June 9, 2018 - No. 22

The G7 Does Not Represent Us!

June 7 Unity March in Quebec City


NORAD's Presence at G7
Citizens of La Malbaie Say NO! to G7

The Irrationality of Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
Failure of G7 Seen in International Trade Agenda
- K.C. Adams -

Opposition to Trudeau Government's Bailout of Kinder Morgan
National Day of Action at MPs' Constituency Offices

Canada's Warmongering Participation in NATO War Exercises
Make Canada a Zone for Peace
- Yi Nicholls -

48th General Assembly of Organization of American States
U.S. Fails Again in Attempt to Suspend Venezuela

18th Anniversary of June 15 North-South Joint Declaration
Conferences for Peace on the Korean Peninsula
DPRK's Northern Nuclear Test Site Dismantled
Statement of Unity by Korean Americans and Allies
on Historic Inter-Korean Summit and Upcoming U.S.-DPRK Summit

74th Anniversary of D-Day
The Landing at Normandy
- Hilary LeBlanc -
Normandy Landing and the Re-Writing of History
- François Lazure -

The G7 Does Not Represent Us!

June 7 Unity March in Quebec City

The evening of June 7 on the eve of the G7 Summit in La Malbaie, several hundred people took to the streets of Quebec City to firmly declare that the G7 does not represent us. The action was organized by the Anti-G7 Resistance Network, the Regroupement d'éducation populaire en action communautaire des regions de Québec et Chaudière-Appalaches (RÉPAC), the Comité populaire Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Eau Secours and Ni Québec, ni Canada: projet anticolonial. These community groups defend the most vulnerable from the anti-social austerity agenda, including people on welfare and the working poor; defend immigrants and refugees, demanding legal status for all and opposing deportations; fight for social housing, the environment and stand with Indigenous peoples.

The theme running through all the interventions and the demonstration was that the G7 does not represent us; it represents capitalism and its most oppressive, colonialist and militarist features, under the cover of pretty phrases. "With the G7, the militarists speak of peace, the misogynists speak of women's equality, and the capitalists speak of the environment," said a representative of the Anti-G7 Resistance Network.

The RÉPAC representative said that this action brought together people from all walks of life, active on various fronts, who came to deliver a message of unity against the G7. She said that people are refusing to gather in what the ruling elite and its police forces have decreed the "free expression" space, a fenced-in area at La Malbaie. She said that people are going to protest in the streets, in full view of everyone.

An Innu activist then welcomed everyone to what she said are Innu, Algonquin, Cree, Atikamekw and other lands known as Quebec. She said the G7 is pursuing the colonialist and genocidal undertaking against Indigenous peoples that has been ongoing since colonization. She specifically denounced the "strategy of extinguishing Aboriginal hereditary rights and Aboriginal title" that is being pursued today. She said that from missionary times, to Indian reserves, to today's reconciliation, it is the goals of the colonizers that are served, to the detriment of Indigenous peoples' hereditary and treaty rights and at the expense of Mother Earth. She denounced the efforts of the G7 countries to take over even more Indigenous territories by buying off Indigenous leaders and making them believe that First Nations' place is at the table, while their peoples' rights are being suppressed.

A representative of the Anti-G7 Resistance Network dealt briefly with the five themes proposed by the Trudeau government for the G7 Summit, highlighting the blatant contradiction between the nice sounding phrases and what is actually going on. With respect to the Trudeau government's claim that the G7 is "building a more peaceful and secure world," he pointed out that people in their millions are being forced out of their homes and countries by the wars in which the G7 countries are involved and then deprived of rights when the G7 countries receive them as refugees and immigrants. He denounced the arms sales by G7 countries around the world as a way of making private investments secure.

Other speakers also addressed how the G7 does not represent us.

Participants then marched through the very busy streets of downtown Quebec City. Passers-by waved in support of the action while some people on their balconies banged pots and pans, a reminder of the students' militant struggle in 2012. At one point, in front of a federal government building, federal public servants, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, walked out with their flags and signs in support of the demonstrators. For about an hour and a half, the marchers chanted slogans against the G7, capitalism and colonialism, the omnipresent police deployment in the city, deportations and other attacks on the people and called for status for all.

Police were everywhere, heavily armed and in full riot gear, often with dogs, looking like the Robocop of U.S. movies. Some followed the protesters while others were stationed in front of official buildings. At least three arrests were made during the protest, according to media reports the following day for "uttering threats," although what the protesters saw with their own eyes were young people being kidnapped from the demonstration, grabbed by the police and forced into police cars. The protesters vigorously denounced the arrests but made sure they stayed together as a group and continued the march.

(Photos: I. Lévesque, l'activiste, R.M. Mehreen)

Haut de


NORAD's Presence at G7

Radio-Canada announced June 3 that NORAD had set up two temporary military camps to carry out radar aerial surveillance. One camp is located at Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies and the other in Saint-André-de-Kamouraska. Saint-André-de-Kamouraska Mayor Gervais Darais had this to say about the military: "They do not identify themselves, they have had no contact with the municipality. The only contact we had with them was last March, when they asked us to open up the seasonal road leading to the site."

The mayor of Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies said that around a dozen U.S. and Canadian soldiers have been deployed to the community. The municipality rented land to the military for $1,000 per day.

Both municipalities are located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River.

(Radio Canada)

Haut de


Citizens of La Malbaie Say NO! to G7

La Malbaie area community groups, including Centre-Femmes aux Plurielles and Groupe Action Jeunesse de Charlevoix, organized a march June 3 to oppose the holding of the G7 Summit in their region. Part of their action included forming a human chain along the fence surrounding the "free expression zone."

In an interview, organizers highlighted the importance of the action as a means to express their opposition to the anti-democratic character of the G7, the consequences of the anti-social policies of G7 member countries for their peoples, as well as the danger of war they represent. A representative from Centre-Femmes aux Plurielles also pointed out that the vast sums of money being injected into the holding of the G7 for purposes of political repression and to limit the right to peaceful protest should have been invested in social programs.

During the action, citizens expressed their anger at the occupation of their region by heads of state and their police powers. They noted, in particular, that authorization permits have been required since Monday, June 4 for 800 residents and workers from the community's population of 8,000; that farmers are prohibited from spreading fertilizer during the Summit, and the all-pervasive police presence in their streets, waterways and air space.

Speaking about all the measures that have been taken in the name of security, in particular the huge 3.7 kilometre-long, 3.5 metre-high fence surrounding the Summit area, one participant told the press: "As day by day, little by little we saw it being erected, more and more we feel walled up, cornered, we have no freedom of action [...]. This creates stress, anxiety."

Many organizations and participants said they would join actions in Quebec City to continue to let it be known that the G7 is not welcome in Quebec.

