties to Stalin, Khruschev, and Moscow were the joint efforts by Cyrus Eaton and Aramand Hammer to plan and carry out massive building projects, through the Tower Corporation, in the Soviet Union. As historians Stan Evans and Herbert Romerstein write,

The importance of Hammer’s U.S.-Soviet business dealings can’t be overstated, as the Communists would be chronically reliant on Western funding, credits, and technology to help them through their economic troubles. (Conversely, it was when the credits and technical assistance were cut back under Reagan that the creaking Soviet machinery collapsed and Mikhail Gorbachev had to adjourn the Cold War.) U.S. capitalists who followed the trail blazed by Hammer included W. Averell Harriman, Henry Ford, the Morgan interests, Cyrus Eaton, Mack Truck, Chase Manhattan, Control Data, and several other U.S. corporations. Such dealings were of utmost importance in keeping the Soviets economically afloat for a span of nearly seven decades.

The CFR, of which Cyrus Eaton was a member, was founded in 1921, in the same milieu as the League of Nations. The CFR was founded in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson, but by that time, he was out of office and mentally disabled. More directly relevant to the founding of the CFR was Edward House, known as “Colonel House,” who had been an associate of Wilson’s, although the two had also disagreed and eventually parted ways.

These organizations — the Bilderberg, the CFR, the League of Nations — are large enough, and structurally ambiguous enough, that they could house conspiracies, even if the organizations themselves were unaware of the conspiracies, or more likely pretended not to notice such conspiracies. The informal backchannel conversations and the overlapping memberships held by various individuals make it possible and even probable that secret deals and plans were developed in such an environment.

One sign of a conspiracy is the collaboration between individuals whose interests and motives should be opposite. A capitalist business owner, whose livelihood comes from a free-market economy, would seemingly find very little common cause with a bureaucrat who operates within the Soviet Socialist command economy. Yet such connections arise. These connections might be innocent — if both parties find a working relationship advantageous. But such connections, especially when they present the union of what should be diametrically opposed ideologies, point to a hidden agenda.

Economic support for, or even cooperation with, the Soviet Union worked against the causes of peace and justice. An array of individuals demonstrably engaged in activities which supported the Soviet Socialists economically or in other ways. These individuals held memberships in a variety of organizations, including the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, and the League of Nations. (Other such organizations include the Institute of Pacific Relations.)

A preponderance of evidence points to these organizations having — knowingly or not — hosted conspiracies. The likelihood of these individuals having used these organizations as occasions for communication constitutes a clear and convincing case for conspiracy.

Each of these organizations had numerous connections to other organizations and to various businesses, extending the network, as historian Gary Allen reports:

The strange name of this group is taken from the site of the first meeting in May, 1954 — the Hotel de Bilderberg — in Oosterbeek, Holland. The man who created the Bilderbergers is His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Prince is an important figure in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil) and the Societe General de Belgique, a huge conglomerate cartel with worldwide holdings. The Bilderbergers meet once — or sometimes twice — a year. Those in attendance include leading political and financial figures from the United States and Western Europe. Prince Bernhard makes no effort to hide the fact that the ultimate goal of the Bilderbergers is a world government. In the meantime, while the “new world order” is being built, the Bilderbergers coordinate the efforts of the European and American power elites.

Among the remaining questions is to which extent these organizations were deliberately the homes for conspiracy, and to which extent they were unwitting dupes. The probability is overwhelming that there were also individual members of these groups who were unaware of such secret conspiracies. Indeed, it belongs to the nature of such conspiracies that they operate behind and among innocent and unwitting individuals and organizations: they are not merely conspiracies, but covert conspiracies.

Skepticism about the Bilderberg Group can only be fueled by the fact that Stacy Abrams is listed as a member of the Group’s “steering committee.”

Also on the steering committee was Jack Sheinkman. He was a member of the Workmen’s Circle, a social organization whose membership was largely innocent. But within that organization was a group of leftist, pro-communist members. As the New York Times explains,

In an era when labor leaders were reluctant to defend leftist movements overseas, Mr. Sheinkman led labor’s opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to remove the leftist government of Nicaragua.

Daniel Ortega, supported by Jack Sheinkman, is now largely seen as someone who egregiously violates human rights. The New York Times reports that Ortega has an “increasingly brutal and repressive strategy to quell the opposition movement and has tightened his grip on his power.” Ortega “shut down a popular television station, jailed its news director and expelled international human rights observers.”

Jack Sheinkman was one of the people who enabled Daniel Ortega to become the dictator of Nicaragua. Jack Sheinkman was not only a part of the Bilderberg Group, but rather also a member of its steering committee.

The question about the Bilderberg Group, then, is not a simple “yes or no” question, rather a question about the extent to which the official organizers of the group are aware of the conspiratorial activity, and to which extent conspiracies were the purpose for the creation of the group.

Slavery in America: How It Started

The societies which inhabited North, Central, and South America prior to the arrival of Christopher Columbus can be measured both by their strengths and by their weaknesses.

Pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas made advances including agriculture, irrigation, metalwork, astronomical calendars, and architecture. Some of their building projects indicate a mastery of geometry.

But there were less appealing aspects to pre-Columbian cultures. They routinely committed human sacrifices; large numbers of healthy young people were killed to satisfy the spirits which these cultures imagined. Women had little to no legal standing; they could be physically captured and forced to marry the men who captured them; they could be bought and sold.

The societies in the Americas prior to 1492 practiced cannibalism. The two ideas — human sacrifice and cannibalism — were sometimes united in a single event. Historian Nathaniel Knowles writes:

Cannibalism apparently invariably accompanied torture among all Iroquois speaking people. It was also most important to eat at solemn feasts the flesh of the woman sacrificed to the war god.

Centuries before any European contact, the natives of South America used cocaine for both medicinal and recreational purposes. While the medicinal applications were beneficial, the recreational usage brought about many of the usual problems of addiction. Some of the communities fell into neglect as their residents made imprudent decisions under the influence of the drug. The warriors of these societies often consumed cocaine prior to battle, which energizes the user even as it impedes rational decision making. The natives obtained cocaine by chewing the leaves of the coca plant, sometimes mixing coca leaves with tobacco leaves.

The Native Americans (“Indians”) also used peyote. While cocaine is a stimulant, peyote contains a psychoactive drug. It alters the user’s perceptions of sights and sounds.

The use of cocaine, peyote, and other drugs slowed the improvement of civilization.