(Photos: CIHOFM, Centre-Femmes aux plurielles,Comité populaire Saint-Jean Baptiste, @TheTocsin)

Haut de


The Irrationality of Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

Failure of G7 Seen in International Trade Agenda

Commentators have spoken and written reams regarding President Trump's imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum and his refusal to sign a new NAFTA deal. This trade agenda is dominating the G7 Summit with claims that most members are opposed to tariffs and trade wars and want a rules-based system. All are united, however, when it comes to the global neo-liberal direction they have set for their economies and they refuse to admit that the G7 has given rise to disasters all over the world. G7 leaders and media speak as if the sky is falling and nothing can be done or understood of Trump's actions. International trade is made to appear as imponderable and beyond the grasp of mere mortals.

First, anything is knowable following scientific investigation, discussion and analysis, including the actions of humans. Humans act according to the social conditions, the level of the productive forces, their outlook, interests, and the historical crib into which they are born. Trump acts according to his social conditions, outlook, private interests, and imperialist historical crib. His actions appear irrational with regard to trade because imperialist international trade has descended into anarchy and chaos, features of irrationality. International trade is captured within a contradiction. Its present condition demands cooperation but cut-throat competition between private interests to dominate the markets and sources of raw materials prevails. However, within the irrationality of the conditions, and their descent into chaos and crisis, meaning can be found, in particular the necessity for change and how to bring about that change.

Aluminum Imports into U.S. and the 10 Per Cent Tariff

The oligarchs in control of the steel and aluminum sectors are global actors with private interests scattered throughout the world. Oligopolies such as those formed by mining and aluminum producer Rio Tinto and global aluminum producer Alcoa are larger than many states in terms of gross income and the new value their workers produce. The concentration of social wealth and power in the hands of a few is unlike anything the world has ever seen. Alcoa has private interests in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. Although these giants export aluminum into the U.S. market, they appear to gain from the Trump 10 per cent tariff, as market prices for the metal have risen since the tariff became a talking point last January.[1]

The tariff acts similarly to a sales tax on the buyer. The U.S. federal government will receive over $2 billion in tax revenue annually from the tariff. Generally, the tax is added to the market price the U.S. consumer must pay. This is particularly the case with aluminum as current internal U.S. production and potential for increase are very limited with regard to overall demand.

Trump's remarks that the aluminum tariff is meant to create jobs in the U.S. sector do not appear to have substance. In fact, they appear irrational. The existing smelter capacity in the U.S. is incapable of supplying the demand. Rebuilding smelter capacity would take years to accomplish and may itself be an irrational response under current conditions. The rise in market prices from tariffs could possibly allow Alcoa to re-commission several stalled U.S. aluminum smelters it owns and controls but as yet it has not made any steps in this regard. The amount of potential production in the U.S. is not large, and besides, international production from Alcoa can meet demand and increasing U.S. production would depress prices. The current higher prices could stimulate more internal recycling of aluminum but again even that amount would come nowhere near to meeting current demand without the global supply from Canada, China, Russia and elsewhere.

The aluminum producers Rio Tinto, Alcoa and Alouette together form the Aluminum Association of Canada. Together, the big three or rather big two dominate primary aluminum production in Canada. They have nine plants in Quebec and one in Kitimat, BC with a total of 8,000 workers. The Aluminerie Alouette Inc. smelter in Sept-Iles, Quebec alone produces 606,000 metric tonnes a year, which is only 134,000 tonnes short of the current entire U.S. primary production of 740,000 tonnes. Rio Tinto owns 40 per cent of the Alouette smelter. Canadians do not control any of the big three.

To meet demand, especially for their war economy, U.S. buyers of aluminum import over 6 million metric tonnes a year. U.S. manufacturers have greatly benefited from cheaper imported aluminum. U.S. government 2017 statistics report the main suppliers as follows (the amounts, in U.S. dollars, include both primary and recycled aluminum imports):

1. Canada: $8.5 billion (36.3%)
2. China: $3.5 billion (15.1%)
3. Russia: $1.6 billion (7%)
4. United Arab Emirates: $1.5 billion (6.5%)
5. Mexico: $1 billion (4.3%)
6. Bahrain: $621.1 million (2.7%)
7. Argentina: $570.8 million (2.4%)
8. Germany: $561.7 million (2.4%)
9. India: $484.1 million (2.1%)

The Aluminum Association of Canada, along with similar associations from the U.S., Europe and Japan, held a forum in Montreal June 3-4 prior to the G7 Summit. The apparent goal of those primary aluminum producers and recyclers was to form a united front against the competition from Chinese production, which has become globally dominant.

The communiqué from the forum does not mention the Trump tariff but only the need to resist the dominance of Chinese competitors in the sector. They will present their views and demands at the G7 Summit and later at the G20 Summit. The forum did not specify how their members would counter the dominance of Chinese (and Russian) competitors in the sector or what they wanted the G7 leaders to do.

Total global production of aluminum for 2017 = 63,404,000 metric tonnes
Chinese production (estimated) = 35,905,000 metric tonnes
Total North American production = 3,950,000 metric tonnes
Smelters in Canada produced 3,210,000 metric tonnes
The U.S. produced 740,000 tonnes in 2017 and imported 6,000,000 metric tonnes of both primary and recycled aluminum.[2]

In 2012, the U.S. produced 2,070,000 metric tonnes. Much of that productive capacity has been decommissioned, as imported aluminum from Canada, China and Russia is far more cheaply produced. The main already-produced value needed for primary aluminum production is bauxite and electricity. The transferred-value from electricity forms around one-third of the final price of production. The price of production of electricity is much higher in the U.S. than in Canada, China and Russia.

Trump's tariffs on aluminum imports will only make a small dent in the 6 million imported tonnes. Some U.S. production may come on stream, probably from increased recycling. The biggest difference will be the higher market price, not only in the U.S. but worldwide, at least for a time. The higher price is also a result of the global economic recovery from the 2008 crisis and the ever-increasing war preparations and global sales of military planes, missiles, bombs, ships and other means of destruction.

Private interests concentrated within global companies characterized as oligopolies and cartels, such as Rio Tinto and Alcoa, have become supranational entities. They marshal their power of privilege, control, social wealth and contacts to manipulate in their favour the affairs of economies and states. They confront other private interests in a permanent condition of competition and collusion. The competition and collusion to serve their private interests and not the common good reduce all other considerations to secondary pragmatic issues, only of concern if they affect their primary aim and motive to expropriate as much as possible of the new value workers produce.

For example, Rio Tinto together with Alcoa have locked out workers at their jointly owned aluminum smelter in Bécancour, Quebec to force higher prices in North America and put pressure on workers and the Quebec government to accept concessions on terms of employment and the price of electricity. This action directly contradicts the interests of the working people at the smelter, in their community and throughout Quebec and Canada.

The entire world is blocked from moving forward. The control of these private interests, these uber rich oligarchs concentrated in oligopolies and cartels, reduce the working people to spectators of their own economy, into impotent onlookers of the affairs that affect their lives. The main business and actions of states have been reduced to serving the private interests of competing oligarchs resulting in a continual condition of civil war for political power and control.

Nothing wrong in itself can be determined from having an aluminum sector far beyond the needs of Canadians and geared to exports. But who made this decision to invest in this way, including hydroelectric production, to serve the war economy of the United States, and the reasoning of those in control lie hidden behind a wall of secrecy of the global cartels. Not even Canadian managers are in control let alone working people. The decisions are made elsewhere in secret conclaves of the oligarchs. For example, the local managers at the Rio Tinto/Alcoa aluminum smelter in Bécancour, Quebec say they have no mandate or permission from those in control to negotiate and settle with their locked out workers and Quebec government. The supranational control and decisions of the oligarchs have surpassed even the mysteries of state, as the situation degenerates into global anarchy, recurring crises, constant war and irrationality.

The decisions of Trump, Trudeau and other G7 members on trade are of this obscurantist nature. They reflect the irrationality of a world gone mad in competition to serve powerful private interests in a race to be first and dominant. Imperialist competition is in contradiction with the necessity for cooperation to solve the problems of today's economy and world. The ruling oligarchs and their mania to serve their private interests and all else be damned is out of sync with the modern world and its socialized productive forces. Today's world and its peoples are interconnected; their economies are interrelated. They need cooperation for mutual benefit and development to solve their problems and allow the productive forces of industrial mass production and social product to reach their full potential to guarantee the well-being and security of all and not the narrow private interests of a privileged few. They need the human factor/social consciousness and empowerment now of the working people to bring this necessary cooperation and unity into being.

This world of socialized productive forces has the material capacity to sort out all problems facing humans and the social and natural environment. What is absent from making it happen? There is not any attempt to make rational the irrationality of the actions of the oligopolies and their political servants and states and their unbridled competition to favour their narrow private interests. Crucially absent is the empowerment and control of the actual producers, the working people within the socialized economy where they work and live. The pro-social aim, outlook and potential control of the working people are in conformity with the modern social and productive conditions. They are the necessary human factor to sort things out. The struggle is centred on empowering and bringing into being the control and pro-social aim of the working people.

International trade under the modern productive forces is understandable only within the pro-social outlook, interests, and social conditions of the actual producers who create the social wealth and reproduce their own human condition and the socialized economy. The working people, the mere mortals who are the essential human factor of the modern world, have to empower themselves now and emerge from under the suffocating anti-social control and outlook of the imperialist oligarchs. They have to become masters of their own thinking, outlook and interests and extend their control to all the affairs of the economy and state that affect their lives. This is the only way to make international trade rational. This is the only way to bring sense to their lives and open a path forward.



2. Figures from the International Aluminium Institute. For list of aluminum smelters worldwide click here.

Haut de


Opposition to Trudeau Government's Bailout of Kinder Morgan

National Day of Action at MPs' Constituency Offices

Vancouver, June 4, 2018.

Broad opposition to the Trudeau Liberal government's purchase of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project continues across the country. On June 4, more than 100 protests were held from coast to coast at the constituency offices of Members of Parliament.

Signs and slogans decried the use of public funds to bail out a private U.S. oil monopoly, the fact that Canadians are totally shut out of decision-making on this matter and that the Trudeau government has reneged on yet another commitment, in this case that the affected Indigenous peoples are consulted and give their consent to the project. People rejected Prime Minister Trudeau's justification that this pay-the-rich scheme is in the "national interest" and resolutely opposed such illegitimate decisions being taken in their name. Copies of a petition opposing the project and the government's bailout were delivered at these actions as well. More than 250,000 people have signed this petition.

Prince George, BC

Comox Valley, BC

Port Alberni, BC

Parksville, BC

Victoria, BC, May 31

Sidney, BC

Vancouver, BC

Surrey, BC

Maple Ridge, BC

Mission, BC

Chilliwack, BC

Kelowna, BC

Vernon, BC

Nelson, BC

Whitehorse, YT

Red Deer, AB

Calgary, AB

Edmonton, AB, June 5

Saskatoon, SK

Prince Albert, SK

Winnipeg, MB

North Bay, ON

Guelph, ON

Lindsay, ON

Toronto, ON

Peterborough, ON

Ottawa, ON

Hull, QC

Montreal, QC

Fredericton, NB

Antigonish, NS

Bridgewater, NS

Halifax, NS

(Photos: B. Appledorf, K. Balzer, M. Youds, L. Collins, Rise Resist Kinder Morgan, H. Tuffs, Dogwood Society, Peace Arch News, M. Fatur, J. Smith, M. Jacques, Saskatchewan Climate Justice, S. Moreton, K. Armstrong, LeadNow, E. Bland, J. Green, 350 Canada, Council of Canadians, Cmry)

Haut de


Canada's Warmongering Participation in NATO War Exercises

Make Canada a Zone for Peace

The Trudeau government is a war government which is expanding its role in the U.S.-led aggressive NATO military alliance occupying Europe. In the first half of June it is participating in two war exercises as part of Operation Reassurance, Canada's contribution to NATO deployments in Central and Eastern Europe, aimed at encircling Russia and supporting the counterrevolutionary regime in Ukraine. One of these is Summer Shield, taking place in Camp Adazi, Latvia from June 2 to 13 with the Latvian National Armed Forces.

The other war games, Sabre Strike 18, being held in Poland and the Baltic states, began on June 3 and continue to June 15. Sabre Strike 18 is under the overall command of U.S. Army Europe and involves some 18,000 troops from 19 countries organized into NATO's four Forward Presence Battle Groups in the region. The U.S. leads the battle group in Poland, while Germany, Britain and Canada command three others in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, respectively. Sabre Strike 18 will coincide with the Swift Response airborne drill in Latvia, which culminates on June 8 and involves 800 paratroopers from the U.S., Latvia, Lithuania, Israel and Poland.

The heightened war preparations pose a real danger to the cause of world peace. "The long-standing U.S. Army Europe-led cooperative training exercise [Sabre Strike] is designed to enhance readiness and interoperability among allies and regional partners," the U.S. Army said. While it claims to be preparing for aggression, saying that the manoeuvres will "demonstrate the alliance's determination and ability to act as one in response to any aggression," the fact is that it is the U.S. and colonial powers of Old Europe which intervene in the affairs of sovereign countries and commit aggression.

This year marks a worrisome increase in war games by NATO and its allies in the region over last year. Already about 100 war exercises have been organized, 20 per cent more than during the same period in 2017. The size of the exercises has also been increasing. The number of troops involved in Sabre Strike was 2,000 in 2013; 4,700 in 2014; 6,000 in 2015; 9,000 in 2016 and 11,000 in 2017.