Diplomatic relations between tribes were often uneasy. Warfare between tribes was ubiquitous. Given both constant armed conflict and an inability to unite politically, the isolated tribes devoted large amounts of energy and resources to military activity, with little left for refining civilization. Population levels failed to grow and social structures developed little.

“Slavery between tribes existed before the coming of Europeans,” writes David Treuer in the Los Angeles Times.

Involuntary servitude was deeply ingrained in the pre-Columbian societies of North, Central, and South America. It pervaded cultures from the Arctic Circle to the southern tip of South America.

“Slavery was practiced by the Native Americans before any Europeans arrived in the region. People of one tribe could be taken by another,” agrees historian Joshua Mark.

By the time Columbus set foot on Hispaniola, millennia of bondage had shaped the societies of the Americas.

“Europeans did not introduce slavery to this continent,” writes Rebecca Onion. “The Native groups in the land that later became the United States and Canada practiced slavery before Europeans arrived.”

These many defects of pre-Columbian American cultures were connected. The natives who practiced one of them also practiced others. These social flaws encouraged each other in a vicious circle.

“The pre-Columbian world was a place where slavery, trafficking, sexual exploitation, oppression, and even genocide was commonplace prior to any European contact,” writes David Barton. He gives an example:

Take briefly for instance, the Carib tribes who had widespread institutions of perpetual slavery, captive mutilation, and even villages dedicated to the sexual exploitation of captured Taino women forced to produced children which their masters then ate.

Archeologists and scholars continue to unearth more evidence of social problems which the original Americans inflicted upon each other.

In an NPR radio interview, University of California Professor Andres Resendez said:

What we do know is that there is plenty of archaeological and pictorial evidence, as well as some of the early chronicles of the New World depict the enslavement of natives prior to the arrival of Europeans. In the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, Iroquois peoples waged wars on neighboring groups for the purpose of avenging their dead and replacing them with captives. In the Pacific Northwest, elite marriages were often sealed by providing slaves. So we know that these activities went on.

After thousands of years of slavery, the arrival of Columbus in 1492 and the subsequent European presence in the Americas marked the beginning of change. By November 1542, European governments were beginning to enact laws to eliminate slavery. By 1652, abolishist Roger Williams led the legislature of Rhode Island to illegalize slavery. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and by 1865 slavery had been eliminated in the United States.

Other countries, inspired by the United States, also abolished slavery. By 1888, there was no more slavery in the Americas. The last country to abolish slavery in the Americas was Brazil, 23 years after the U.S. had done so.

After more than 5,000 of institutionalized slavery in the Americas, it took less than 500 years for the effects of European contact to erase slavery from the Western Hemisphere.

Ending a Decade of Diplomatic Stalemate: Applying Maximum Pressure to North Korea

Since 1945, North Korea has been under the repressive regime of a three-generation hereditary dictatorship. In succession, the grandfather, the father, and the son have oppressed the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The name of the country is unintentionally ironic: the government is not democratic, it’s not chosen by the people, and it’s not a republic.

Kim Il-sung was placed into power by the Soviet Union, which obtained the northern half of the Korean peninsula in a post-WW2 agreement. The USSR wrote the constitution for North Korea and created the structure of the state, which was officially codified as the DPRK in 1948. Kim Il-sung led the provisional government from 1945 until 1948, and then led the DPRK from 1948 until his death in 1994.

In 1994, Kim Jong-il became the leader of North Korea, inheriting the power from his father.

By 2006, the DPRK had developed a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, and the growth of that program was significant and troubling. World leaders were divided on how to deal with this situation. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense at the time, advocated placing significant economic pressure on North Korea. But Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, argued for continued purely diplomatic talks, without concrete actions. Rumsfeld recalls:

Instead of offering inducements of financial aid and heating oil, I thought there might be a remote possibility that if we put enough diplomatic and financial pressure on the country, some of its senior generals might overthrow Kim Jong Il. By 2006, Rice and the State Department envoy to North Korea, Christopher Hill, made clear that North Korea was the State Department’s issue alone, and that the views of the Defense Department would carry little weight. Rice and Hill seemed to believe they could obtain an agreement with North Korea to end its WMD programs. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless, a veteran expert on the region with years in the CIA, was no longer included in discussions.

So it was that talks continued, but no concrete actions were taken to make the DPRK feel the consequences of its bad behavior. In fact, after 2008, some of the few economic sanctions which had been enacted against North Korea were relaxed.

Kim Jong-il died in 2011, and his son, Kim Jong-un became the DPRK’s dictator.

From the time North Korea achieved nuclear weapon capability in 2006, a decade has passed. During those years, the DPRK continually conducted weapons tests: either exploding a nuclear warhead, or launching a long-range missile. These tests were not primarily “tests” in the sense of determining whether the technology would function correctly. These “tests” were threats to other nations: a belligerent saber-rattling exercise.

These tests became more and more dangerous, and the world’s diplomats, organized as NATO, the UN, the G7, the G20, and the Six-Party Talks, hoped to persuade North Korea to abandon the continuous testing.

While various nations, in the organizations listed above, or in other ad hoc organizations, or individually, were persistent in their efforts to dissuade the DPRK from its bullying behavior, they were also ineffective in those efforts. North Korea was not influenced by words. Diplomacy was futile. The nations of the world would need a different approach if the DPRK’s warmongering was to be moderated.

From January 2017 to December 2018, Nikki Haley was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. During that time, she would be instrumental in developing and applying a new strategy. This “maximum pressure” strategy would employ more than words. The collected nations of the world would inflict economic pain on North Korea. The pain would be presented as a consequence of the DPRK’s belligerence, and the pain would be removed when the warlike behavior stopped.

Various nations would impose financial penalties on North Korea as a consequence of its weapons development and weapons testing programs. These penalties — called “sanctions” in diplomatic jargon — would make life uncomfortable for the ruling elite in the DPRK, as Nikki Haley explains:

At the center of the pressure campaign was sanctioning the North Korean regime — making Kim Jong Un and the ruling elite “bleed” until they finally agreed to serious, unconditional negotiations that would ultimately eliminate their nuclear weapons. After the North Koreans launched their first ICBM capable of reaching the United States on July 4, we began to work at the United Nations on the first of what would be three sanctions packages.

Nikki Haley presented the “maximum pressure” approach to the UN Security Council. “When I took to the Security Council chamber to announce our new, more aggressive approach,” she recalls, the torture and murdered carried out by the DPRK was “very much on my mind.” Statistics reveal the millions of people arrested, beaten, imprisoned, and executed by the North Korean government. A single case can give a human face to impersonal numbers: she spoke to the UN in July 2017, only a few weeks after an American college student named Otto Warmbier died as a result of the physical abuse he’d received from the DPRK. Warmbier had been touring North Korea as part of a study trip to several east Asian countries.