In May, NATO held the large Siil (Hedgehog) exercise in Estonia and northern Latvia involving more than 15,000 troops.

NATO informed in a June 7 press release, "In total, 106 NATO exercises are planned for 2018. Allies will lead around 180 national and multinational exercises this year. In 2017, NATO conducted 108 exercises and Allies held 162 national and multinational exercises.

"The exercises led by NATO and Allies this year include around 45 exercises with a primary focus on the land domain, 12 exercises mainly in the air domain, and 15 exercises focused mainly on maritime operations. Others train cyber defence, crisis response decision-making or specific capabilities.

"More than 40 NATO and Allied exercises in 2018 will focus on tackling challenges from the South. Defending Allies in the eastern part of NATO is the focus of another 30 exercises. Nine NATO and Allied exercises will have a special focus on the North."

Expansion of NATO Forces in Europe and Update
to Command Structure

Outside of these war games, NATO has stationed some 6,000 troops in the region, and the U.S. Army is occupying Poland with a new European headquarters to command the forces. Meanwhile the Polish government is said to be "considering a proposal to host a permanent contingent of U.S. troops, as Italy and Germany already do." As in all cases when the U.S. occupies a country, it makes it pay the cost and provides its troops with immunity for the crimes they commit in that country. An "information document" by the Polish Defence Ministry seen by news agencies suggests that Poland could spend $1.5 to $2 billion "to help cover the cost of permanently basing a U.S. tank unit in Poland."

The NATO Defence Ministers' Meeting is taking place June 8 and 9 in Brussels, Belgium and it will set the agenda for this year's NATO Summit there July 11 and 12.

Analysts say that the NATO Readiness Initiative will increase the strength of the NATO response force from 20,000 to about 50,000 by creating a pool of 30,000 troops with organic aviation and ships ready to be operationally deployed within 30 days. The initiative belongs to the U.S. with Germany to take the lead.

On June 7, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said of the agenda for the Defence Ministers' Meeting:

"I expect we will also agree a NATO Readiness Initiative -- the 'Four Thirties' -- to ensure that by 2020, we have 30 mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels ready within 30 days or less, because in a more unpredictable world, we need to be sure we have the right forces in the right places at the right time."

"We will discuss our progress in many areas, including cyber defence and maritime security. And we will also take stock of our efforts to achieve more defence spending and better burden-sharing among Allies," Stoltenberg said.

NATO war preparations against Russia include the new crisis response command centre in Ulm, southern Germany, and another one in the U.S. in Virginia.

"This force as well as other units will become part of training events and the soldiers will be deployed on a temporary basis, but holding regular exercises presupposes the creation of infrastructure to be used by troops upon arrival for launching offensive actions. Correspondingly, logistics are being beefed up," Stoltenberg said.

Upcoming War Games in the Region

Other 2018 exercises near Russia's borders include Trident Juncture to be held in Norway and the surrounding areas of the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea from October 25 to November 7. It will involve some 35,000 troops from all 29 NATO member countries plus partner nations Sweden, Finland and others, 70 ships and about 130 aircraft.

Poland will hold the Anakonda war exercises in November, involving 100,000 servicemen, 5,000 vehicles, 150 aircraft and 45 warships. The online journal Strategic Culture writes, "The Anakonda scenario includes preemptive strikes. If it's not an open preparation for war then what is? U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley believes it is. According to him, 'Having large-scale NATO forces in the Baltic States and Poland, as well as the lack of transparency -- we see serious preparation for a great war.'"

Deployment of U.S. Missiles in Europe

The expansion of U.S./NATO aggression against Russia also takes the form of missile batteries to be deployed in Europe. It is reported that discussions are underway to deploy the U.S. THAAD ballistic missile defence system in Germany. "The move would plug a radar gap [which] emerged as a result of postponing the deployment of a second Aegis Ashore system in Poland. The Polish government has announced plans to purchase U.S. Patriot PAC-3 MSE air defence systems," Strategic Culture writes. Both the THAAD and Patriot systems have rather limited capability against sophisticated ICBMs but Aegis Ashore is more effective, it says:

"Modernization will take place, advanced missiles and systems will be moved to the already existing sites. The main thing is that the infrastructure, the foundation to build ballistic missile defence and surface targets strike capability, will be in place. And the only target is Russia. The Aegis Ashore can launch intermediate range surface-to-surface missiles against Russian territory in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In a couple of years, Poland will host it. The THAAD's radar can greatly enhance the Aegis Ashore capabilities by relaying data to them. The AN/TPY-2 has an estimated range from 1,500 km (932 mi) to 3,000 km (1,864 mi). The maximum instrumented range is 2,000 km (1,242 mi) to enable it to monitor large chunks of Russia's territory."

Get Canada Out of NATO and Make Canada a Zone for Peace!

Reports on the war preparations present them as necessary to contend with threats from enemies and seek to overwhelm us with accounts of the firing and destructive power being deployed and the interoperability of the armed forces of U.S. "allies." However, despite their destructive power and the suffering they cause, weapons are never decisive in war; people are decisive. It is criminal to prepare war in Europe which suffered so much from the first two great wars, World War I and World War II, which saw many Canadian losses as well. Canadians should reject Canada's participation in these war games and any attempts to justify them based on hysteria about enemies and that war preparations are necessary to defend the national interest. Already Canadian forces have been integrated into those of the United States. To instigate conflict in the name of peace is a crime against the peace as defined by the Nuremburg Tribunal.

Canadians must not permit the Trudeau war government to say it acts in their name. Get Canada out of NATO and NORAD and make Canada a Zone for Peace!

(With files from Canadian Armed Forces, Radio Farda, navaltoday.com, NATO, Strategic Culture and news agencies.)

Haut de

48th General Assembly of Organization of American States

U.S. Fails Again in Attempt to Suspend Venezuela

At the 48th General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) held June 4-5 in Washington, D.C., the U.S. and a group of countries under its domination failed in their attempt to suspend the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from the organization. A resolution calling for Venezuela's suspension based on allegations of an "unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional order" in the country fell well short of the 24 votes required for it to take effect when 15 countries, many of them small Caribbean island states, either voted against it or abstained, thus denying the U.S. and its "Lima Group" the chance to claim an institutional mandate for their nefarious activities against Venezuela.[1]

As host of this year's General Assembly, the U.S made clear that its main objective for the meeting was to get the organization and its members to kick Venezuela out -- largely a symbolic act aimed at isolating the government of Venezuela internationally as part of its economic, financial and political blockade of the country. In fact, Venezuela announced in April 2017, more than a year ago, that it was withdrawing from the U.S.-dominated body of its own volition -- a two-year process under OAS rules of procedure.