The North Korean government had arrested and detained Otto Warmbier for allegedly taking a poster off the wall in his hotel. Whether he in fact took the poster is unclear. What is clear is that the DPRK organized a trial — dictatorships tend to present “show trials” or “mock trials” in “kangaroo courts,” events with no legal legitimacy, but which serve as a pretext for imprisoning and killing anyone who displeases the dictatorship. Warmbier was declared guilty after this meaningless trial. The court sentenced him to fifteen years of hard labor, but less than two years after his conviction, he was released to the U.S. government. He was in a coma, and had been for some time. In June 1017 he was flown back to the U.S., where he died only a few days after landing.

Nikki Haley alluded to Otto Warmbier in her speech at the U.N.; she spoke to those present in the assembly, but she was aware of the larger audience as excerpts of the speech would be televised:

I spoke directly to the American people about the unique evil of the North Korean regime.

“Americans had seen how barbarous the North Koreans treated” a college student who had deserved no such treatment. It was a crystalizing incident, and Warmbier gave a human face to those millions of people who’d been tortured and killed. Brutality on an individual level was indicative of brutality on a massive scale: why would the world allow North Korean to continue to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Nikki Haley writes about the case of Otto Warmbier:

It was a sign to all of us that the Kim regime was capable of barbaric acts on a much larger scale.

The DPRK’s profile among the world’s nations was, and is, shaped by two factors: its relentless drive to build a significant WMD arsenal, and its brutality toward both its own citizens and other individuals.

After a decade of diplomatic stalemate from 2006, when North Korea had its first fully operational nuclear weapon, to 2016, when Nikki Haley was nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a new tactic was implemented. The “maximum pressure” campaign did not rely on words alone, but on real-world economic measures which affected the daily functioning of Kim Jong-un and his dictatorship.

After Haley was confirmed and took office in early 2017, and after the implementation of the maximum pressure strategy, some detectable progress was made: North Korea dramatically reduced both the number of nuclear weapons tests and the number of long-range missile tests. After dozens of missile tests in 2017, the DPRK performed none in 2018.

North Korea exploded atomic bombs in 2016 and 2017; it exploded none in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.

In addition to a significant reduction in weapons activity, diplomatic progress was made in the first-ever summit meetings between a member of the Kim dynasty and a U.S. president. Summit meetings occured in Singapore in June 2018, in Hanoi in February 2019, and in the DMZ in April 2019. The DMZ is the demilitarized zone, a strip of land along the border between North Korea and South Korea.

The actions taken by the world’s nations, acting together, prompted by the U.S. policy of maximum pressure as presented by Nikki Haley, made a measurable and quantifiable difference.

In 2022, however, the DPRK resumed both missile tests and nuclear weapons tests. This was apparently in response to a perceived laxness which had crept into the implementation of the maximum pressure strategy.

Roman Military Success: Strategy, Not Tactics

Around 27 B.C., the Roman Empire replaced the Roman Republic. The republic had already begun an era of amazing expansion, growing from the city-state of Rome, to much of the Italian peninsula, to other parts of Europe, to North Africa, to the British Isles, and to the Ancient Near East.

Indeed, one of the factors in the morphing of the republic into an empire was the need for a new form of government which could manage this large and growing territory. The republic was a type of government best suited to a city-state which had a modest amount of surrounding land under its rule. A large, multi-continental required a different governmental structure.

Although not as sharply distinguished as in the twenty-first century United States, it can still be said that in the Roman Empire there was some distinction between the civilian government and the military. To be sure, that distinction was at times blurred, as in the case of the civil wars between 49 B.C. and 27 B.C. which led up to the end of the republic and the beginning of the empire.

The Roman military featured private armies which owed their primary allegiance to their commanding generals, and not to the nation or government.

While the military devoted attention to tactics — the different types of weapons and how they were used, various formations of soldiers in combat, etc. — historian Edward Luttwak argues that it was not tactics, but rather strategy, which primarily shaped the Roman armies and which led to their victories and defeats.

Luttwak writes that the successes of the Roman military were achieved, not because of their tactics, but rather despite their tactics:

Had the strength of the Roman Empire derived from a tactical superiority on the battlefield, from superior generalship, or from a more advanced weapons technology, there would be little to explain, though much to describe. But this was not so. Roman tactics were almost invariably sound but not distinctly superior, and the Roman soldier of the imperial period was not noted for his élan. He was not a warrior intent on proving his manhood but a long-service professional pursuing a career; his goal and reward was not a hero’s death but a severance grant upon retirement. Roman weapons, far from being universally more advanced, were frequently inferior to those used by the enemies whom the empire defeated with such great regularity. Nor could the secular survival of the empire have been ensured by a fortunate succession of great feats of generalship: the Roman army had a multitude of competent soldiers and a few famous generals, but its strength derived from method, not from fortuitous talent.

Over time, there were shifts in emphases: At some times, the Romans looked more toward fortifications — walls, watchtowers, fortresses — to solidify the borders; at other times there was less emphasis on such structures, and more emphasis on keeping mobile groups of soldiers ready to move into regions of sudden or unexpected conflict. Likewise, there were variations between times in which the army was composed mainly of Romans, and other times in which many of the soldiers were mercenaries, foreigners, or both.

Changes in the priorities of the civilian government led to changes, Luttwak asserts, in the strategies employed by the military:

Three distinct methods of imperial security can be identified over the period. Each combined diplomacy military forces, road networks, and fortifications to serve a single objective, functioning therefore as a system up to a point, albeit with local variations, interruptions, and exceptions. But each addressed a distinct set of priorities, themselves the reflection of evolving conceptions of empire: hegemonic expansionism for the first system; territorial security for the second; and finally, in diminished circumstances, sheer survival for the imperial power itself. Each system was based on a different combination of diplomacy, direct force, and fixed infrastructure, and each entailed different operational methods, but more fundamentally, each system reflected a different Roman world view and self-image.

This tripartite division of the imperial era can be illustrated with examples. The first, expansive, phase is seen in, e.g., the conquest of Gaul, or the invasion and occupation of the southern half of Great Britain. The second phase, securing the borders, led to the construction of structures like the limes between the Rhine and the Danube, or the construction of Hadrian’s Wall between England and Scotland. The final phase, during the gradual contraction of the empire, included defensive fighting against Germanic tribes, Huns, and Persians.