In May, a special session of the OAS Permanent Council was convoked by the U.S. for the sole purpose of giving it a platform to browbeat countries of Latin America and the Caribbean that had so far resisted the pressure to take punitive action against Venezuela. At that meeting U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence called on members of the OAS to suspend Venezuela at the General Assembly. He repeated his harangue at a reception for OAS officials a month later at a White House reception the evening of June 4. There he called on "the community of free nations, from across this New World, to expel the Maduro dictatorship from the Organization of American States." He said that by supporting the U.S. in this initiative they would be proving their commitment "to forge stronger bonds with the United States." He assured them that in return they would receive benefits "ranging from our financial investments, economic growth, energy, infrastructure, security, and prosperity..."

It has been reported that these carrots eventually gave way to the stick of threats and extortion when it became apparent that the U.S. did not have the required support of 24 member states that its ambassador to the OAS, Carlos Trujillo, had bragged about just days before.

Before the vote was taken, President Evo Morales of Bolivia, whose country was one of four who voted against the U.S. resolution on June 5, condemned the interventionist intention of the U.S. Vice President. The U.S. has been defeated in its coup plan against Venezuela, and is now trying to use the OAS assembly as a "repressive stick" to suspend our sister nation, Morales said.

With Venezuela's immediate suspension from the OAS off the table after the resolution passed but without the two-thirds majority support needed to activate provisions of the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter having to do with suspending a member state, its sponsors said they would ask for a special session of the General Assembly to be called at an unspecified future date to try again. Venezuela's Minister of Foreign Affairs Jorge Arreaza said the 19 countries who supported the resolution were enabling the U.S. to continue its economic warfare and supporting the possibility of a military intervention. "Let that be on your conscience," he told them. At the same time he noted that not even with all the pressure put on them could the U.S. and its gang defeat the dignity and courage of the peoples of the Caribbean. Arreaza then reminded those present that Venezuela was already more than halfway through the process of leaving the OAS, which he called the U.S. Ministry of Colonies, as Cuba refers to it, making this the last General Assembly Venezuela would attend. We will go to the Venezuelan people and solve our problems among ourselves without your interference or intervention he said to loud applause from around the room.


1. The 19 countries that voted in favour of the resolution put forward by the U.S. with the support of Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru were: Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, and the U.S.

The four countries that voted in opposition were: Bolivia, Venezuela, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica.

The 11 countries that abstained were: El Salvador, St. Kitts and Nevis, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Grenada, Haiti, Ecuador, Uruguay and Nicaragua.

(Prensa Latina, TeleSUR, El Espectador)

Haut de


18th Anniversary of June 15 North-South Joint Declaration

Conferences for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Important conferences are being held in Toronto and Vancouver on June 16 and June 17 respectively to discuss the vital issue of peace on the Korean Peninsula. Ending the state of war on the Korean Peninsula concerns not only the Korean people but all humanity. The conferences will feature speakers and a video presentation and, in Toronto, Korean drummers will also perform. The conferences are taking place on the 18th anniversary of the June 15, 2000 North-South Joint Declaration signed between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK). This Joint Declaration paved the way for improved relations on the Korean Peninsula for a decade before it was scuttled by the pro-U.S. Lee Myung-bak and Park Gyeun-hye regimes in the ROK.

The issue of peace is all the more pressing in light of the historic Panmunjom Summit on April 27 and the Panmunjom Declaration signed by Kim Jong Un of the DPRK and Moon Jae-in of the ROK. It must be resolved in the spirit of goodwill and cooperation. Meanwhile, the peoples of the world await the outcome of the DPRK-U.S. Summit in Singapore on June 12. They ardently desire a permanent and lasting peace agreement between the U.S. and the DPRK and ROK. The Conference will review these developments and what can be done to make sure Canada is a factor for peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Saturday, June 16, 2018 -- 10:00 am-4:00 pm
Ryerson University, Kerr Hall South, Room KHS 369, 50 Gould St.
Organized by: Korea Truth Commission (Canadian Chapter) and Korean Federation
in Canada. Co-sponsored by Science for Peace (Toronto Chapter).
For more information, call (647) 907-7915 or email: corfedca@yahoo.ca

Sunday, June 17, 2018 -- 6:00-9:00 pm
Britannia Community Centre, 1655 William St. Canucks Room
Organized by: Working for Peace on the Korean Peninsula.
For more information: 778-846-3823

Haut de


DPRK's Northern Nuclear Test Site Dismantled

The northern nuclear test site of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was completely dismantled according to the decision made at the Third Plenary Meeting of the Seventh Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK). The Korean Central News Agency reported:

After the publication of the decision at the April plenary meeting of the WPK Central Committee on dismantling the nuclear test ground, relevant institutions including the Nuclear Weapons Institute of the DPRK immediately stopped all preparations and projects for nuclear tests and carried out phased dismantlement.

The tunnels and all kinds of equipment, information communications and power systems and construction and operation equipment, that had been installed at the observation centre, control centre and research institute in the northern nuclear test site, were dismantled and withdrawn.

A ceremony to mark the complete dismantling of the test site was held May 24.

The process of the dismantlement was covered in the field by reporters from China, Russia, the U.S., Britain and south Korea. They were briefed on the methods and order of dismantlement of the test site and toured the tunnels where nuclear tests had previously been carried out and the test observation centres.

Following this, the final step was the demolition by explosives of the tunnels, tunnel entrances and above ground structures including the observation centres, in full view of all those present.

Once this final stage was completed, the Nuclear Weapons Institute of the DPRK issued a statement on the spot, affirming this action as the expression of the DPRK's firm peace-loving stand to join in the international aspiration and efforts for a total halt to nuclear tests and make a positive contribution to building a nuclear-free world.

(Photos: KCNA)

Haut de


Statement of Unity by Korean Americans and Allies
on Historic Inter-Korean Summit and
Upcoming U.S.-DPRK Summit

On June 7, a broad group of Korean-American individuals and organizations and their allies published a statement in support of the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity, and Reunification and the upcoming U.S.-Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) Summit on June 12 in Singapore. The text of the statement follows.


Since the historic April 27 summit between the leaders of north and south Korea at Panmunjom, longstanding tensions and war threats on the Korean Peninsula have given way to the promise of peace and reconciliation. Soon, another historic summit, between the United States and north Korea, will take place in Singapore. The two parties, which not too long ago were on the brink of war, will finally sit down to discuss a peaceful settlement to the Korean War. All eyes of the world will be on this momentous event, which could determine not only the fate of the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia but also the prospect of global peace.

We -- Korean Americans who have long fought for peace and the self-determined unification of the Korean Peninsula, and allies who stand on the side of peace and justice and share a critical stake in the struggle for peace in Korea -- wish to make clear our views on the recent Inter-Korean Summit and the upcoming U.S.-north Korea Summit.

1. We applaud the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity, and Unification of the Korean Peninsula.

In the Panmunjom Declaration, the leaders of north and south Korea "solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun." They also pledged to work together for independent unification.