While the five centuries of imperial military activity make for a rich and complex narrative, Edward Luttwak’s identification of these three stages creates a useful larger framework for understanding both the military history of the Roman Empire, as well as the interrelations between the civilian and military histories.

Understanding Saudi Society: The Role of Women

An anonymous woman, publishing her story anonymously, gives keen insight into the lives of women in Saudi Arabia. Publishing under the name Sultana, this woman worked with author Jean Sasson to present powerful but painful information about the daily lives of Saudi women.

As someone whose family has lived in Arabia for centuries, she can give an authentic insider view of her experience, and the experiences of her sisters, cousins, and friends. She presents evidence which makes it clear that Saudi women are utterly controlled, first by their fathers, and ten later by their husbands. She writes:

This absolute control over the female has nothing to do with love, only with fear of the male’s tarnished honor.

For readers in other societies — Europe, Australia, the Americas, etc. — she offers data which are shocking and counterintuitive. Saudi men are legally allowed to kill their wives or daughters if those women have done something which the men consider to be dishonorable. The Saudi man is prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner — all in one. There is no defender.

The authority of a Saudi male is unlimited; his wife and children survive only if he desires. In our homes, he is the state. This complex situation begins with the rearing of our young boys. From an early age, the male child is taught that women are of little value: They exist only for his comfort and convenience. The child witnesses the disdain shown his mother and sisters by his father; this open contempt leads to his scorn of all females, and makes it impossible for him to enjoy friendship with anyone of the opposite sex. Taught only the role of master to slave, it is little wonder that by the time he is old enough to take a mate, he considers her his chattel, not his partner.

Women are considered as property, a notion which settles comfortably in the minds of Saudis, who didn’t abolish slavery until 1962, and whose current system of permanent servitude for foreign born domestic workers differs little from slavery.

The double standard is clearly enshrined in Saudi society: men are allowed as many wives as they want and adulterous relationships are permitted, as are the men’s visits to brothels.

On the other hand, women will suffer punishment or even death for merely speaking casually to any man who is not an immediate family member.

This dysfunctional society warps and distorts every human relationship, as our anonymous author explains:

And so it comes to be that women in my land are ignored by their fathers, scorned by their brothers, and abused by their husbands. This cycle is difficult to break, for the men who impose this life upon their women ensure their own marital unhappiness. For what man can be truly content surrounded by such misery? It is evident that the men of my land are searching for gratification by taking one wife after the other, followed by mistress after mistress. Little do these men know that their happiness can be found in their own home, with one woman of equality. By treating women as slaves, as property, men have made themselves as unhappy as the women they rule, and have made love and true companionship unattainable to both sexes.

Even the official paperwork of the Saudi government codifies the inferior status of women:

The history of our women is buried behind the black veil of secrecy. Neither our births nor our deaths are made official in any public record. Although births of male children are documented in family or tribal records, none are maintained anywhere for females. The common emotion expressed at the birth of a female is either sorrow or shame. Although hospital births and government record keeping are increasing, the majority of rural births take place at home. No country census is maintained by the government of Saudi Arabia.

Women in Saudi Arabia need written permission from a male relative to travel or get married. The police can, and do, arrest women for wearing skirts which expose their calves.

It is difficult for readers in the ‘Western World’ to imagine the oppression under which Saudi women live. Even walking from home to a small shop a few blocks away is forbidden unless the girl or woman making this trip is accompanied by a male family member.

The publication of these experiences by Jean Sasson and the anonymous ‘Sultana’ has truly revolutionized the West’s understanding of Saudi Arabia.

Madagascar: Surprisingly Important

Most people have trouble finding Madagascar on a map. (Hint: it’s an island off the eastern coast of Africa.) If they’ve heard of Madagascar at all, it’s in conjunction with an animated film for children. But this French colony played at least one major role in World History.

In the early phases of WW2, Germany had invaded most of France. The parts of France not directly controlled by the German army were controlled by the French collaborationist government — called the ‘Vichy’ government, named after its capital city — which complied to Nazi demands and wishes. France’s colonial empire therefore also fell indirectly through the Vichy bureaucracy into Axis hands, from Algiers to Vietnam. Part of that empire was Madagascar.

The Vichy government managed most of the imperial territories and colonies, but was careful to do so in a way pleasing to the Axis.

The Free French government was a government-in-exile, headed by Charles de Gaulle, and located largely in England. It was the legitimate authority over France, but unable to directly manage events in France, or in most of the empire, during the time between mid-1940 until late 1942. After that time, it slowly began to assume meaningful authority over small bits of the empire as they were liberated by the Allies. The Free French government had its own military, which fought in concert with the Allies.

Historian Richard Overy describes the beginning of the Allied effort to free Madagascar from the Vichy regime, i.e., from Axis control:

Late in March 1942 a small convoy of ships steamed south from the Clyde estuary in Scotland destined for the invasion of French territory. Convoy WS17 carried two thousand Royal Marines and a wide assortment of naval and military supplies. The ships were a motley collection, small armed escort vessels swaying side by side with smart passenger liners crudely converted to the dull costume of war. Mercifully unattended by submarines, the convoy plowed on, past the continent of Europe, past the Azores and on into the South Atlantic. On 19 April the convoy arrived in Cape Town where it met up with the rest of the invasion fleet, the aircraft carriers Indomitable and Illustrious, an aging battleship and two cruisers. The 34 ships left for Durban, on the east coast of South Africa. In the last week of April they sailed in two separate groups to take part in Operation ‘Ironclad,’ the invasion of Madagascar.

The history of WW2 includes many invasions: The Axis powers invaded Poland, France, Belgium, and other countries. The Japanese invaded China, the Philippines, French Indochina, and islands around the Pacific. In reply, the Allies invaded and liberated the nations of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France in the European theater, and likewise carried out liberating invasions of the Philippines and other islands.

The liberation of Madagascar was one of the very first Allied invasions, and was the first amphibious invasion carried out by the Allies. As such, it set the stage, and provided important experience, for other later amphibious invasions. The concept of amphibious invasion was relatively new, having played little or no role in WW1, and was a pivotal factor in the ultimate Allied victory. The invasion of Madagascar was, therefore, a groundbreaking moment in military history.

At first, Madagascar might seem like an odd choice of target. France, Italy, North Africa, or the Philippines are more obvious goals. But Madagascar had a strategic importance. The Japanese, having secured the South China Sea, were eyeing the major shipping routes through the Indian Ocean. Madagascar, on the western edge of the Indian Ocean and on the eastern edge of Africa, would have been a good staging and refueling station for the Japanese, who would have good reason therefore to occupy the island.

The mission of convoy WS17 was to liberate Madagascar from Vichy control and from Axis control, and to prevent a Japanese occupation there, as Richard Overy explains:

Their destination was the northernmost tip of the island, Cap d’Ambre, which was almost separated from the rest by a deep inlet that formed the natural harbor of Diego Suarez. This large sheltered anchorage was used by the French as a naval base. It was overlooked by the small port of Antsirane, where the French garrison and a handful of aircraft were stationed. This colonial backwater might well have remained untouched by the war save for the threat from Japan. Following the rapid Japanese conquest of southeast Asia and the East Indies it was feared that Japanese forces would fan out into the Indian Ocean, seizing Ceylon or Madagascar in order to cut the vital shipping lines that sustained Britain’s fragile war effort in the Middle East and India. Madagascar suddenly became the key to British survival, and Churchill signaled his strong approval of its occupation.

The amphibious landing was a new tactic. Few military leaders anywhere had experience in such operations. Operation Ironclad was a test of whether such a technique was possible or practical. The outcome was uncertain, but the threat of Japanese submarines being resupplied and refueled so close to the European theater required the attempt. Richard Overy details the difficulties:

Ironclad was a tricky operation. The island was protected in the north by natural fortifications of shoal and reef. The harbor itself was dominated by large naval guns set in coastal fortresses, and its long winding entrance was easy to defend. Armed with the element of surprise, the task force was detailed to land on the undefended western coast and attack the port from the rear. D-Day was fixed for 5 May — every operation had D-Day and H-Hour to signal its beginning — and the flotilla arrived punctually off the coast at two in the morning. Minesweepers marked a channel through the treacherous waters and the small transport vessels gingerly steered past the buoys to reach the undefended beaches of Courrier and Ambararata bays. Three mines exploded in the approach but no one on shore noticed. The landings were carried out unopposed, for the French regarded the western shore as unnavigable. Not until the marines had advanced 3 miles towards the port did they suddenly meet stiff resistance. Any hope that the defenders might come over to the Allied cause evaporated. For most of the following day the British were pinned down with heavy casualties. The operation was rescued from disaster only by an act of desperation. The destroyer Anthony was sent with fifty marines aboard to run the gauntlet of the harbor guns and seize the port under the noses of the French forces. In darkness and in swirling seas Anthony rose to the occasion; the marines were disembarked on the jetty and seized the naval depot and the commanding general’s house. Attacked from the rear the startled garrison began to crumble. By 3 a.m. on 7 May resistance was almost over. The port was surrendered. A brief naval bombardment the following morning silenced the harbor guns.

Operation Ironclad was a success, but only barely. Although the port and harbor at the northern end of the island had surrendered, the remainder of Madagascar, heading south overland, had to be liberated over the next six months.

The invasion of Madagascar proved that the Allies could complete an amphibious invasion, but it also revealed that the Allies were far from being ready to do such a landing on a large scale or against serious opposition. The Vichy army which resisted the liberation of Madagascar was an amateurish outfit compared to the Japanese army which would oppose any liberation of the Philippines, or compared to the Axis troops who would put up a fight against any Allied liberation of Italy, France, Sicily, or North Africa.

The Allies had managed to prove that they could do an amphibious invasion, but it was clear that they had a long way to go before they would be ready for a bigger version of such a liberation.

Richard Overy examines the record of Operation Ironclad:

The seizure of Diego Suarez effectively forestalled the Japanese. It was the first successful amphibious assault of the war for the Allies, and the first genuinely combined operation, using aircraft, ships, and soldiers working together. It came at a dark time in the war for the Allied cause and was, Churchill later recalled, the only bright spot in Britain’s war effort ‘for long months.’ But it was small comfort. The whole operation had come close to disaster. The ships supporting it had almost run out of fuel and water by 7 May; casualties were surprisingly heavy, 107 killed and 280 wounded, some 20 percent of the attacking force; and contrary to expectations the French governor of the island not only refused to surrender but continued hostilities. The doughty Monsieur Masset retreated south with his forces leaving behind a trail of blown bridges and booby-trapped roads. He survived the fall of his capital in September. South African forces, depleted by illness and plagued by clouds of dry red dust, finally cornered the remnant of the French army in the very south of the island. Here the governor solemnly surrendered on 5 November, exactly six months and one minute after the onset of hostilities in May. Under French law the island’s defenders were now entitled to higher pay and awards for enduring more than half a year of combat.

Looking at the operation in the macro-context of WW2, historian Hubert Deschamps notes:

World War II brought economic crisis with the cessation of exports. The island declared for the Vichy government in 1940, and to prevent its invasion by the Japanese it was occupied in 1942 by the British, who handed it over to the Free French authorities in 1943. It had been considerably distrubed by these events.

Operation Ironclad not only had a military value, but also had a value related to morale on the home front. It was one of the few victories during the early part of the war to which the Allies could point. It gave credibility to the Allied cause.

This would become even more so, for shortly after the liberation of Madagascar, the infamous Raid on Dieppe worked against Allied morale. While some military and political leaders considered the Dieppe Raid, named Operation Jubilee, a success, it didn’t seem that way to the general public. Historians continue to debate the value of the Raid on Dieppe, but at the time, the victory at Madagascar was much-needed to maintain morale, as Richard Overy writes:

It would be unkind to argue that Ironclad was the best the Allies could do in the summer of 1942, but it was not far short. For all those critics of British policy, then and since, the invasion of Madagascar is a salutary reminder of just how slender were British resources in 1942, and how inexperienced were its forces for a major amphibious assault of the kind that Stalin urged against German-held Europe. The British Chiefs-of-Staff were even hostile to an operation as modest as Ironclad because of the disruption to shipping. As it was, the Royal Naval task force at Gibraltar had to be severely depleted to support the Madagascar invasion. If the Japanese navy had chosen to intervene, Britain could have done little to obstruct it, and the whole operation would have produced a strategic nightmare. How much greater were the risks and costs of a cross-Channel assault against a strongly defended coastline with limited resources. When later in the year a substantial raid was mounted on Dieppe by Canadian forces stationed in Britain the outcome was disastrous. Until the landings in North Africa later in the year, the invasion of Madagascar remained the one solid victory for the Allied cause, and it was fought not against hardened soldiers of the Axis but against an assortment of French colonial troops who had started the war as Britain’s allies and had little stomach for conflict.