The two leaders held hands as they crossed back and forth over the military demarcation line, demonstrating that the arbitrary line no longer has the power it once possessed as a symbol of division and confrontation. Should the governments of north and south Korea as well as the 80 million Koreans on the peninsula and the diaspora come together to implement the Panmunjom Declaration, we can realize peace, prosperity, and unification of the Korean Peninsula.

2. We welcome the U.S.-north Korea summit.

We hope the scheduled U.S.-north Korea summit will end seven decades of hostile relations between the United States and north Korea and usher in a new era of peace -- on the Korean Peninsula, in Northeast Asia as well as for the rest of the world.

We recommend the following:

1) The United States and north Korea should agree to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and faithfully carry out the agreement.

In the Panmunjom Declaration, north and south Korea "confirmed the common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula." Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula means not only eliminating north Korea's nuclear weapons but also denuclearizing the land, air, and seas of the entire peninsula. This is not north Korea's obligation alone. South Korea and the United States, which has in the past introduced and deployed close to one thousand tactical nuclear weapons in the southern half of the peninsula, also need to take concrete steps to create a nuclear-free peninsula.

The plan to "denuclearize the Korean peninsula" is clearly outlined in the following past agreements:

- the 1992 Joint Declaration of south and north Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula;
- the 1994 Agreed Framework between the USA and DPRK; and
- the 2005 Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six Party Talks.

In the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six Party Talks, north Korea "committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," while the United States "affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons," and south Korea "reaffirmed its commitment not to receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while affirming that there exist no nuclear weapons within its territory."

In keeping with the recent Inter-Korean Summit, the U.S.-north Korea Summit should produce an agreement for the "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" and ban the testing, production, reception, possession, storage, stationing, and/or use of nuclear weapons on the entire Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the United States should stop all military action and exercises that deploy or introduce its strategic assets on the Korean Peninsula and abolish its nuclear umbrella over south Korea.

Genuine peace on the Korean Peninsula, which has housed nuclear weapons in both the north and the south and has been the site of acute military tensions for decades, should set a historic precedent and lead to global nuclear disarmament. Starting with the United States, all nuclear powers should take concrete steps to create a nuclear-free world.

2) A peace treaty is necessary for a lasting peace system on the Korean Peninsula.

The Panmunjom Declaration states, "During this year that marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice, south and north Korea agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States and China with a view to declaring an end to the [Korean] War, turning the Armistice into a peace treaty, and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime."

After the Korean War, the United States and north Korea signed an armistice that established a highly unstable system that has been at the root of all subsequent war threats on the Korean Peninsula. It's time to declare an end to the Korean War and replace the Armistice with a peace treaty to build a stable and lasting peace system on the Korean Peninsula. Only a peace treaty will prevent further threats of nuclear and conventional war on the Korean Peninsula.

The United States and north Korea should take immediate mutual steps to prevent military conflict and alleviate tensions. They should establish and maintain a military hotline and communications channel and halt all military exercises and other provocative actions. The United States should withdraw the THAAD missile defence system in south Korea. And in step with north and south Korea, which have agreed to "carry out disarmament in a phased manner" in the Panmunjom Declaration, U.S. Forces in Korea should take corresponding measures to reduce its troops.

3) The United States and north Korea should end hostilities and normalize relations.

The 2000 U.S.-DPRK Joint Communiqué states, "Recognizing that improving ties is a natural goal in relations among states and that better relations would benefit both nations in the 21st century while helping ensure peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. and the DPRK sides stated that they are prepared to undertake a new direction in their relations."

After agreeing to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and replace the armistice with a peace treaty, the United States and north Korea should begin talks to establish normal relations. As they did in the 2000 Joint Communiqué, the United States and north Korea should reaffirm "principles of respect for each other's sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs" and a "commitment to make every effort in the future to build a new relationship free from past enmity." The United States and north Korea should normalize relations and promote civilian exchanges in the areas of economy, culture, science, education, sports, and travel to foster mutual understanding between the peoples of both countries.

Above all, the United States needs to abolish its seven-decade policy of hostility and sanctions that isolate north Korea. It should lift all sanctions tied to north Korea's nuclear program, take north Korea off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and unfreeze north Korea's assets. It should allow U.S. citizens to freely travel to north Korea. The United States and north Korea should also cooperate to recover the remains of U.S. servicemen in north Korea from the time of the Korean War as a step to addressing unresolved humanitarian issues and ending hostile relations.

3. We urge Washington's political leaders to put aside party politics for peace.

Past negotiations between the United States and north Korea have yielded meaningful moments of cooperation. There have been times when both sides made significant compromises with the shared goal of overcoming past hostilities and moving toward normalizing relations. They have produced outstanding agreements -- the 1993 DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement, the 1994 Agreed Framework, the 2000 U.S.-DPRK Joint Communiqué, and the 2005 Joint Declaration of the Six Party Talks -- that outline a path for resolving the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, creating a lasting peace system, and normalizing relations between the two countries.

However, none of these agreements were implemented. As a result, mistrust between the United States and north Korea only deepened and ultimately led us to the brink of nuclear war. With each change in administration in the United States, hard-won agreements made by the previous administration were essentially scrapped as the incoming administration adopted a default anti-north Korea posture. In light of this history, we have concerns about whether an agreement produced by the upcoming U.S.-north Korea Summit will actually be honored by the current and future administrations. Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal underscores this concern.

The Trump administration should approach the upcoming summit with north Korea with sincerity and a commitment to carrying out whatever agreement is reached. We also urge Congress to put aside partisan interests in the historic interest of achieving peace in Korea and the world. We urge Congress to resolve to support the Panmunjom Declaration between north and south Korea and the upcoming U.S.-north Korea Summit.

4. We stand with all who struggle for a just and peaceful world.

The actions of the Trump and previous administrations have been detrimental to peace in the world. The United States is responsible for endless war in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, bloodshed in Gaza, and escalating tension with Iran. While it pours billions of dollars into waging wars and maintaining troops abroad, its people face widespread unemployment and austerity programs that cut them off from decent education, health care and housing. U.S. militarism abroad has also led to increased militarization of the police and state-sanctioned violence against communities of colour and gender non-conforming people at home.

We stand with people of conscience everywhere who defend peace, self-determination, and justice. It is our hope that the Korean Peninsula -- once a land of strife, brutalized by over a century of colonization, division and war -- will become a source of strength and inspiration for all as a beacon for peace, reconciliation, and unification in the 21st century.

(Photo: Zoom in Korea)

Haut de


74th Anniversary of D-Day

The Landing at Normandy

D-Day landing in Normandy, June 6, 1944.