The Allied military experienced a direct line of development, planning, and maturation from the invasion of Madagascar in May 1942 to the invasion of Normandy in June 1944. Operation Ironclad was a fragile and small version of Operation Overlord; the former was the ancestor of the latter.

Richard Overy conceptualizes the weakness but ultimate success of Operation Ironclad:

The western Allies knew that at some point they would have to invade Europe and face their most dangerous enemy. But in the summer of 1942 they were not even sure they could save themselves against the onrush of Japan in the Pacific and Axis forces in North Africa. The choice of Madagascar was an admission of weakness, not strength. Ironclad disrupted the war effort elsewhere but was ultimately successful. The invasion of France in 1942 was operationally impossible. It took another two years before the secretive, hazardous assault on the beaches of Cap d’Ambre was writ large in Normandy.

The narrative of Madagascar’s liberation is not often featured in major histories of WW2, but in context, it represents an important step in the growth and coming-of-age for the Allied military.

The liberation of Madagascar was an indispensable step on the road to the liberation of Paris.

Is a Peaceful North Korea Possible?

As a country, belligerence seems innate to North Korea. The nation was created by the USSR, shaped by the harshest versions of Stalinism, and responsible for starting the Korean War with a surprise attack on South Korea. Millions of people died in that war. North Korea, which was founded in 1945 by the Soviets and ruled by their chosen dictator Kim Il-sung, formally became the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1948.

The DPRK has been identified by global organizations — the UN, NATO, SEATO, the G7, the G20, and others — for its brutal inhumanity. It arrests, beats, imprisons, tortures, and murders its citizens for offenses like possessing certain books or failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic about the regime. That regime started with Kim Il-sung in 1945, was inherited by Kim Jong-il in 1994, and inherited by Kim Jong-un in 2011: a hereditary dynasty of dictators.

Recalling the North Korean situation as it stood during the first decade of the new millennium — the decade in which the DPRK realized its dream of obtaining functioning nuclear weapons — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote:

As long as Kim Jong Il was in power, I thought we had little prospect of inducing his regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Every day Kim and his officials focused on ways to consolidate and protect their dictatorship. Their disastrous policies spawned famine, torture, and oppression. The inhumane leadership of North Korea seemed to believe that the surest hold on power was the pursuit of weapons programs.

North Korea has long isolated itself from nearly every nation on earth. Its original allies — the USSR and Mao’s PRC — developed in ways which drew them away from the DPRK. The Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, abandoning its doctrinaire Marxist ideology. China tweaked its definition of communism in ways which made it less similar to North Korea. So the DPRK has no true allies. But it does retain at least working relationship with China.

So it is that diplomats from around the world look to China to communicate with North Korea. The global community hopes that China will be able to at least persuade the Kim dynasty to see reality. It is probable that the Chinese hierarchy sees the DPRK as a problem, and sees the leadership of the DPRK as unrealistic. Certainly, it would make life easier for China if the North Koreans were at least a bit rational.

At the same time, however, China does not want to be triangulated into the role of being the spokesman for the world community. China will not simply present the world’s demands to North Korea, and thereby become simply a messenger. So this is the tension: China wants the DPRK to improve its behavior, but it does not want to be seen as falling in line with the consensus of the globe’s nations, as Don Rumsfeld writes:

I thought it worthwhile to try to get China to work diplomatically to persuade North Korea to change its nuclear weapons policy, based on the view that our countries had a shared interest in keeping the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, China seemed more interested in blocking U.S. efforts against North Korea than in keeping the Korean peninsula nuclear weapons-free. The outcome the Chinese seemed to fear most was a collapse of their neighbor. Then they would be forced to deal with refugees and a failed Korean state on their border. As long as Kim Jong Il had China as a patron of sorts, I was not optimistic that negotiations with North Korea involving the Chinese, known as the six-party talks, would succeed.

So, during the first decade of the new millennium, the team which hoped to confront and reform the DPRK — the team which included the UN, NATO, SEATO, the G7, the G20, the Six Party Talks, and others — did not always receive much help from China.

Regarding China’s stance, Don Rumsfeld wrote:

China may one day regret its position if Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan decides to pursue nuclear weapons to counter the North Korean threat.

Moving from the first decade of the new millennium to the second decade of the new millennium, the global community adjusted its approach to the DPRK. Where words had failed, actions would have an impact.

But the perennial question facing the diplomat is this: If one seeks to employ actions instead of words, how does one avoid war? How do the agreed nations of the world take action against North Korea without starting a war?

Nikki Haley was the United States ambassador to the United Nations from January 2017 to December 2018. She was one of the leaders who helped to implement a new approach by the UN and the US:

The new policy came to be called the “maximum pressure” campaign. Part of the new policy was military preparedness. Although we were committed to finding a diplomatic solution, the president never took the possibility of military action off the table. We would deliver a devastating blow if North Korea used its missiles against the United States or our allies. And we made sure the North Koreans knew it.

The “maximum pressure” strategy included both military strength and economic leverage. A concerted enforcement of economic sanctions denied large amounts of income which North Korea would have otherwise received from its export of goods. The two factors — economic pressure and military muscle-flexing — did not replace, but rather joined, the diplomacy of the previous decades, as Nikki Haley writes:

We also exerted pressure through diplomacy, encouraging other nations to cut off political and trade ties with North Korea.

The new tactics had measurable effects: the number and frequency of nuclear weapons explosions and missile launches in North Korea declined detectably from 2017 to 2020.

North Korea and the United States held their first-ever summit-level talks, when Kim Jong-un met with President Trump on 12 June 2018 in Singapore. This was followed by two more summit meetings, in Hanoi in February 2019, and in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North Korea and South Korea on 30 June 2019.

Starting in early 2021, this trend reversed itself, and North Korea began increasing its dramatic public displays by detonating nuclear weapons and launching missiles.

Negotiating with North Korea: Words Are Never Enough

Since its inception — or, rather, because of the nature of its inception — North Korea has been seen both as a danger and as a violation of human rights by the nations of the world. All major global gatherings — the UN, NATO, SEATO, the G7, the G20, etc. — have not only issued statements condemning North Korea’s behavior, but also have undertaken economic sanctions as an effort to persuade North Korea to respect human dignity and to desist from belligerent actions.

North Korea was organized in 1945 as a Stalinist satellite state, an extension of the USSR, under the rule of dictator Kim Il-sung, chosen by the Soviets to run the puppet state for them. It formally became the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1948.

The DPRK represented the harshest form of Stalinism, and maintained this posture after the death of Stalin in 1953, and after the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. Identified as one of the most repressive regimes on earth, North Korea routinely arrests, beats, tortures, imprisons, and executes its citizens for the slightest offenses. People have been sentenced to decades in prison for merely possessing a Bible. Women have been forced into slavery.

The militaristic nature of the DPRK led to the surprise attack in 1950 on South Korea. The resulting Korean War caused the deaths of millions, and was a direct consequence of the actions of the Kim Il-sung regime. In 1994, he died, and his son Kim Jong-il inherited the role of dictator.

During the reign of Kim Jong-il, North Korea energetically pursued the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them to nations around the world. The DPRK wanted not only to bully South Korea, but rather also to bully any country on the globe.

The intelligence agencies of various nations soon discovered North Korea’s atomic weapons program. Diplomats used both the carrot — promised rewards for desisting from weapons development — and the stick — promised economic punishments for continued construction of nuclear weapons. Neither approach succeeded.

Eventually, the DPRK revealed its new weapons to the world. While the exact timing was a surprise, North Korea’s acquisition of atomic weapons had been an inevitability for some years.

One reason for the date of unveiling of the DPRK’s nuclear capabilities was the fact that the world’s attention had been elsewhere. Problems in Iraq and Syria dominated both diplomatic talk and the news media. Like his father and his son, Kim Jong-il didn’t like it when he wasn’t on the front pages of the world’s newspapers. At atomic explosion would quickly fix that.

In October 2006, Vice President Richard Cheney — better known as Dick Cheney — learned of North Korea’s surprise. He recalls:

In the fall of 2006, as violence in Iraq was still escalating, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, setting off an explosion at the Punggye test site some two hundred forty miles northeast of Pyongyang. When the blast was detected, it was Sunday evening, October 8, in Washington, D.C. The next morning President Bush went before the cameras in the Diplomatic Reception Room to condemn the test and issue a warning.

An atomic weapon “test” is not actually testing anything: the scientists know how it will work. It is a gesture designed to intimidate other nations.

President George W. Bush perceived that the DPRK posed two problems. First, its own nuclear arsenal. Second, its ability to sell nuclear weapons to rogue states and to terrorist groups. During a televised address, he said:

The North Korean regime remains one of the world’s leading proliferators of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria. The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action.

Bush’s concerns were justified. The DPRK wasted little time before it began selling nuclear technology to bad actors. Dick Cheney writes:

Six months later we received intelligence that a threat of this nature had materialized. I learned about it in detail one afternoon in mid-April 2007, in National Security Advisor Steve Hadley’s office. I was seated in one of Steve’s large blue wing chairs and he was to my left. Two Israeli officials were on the sofa to my right. Meir Dagan, director of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, pulled materials from his briefcase and spread them on the coffee table in front of us. For the next hour, Dagan showed us photos of a building in the Syrian desert at a place called al-Kibar. It was a nuclear test reactor.

Intelligence agencies were able to confirm that both supplies and expertise from North Korea were being used to start a nuclear weapons program in Syria. In September 2007, the Isreali military destroyed the site.

That was a significant setback to the Syrian atomic weapons program; indeed, possibly the end of that program. The site, also known as Dair Alzour, was investigated by United Nations officials, who confirmed the nature and purpose of the site.

While the Syrian threat was neutralized, the North Korean threat grew.

A decade later, the situation had not changed substantially. North Korea was still belligerent, threatening other nations. Its nuclear arsenal was larger, and it had developed missiles capable of traveling greater distances. In 2011, Kim Jong-un had become the dictator upon the death of his father, Kim Jong-il.

The world’s diplomats had shown that diplomacy would not affect the DPRK. Spoken and written words were largely meaningless coming from the North Koreans or going to them. The DPRK would agree to any terms and sign any agreement, even as it was violating the treaty it was signing.

An effective policy toward North Korea would consist of actions, not words.

In January 2017, Nikki Haley became the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. She recalls her assessment of the North Korean situation at that time:

The Trump administration’s approach to North Korea, more than any other country except Iran, represented a fundamental break from the past. For over twenty years, both Republican and Democratic presidents had tried various strategies to stop the regime’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. These strategies consisted mostly of trying to bribe Pyongyang into good behavior. What was worse, these bribes were not conditional. North Korea had to do nothing but promise to change its behavior in order to receive aid from the United States. Only after the regime had gotten what it wanted did the United States realize that their promises would not be kept.

As ambassador, Nikki Haley helped to enact economic measures against North Korea. Various nations, by refusing to accept goods exported from the DPRK, reduced North Korea’s import income by more than $1 billion dollars.

She also helped to coordinate a diplomatic framework allowing joint operations by the militaries of various nations. These operations were a show of force in direct response to DPRK missile launches.

Nikki Haley’s actions were part of the new approach to North Korea. Substantive actions made more of an impression on Kim Jong-un than diplomatic verbiage. She writes:

The Trump administration took a fundamentally different approach. The policy of “strategic patience” proclaimed by President Obama was over. We would no longer rely on a policy of appeasement to try to persuade the Kim regime to give up its nuclear program. U.S. presidents had been kicking the can down the road on North Korea for years. There was no longer any road to kick the can down.

When it became clear to Kim Jong-un that his actions would have consequences, and that those consequences would be more than mere words, he became amenable to change. Some historians mark 12 June 2018 as a turning point: on that date, the first meeting between Kim Jong-un and President Trump resulted in a significant decline in the number of missile tests conducted by the DPRK.

The Singapore summit was the first ever meeting between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader.

Kim Jong-un was convinced that, in contrast to the previous decades, there would now be advantages for the DPRK if it behaved more peacefully. Two more summit meetings followed, one in Hanoi in February 2019 and one on 30 June 2019 on the border between South Korea and North Korea.

North Korea is still a problem. Kim Jong-un is still a problem. But it has been shown that progress can be made if specific concrete actions are taken. In diplomatic relations with the DPRK, words alone will never be enough.

The Limits of Diplomacy: North Korea’s Disregard for Words

North Korea has been a constant concern for diplomats around the world almost from the very moment that the nation came into being in 1945. It was created by the Soviet Union, and was originally the northern part of the People’s Republic of Korea, a short-lived entity. It officially became the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1948. The Soviets were the sustaining economic factor in the founding of the nation and during the DPRK’s first years were the ultimate authority behind North Korean policies.