On June 6, 1944, during World War II, an invasion force comprised of Americans, British and Canadians landed on the coast of Normandy, France. This date known to history as D-Day, refers to the long-awaited invasion of northwest Europe to open a Second Front against the Nazi forces of Adolf Hitler who had occupied France and most of Europe and had been waging a savage war against the Soviet Union. To that time, the Soviet Union had borne the brunt of the fight against Hitler. From 1941 to 1945, the Soviet peoples fought more than 75 per cent of the German and Axis forces and suffered the loss during the war, all-told, of more than 20 million people.

The landing at Normandy is said to be the largest amphibious invasion in history. The allies were able to establish a beachhead as part of Operation Overlord. The First United States Army attacked on the beaches, code-named "Utah" and "Omaha." The Second British Army assaulted the beaches, code-named "Gold," "Juno" and "Sword" with the Canadians responsible for Juno in the centre of the British front. The venture was formidable because the Germans had turned the coastline into a continuous fortress with guns, pillboxes, wire, mines and other obstacles.

Nearly 150,000 Allied troops landed or parachuted into the invasion area on D-Day, including 14,000 Canadians at Juno Beach. The Royal Canadian Navy contributed 110 ships and 10,000 sailors and the Royal Canadian Air Force contributed 15 fighter and fighter-bomber squadrons to the assault. Total Allied casualties on D-Day reached more than 10,000, including 1,074 Canadians, of whom 359 were killed. Eleven more months of fighting followed the Normandy landing until in May 1945, the Red Army marched into Berlin and the Germans capitulated. Today May 9 is celebrated as Victory in Europe Day to honour all those who gave their lives to defeat the Nazi-fascists.

Canadian War Cemetery at Beny-sur-Mer, photo taken 2012. (R. Foot)

Historica Canada points out:

For years, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had pressured the British and Americans to open another front in the war, by invading occupied France in the west. In the summer of 1943, the Allies agreed they were ready to launch the invasion the following year. American General Dwight Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander of an amphibious invasion of unprecedented size and scope, code-named Operation Overlord.

The Allies needed a French harbour from which to supply and sustain a successful invasion force. However, the disastrous 1942 raid on the French port of Dieppe, in which 3,369 Canadians were killed, wounded or captured, had convinced military planners that a seaborne assault against a well-defended port was folly.

In fact, much of the French side of the English Channel had been turned into what was called the "Atlantic Wall" -- mile after mile of concrete bunkers, machine gun nests, and other fortifications built by the Germans, overlooking beaches and tidal estuaries strewn with layers of barbed wire, anti-tank ditches, mines and other obstacles designed to obstruct an invading army. [...]

The Normandy campaign finally ended on August 21, 1944, with Canadians playing an important role in closing the Falaise Gap and assisting in the capture of approximately 150,000 German soldiers. Now the pursuit of the enemy into the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany could begin.

Today it is commonplace to hear the Anglo-American and European imperialists dismiss the feats of the Soviet peoples in defeating Hitler, while claiming that it was the historic landing in Normandy on June 6, 1944, which broke Hitler's back. This makes it possible to claim that the United States played the decisive role in saving the world from Hitlerism and describing current U.S. wars of aggression and occupation as wars of liberation. All U.S. military interventions since the landing at Normandy are said to oppose dictatorships and tyrannies similar to Hitler's, thus faithfully following in the tradition of the landing at Normandy.

This is not the case. The Red Army broke Hitler's back in Stalingrad and then chased his Nazi forces all the way back to Berlin where they were finally forced to surrender. This does not take away from the fact that the Second Front kept many Nazi troops engaged and away from the eastern front. German casualties (killed and wounded) in the Normandy campaign were estimated at more than 200,000, while the Allies suffered 209,000 casualties among the more than two million soldiers who landed in France following the D-Day landing. Among the Allied casualties were more than 18,700 Canadians, including more than 5,000 soldiers killed. Had the Anglo-American powers joined the anti-fascist front called for and established by the Soviet Union under Stalin, losses caused by the Hitlerite occupation of Europe and invasion of the Soviet Union would not have been so grave. Instead they were driven by an aim to make sure they, not the Soviets, would control the outcome of the war.

On this anniversary, Canadians pay deepest respects to all the men and women who contributed to the defeat of the Nazi-fascists and Japanese militarists in World War II. Their cause for peace, democracy and freedom is not the same as the cause for which the U.S. imperialists and big powers wage wars today. Today the fight to secure peace, freedom and justice requires establishing anti-war governments and making sure countries are zones for peace, not war.

(With files from HBRC archives, Historica Canada)

Haut de


Normandy Landing and the Re-Writing of History

In an article published on the 70th anniversary of D-Day, military historian Benoît Lemay, of the Royal Military College of Kingston, Ontario pointed out, "There are many misconceptions about the Normandy landing. It is believed to have enabled the Allies to win the Second World War. A more nuanced view is required. In fact, in June 1944, Germany had already lost. The landing only served to accelerate the end of the war. It was the Russians on the Eastern Front who did most of the work. For propaganda reasons, during the Cold War years that followed, the West would try to minimize the Soviet effort. It would be conveyed that it was the Allies who did most of the work."[1]

Lemay explained the motives behind the landing: "In reality, the Allies landed in France not only to defeat the Germans, but also to ensure that Western Europe did not fall under the Soviet yoke. There was a political aspect and economic interests."[2]

During their meeting in Tehran at the end of November 1943, the three leaders -- Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt -- agreed a Second Front would be opened. It was the landing in Normandy on June 6, 1944 that opened this Second Front, in the military context created by the Red Army, where Germany had already lost the war because of it and now had to fight on two sides.

According to the invasion plans, Caen was to be liberated on the evening of June 6 but the fighting was so fierce, it was only finally liberated 40 days later on July 17. The French historian Claude Quétel explains, "On June 22, 1944, a little more than a fortnight after the Normandy landings -- and three years to the day after the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazi armies -- Stalin attacked the Hitlerite troops from his side. The objective: to hold down a maximum of German divisions in the East to facilitate the progression of the Allies to the West. Stalin went all out. For this operation, no less than 166 divisions, 1,300,000 men, 5,000 aircraft, 2,700 tanks were mobilized. The main front is not the one thought to be in Normandy: it was in the East"[3]

However, Quétel writes, "This Soviet offensive, the largest since the beginning of the war, has often been obscured in the Western world because of the Cold War and rewriting of history."[4]

Quétel tells us: "The Russian victories in Stalingrad and especially Kursk changed the game. The major risk for the Anglo-Saxons was no longer to see Stalin sign a separate peace with Hitler, but to see him win the final victory alone! It became urgent to discuss strategy [...] with the Soviets. The Tehran Conference brought Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin together for the first time in this war."

Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill meet at the Tehran Conference,
November 28 to December 1, 1943.