It was Joseph Stalin who authorized a request from Kim Il-sung to launch a surprise attack on South Korea in 1950. The North’s invasion of the South was the beginning of the Korean War. The DPRK’s belligerence has been constant since that time: although actual combat ceased in 1953, the North’s continual weapons buildup and militaristic rhetoric have left the nations of eastern Asia constantly wary.

Ironically, as the Soviet Union experienced occasional periods of relaxation in the post-Stalin era, including the rapprochement of detente in the 1970s and the perestroika and glasnost of Gorbachev in the 1980s, the DPRK became ever more harsh in its Stalinist tendencies.

The global diplomatic community, in the forms of SEATO, the UN, and NATO, have worked continuously to persuade North Korea to remain peaceful. Condoleezza Rice, who was at the time National Security Advisor, describes a moment in 2002 when it became clear that the efforts of various nations were not successful and that the DPRK was building a nuclear weapons program.

Colin Powell, who was at that time Secretary of State, had been working on a new version of a diplomatic strategy to pacify North Korea. But it was clear that the regime in Pyongyang, the DPRK’s capital, was unimpressed by anything which diplomacy might offer. There was no possibility of diplomacy persuading North Korea to move in the direction of peace.

On the contrary, the DPRK had formed a relationship with Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan’s speciality was helping nations build nuclear weapons. He worked primarily with Islamic nations, but was willing to work with the Kim dynasty as well. Khan was the favored source by both Muslim dictatorships and North Korea. His professional goal was to spread weapons of mass destruction among nations who opposed democracy and liberty.

Condoleezza Rice recalls a moment in 2002 when it was clear that the DPRK was simply ignoring all diplomatic efforts and proceeding to build atomic weapons:

Colin advocated a bold approach, as he called it, prescribing engagement through a series of step-by-step moves by each side. His hope was that they’d lead to a different (if somewhat vague) new relationship between the United States and North Korea. Then, as the preparations were under way, a bombshell dropped from the intelligence community. Incomplete but troubling reports linking North Korea to the A.Q. Khan network had emerged. Moreover, Pyongyang had been suspected of seeking the components for uranium enrichment around the globe. Very close to the first anniversary of September 11, John McLaughlin, the deputy director of the CIA, reported the Agency’s assessment that North Korea had built a “production-scale” facility for uranium enrichment. Whatever the status of the Agreed Framework in slowing the plutonium program, the North appeared to be pursuing a second means of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Diplomacy amounts to words — spoken words or written words — and diplomacy has achieved great things for the cause of peace. But in order for “the pen to be mightier than the sword,” in the famous words of Edward Bulwer-Lytton, at least a modicum of sincerity must be present on both sides of the negotiating table. North Korea is utterly cynical, and willing to say anything, sign anything, and agree to anything — and then do the very opposite.

In 2006, the DPRK revealed that it had successfully constructed nuclear weapons. In the following decade, it developed more and stronger weapons, as well as increasingly sophisticated long-range missiles capable of delivering those weapons to distant countries.

By 2017, the DPRK had built a substantial arsenal. Nikki Haley, who was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, writes:

In November, the North Korean regime launched an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting anywhere in the United States. With that, the Kim regime declared itself a nuclear power.

Kim Jong-un, who was now the leader of North Korea, and who had inherited power from his father, Kim Jong-il, and from his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, was in a position to threaten major nations.

Speaking with the North Koreans was useless. Signing treaties and agreements with them was useless. Words were meaningless. The other nations had to flex their military muscles in order to get the DPRK’s attention: Japan began increasing its military program and South Korea began to orchestrate military maneuvers as a public display of its ability to retaliate for any sneak attack by the North.

Ambassador Nikki Haley explains:

The North Koreans had openly stated that their missiles were intended to deliver nuclear weapons to strike cities in the United States, South Korea, and Japan. Now they unquestionably had the capacity to do so. It was as dangerous a situation as the United States had encountered in years. The air in Washington and New York was full of a constant, unsettling fear — that we were only one provocation away from a terrible conflict.

Together with Japan and South Korea, the United States demonstrated military preparedness. It showed that it was capable of returning maximum retaliation after any surprise attack by North Korea.

During the next few years after 2017, the DPRK did indeed reduce its threats to nearby nations — threats which were often delivered in the form of missile “tests.” These tests were not really tests — they were displays of power: a form of bullying.

But the reduction in the number of tests was mere cover. Secretly, North Korea continued to build more weapons.

North Korea has no allies, but it has at least a working relationship with China, more so than it has with any other nation. Even China, however, found it wise to put significant economic pressure on the DPRK.

The lesson is this: other nations must apply economic pressure and display military strength in order to obtain a meaningful change in the behavior of North Korea.

Greek Success and Greek Failure: How the Once-Mighty Greek Economy Fell

For several decades, observers have become accustomed to thinking of Greece as an economic catastrophe. The euro crisis, which started in 2009, highlighted this fact, but Greece’s economic stagnation had existed before that.

Because Greece has had this bad reputation since before the start of the new millennium, it can be difficult to recall that there was a time when the Greek economy was working well, as historian Aristides Hatzis writes:

Greece used to be considered something of a success story. One could even argue that Greece was a major success story for several decades. Greece’s average rate of growth for half a century (1929-1980) was 5.2 percent; during the same period Japan grew at only 4.9 percent.

The prosperity during those years is even more significant if one recalls that the time segment in question includes WW2 and several domestic power struggles among Greek politicians.

What were the causes of Greek prosperity? The fact that few industries were owned or operated by the government; a low national debt; government spending was a small percentage of GDP; and a low level of business regulation.

These principles led Greece into economic success.

Greece’s decline began with the reversal of these principles.

The Greek government took ownership of various businesses; borrowed large amounts of money; spend a large percentage of GDP; and regulated industries and financial transactions.

The history of Greece took an about-face in a distinct manner. Nearly every policy trend was turned into its opposite, as Aristides Hatzis explains:

Modern Greece has become a symbol of economic and political bankruptcy, a natural experiment in institutional failure. It’s not easy for a single country to serve as a textbook example of so many institutional deficiencies, rigidities, and distortions, yet the Greek government has managed it. The case of Greece is a precautionary tale for all others.

Greece was once welcomed happily into the European Union — or the “European Community” as it was called back then. But by the first decade of the new millennium, the EU saw Greece primarily as a problem to be solved: a problem which was the result of government intervention which greatly harmed the freedom of the marketplace.