Historian Antony Beevor summarized what happened a few days before the landing in Normandy: "Roosevelt wanted to remind his subordinates that the Allies were not liberating France to install General de Gaulle in power." The U.S goal was to "impose a military government until elections were held," which would take some time. This is why Roosevelt "insisted on creating an occupation currency." The disagreements were serious in Roosevelt's entourage, and "Churchill did his best to persuade him that they had to work with de Gaulle."[5] Roosevelt yielded. De Gaulle was then made aware of the landing that had been planned without his knowledge in his own country. He learned about it on June 4, the day before the landing was originally scheduled to take place; it was postponed a day due to bad weather. The "occupation" of part of Europe would take place anyway, but without a U.S. "military government" and its "occupation currency" in France.

In an interview, Beevor expressed the concern of the Anglo-American Allies with regard to a surrender of Germany only to the Soviet Union if the disembarkation of their troops was delayed:

Eisenhower's decision to launch the operations on June 6, despite warnings from weather specialists, after a first postponement on the 5th, was not only a courageous decision, it was a historic stance. If he had said, "we postpone the date," the next possible window was exactly in the middle of the great storm of June 19, one of the worst in the [English] Channel. He would therefore have again had to suspend operations probably until the spring of 1945. This would have had unimaginable consequences, not only for the secrecy of the operations and for the maintenance for a very long time of the armada assembled in Great Britain, but, especially during this period, the Red Army would not only have arrived in Berlin, but would have had time to cross the Rhine and go, why not? all the way to La Rochelle [...] You can imagine the scene![6]

In June 2014, during the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the landing in France, then-President François Hollande said that the "fate of humanity was played out on June 6, 1944." He said that he "wanted this ceremony to be useful, not just for the memory, not just for the evocation of the sacrifice, but also because peace is threatened in the world today." He then invoked D-Day as justification for France's violation of rights at home and aggression and war abroad, saying, "It is because France itself has experienced barbarity that it is doing its duty to preserve peace everywhere, within the borders of Europe, as in Africa," he said.[7]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel likewise declared at that commemoration: "This June 6, 1944 [...] was the beginning of the liberation" since by means of this landing, it was the "Allies who launched this liberation movement to permanently free us from Nazism."

Then came U.S. President Barack Obama who said that "it was here, on these shores, that the tide was turned in that common struggle for freedom." In his words, Normandy became "this tiny sliver of sand upon which hung more than the fate of a war, but rather the course of human history."[8]

In 2009, Obama said in his speech in France to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day, "Had the Allies failed here, Hitler's occupation of this continent might have continued indefinitely. [...] Victory here secured a foothold in France [...] it made possible the achievements that followed the liberation of Europe: the Marshall Plan, the NATO alliance, the shared prosperity and security that flowed from each."[9]

In a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office on June 4, 2014, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper echoed these falsities, saying that Normandy was "a turning point in the world’s history."[10] Harper was no less adamant to equate the landing at Normandy with current U.S.-led wars of aggression and occupation. Canadian soldiers buried in France "are a poignant reminder that our country will always stand up for what is good, what is right and what is just. It was as true then as it has been in the years since the Second World War in places like Korea, Afghanistan and Libya," he said.

The decisive role of the Soviet Union in the military defeat of fascist Germany was accepted by everyone at the time, and admitted before Hitler's suicide and the end of the war. In fact, it was admitted even before the landing at Normandy by the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who honoured the city of Stalingrad on May 17, 1944, 20 days before the Normandy landing, declaring:

In the name of the people of the United States of America, I present this scroll to the City of Stalingrad to commemorate our admiration for its gallant defenders whose courage, fortitude, and devotion during the siege of September 13, 1942 to January 31, 1943 will inspire forever the hearts of all free people. Their glorious victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked the turning point in the war of the Allied Nations against the forces of aggression. [11]

Scroll presented by Roosevelt to city of Stalingrad, May 17, 1944.

Detail of scroll presented to city of Stalingrad, May 17, 1944.

The "turning point in the war" in January 1943 was followed seven months later by the victory in Kursk in August 1943, which also made history. In the report Stalin presented in Moscow on November 26, 1943, on the occasion of the 26th anniversary of the victory of the October socialist revolution, he said, "If the Battle of Stalingrad announced the decline of the German fascist army, the battle of Kursk placed it in front of a catastrophe."

"The cause of German fascism is lost, and the sanguinary 'New Order' it has established is approaching collapse. [...] The time is long past when the Hitlerite clique made a great noise about the Germans winning world domination. Now as is known, the Germans have other matters than world domination to worry about. They have to think about keeping body and soul together."[12]
In the May 1, 1944 issue of Pravda, published 36 days before the landing at Normandy, Stalin wrote: "Under the blows of the Red Army the bloc of Fascist States is cracking and falling to pieces. [...] These underlings of Hitler, whose countries have been occupied, or are being occupied, by the Germans, cannot now fail to see that Germany has lost the war."[13]

Stalin emphasizes: "As a result of the successful offensive, the Red Army has emerged on our State frontiers on a stretch of over 400 kilometres (250 miles), and liberated more than three-quarters of occupied Soviet land from the German-fascist yoke. The aim now is to clear the whole of our land from the fascist invaders and to re-establish the State frontiers of the Soviet Union along the entire line from the Black Sea to the Barents Sea."[14]

Even though one quarter of the country remained to be liberated 36 days before the landing in Normandy, Stalin notes that already "the Red Army has emerged on our State frontiers with Rumania and Czechoslovakia and now continues battering the enemy troops on the territory of Rumania. [...] But our tasks cannot be confined to the expulsion of the enemy troops from our Motherland. [...] To rid our country and the countries allied with us from the danger of enslavement, the wounded German beast must be pursued close on its heels and finished off in its own lair."[15]

In short, the invaded Soviet motherland liberated herself and began to liberate others. Initiated in Stalingrad, the march to defeat the Nazis now continued beyond the national borders all the way to Berlin. For the Anglo-American imperialists to claim  they defeated Hitler with the invasion of Normandy does a great disservice to the anti-fascist forces in Britain, the U.S., Canada and the European countries who fought heroically to do their part in the war. It is done to claim that wars of aggression and occupation today are for democracy, peace and freedom and this dishonours the anti-fascist contribution of the soldiers who fought in the Second Front even more.


1. La Presse, June 6, 2014. Translated from French by TML.

2. Ibid.

3. Le Monde-Hors série: 1944/Débarquements, résistances, libérations, May-July 2014, La bataille de Normandie en neufs points, pp.20-23. Quote translated from French by TML.

4. Ibid.

5. Antony Beevor, The Second World War, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2012.

6. Antony Beevor, "Ce n'était pas gagné d'avance," Le Point, June 5, 2014, pp.58-62. Quote translated from French by TML.

7. Le Monde, June 6, 2014. Translated from French by TML.

8. Barack Obama, Speech Commemorating the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, Normandy, June 6, 2014.

9. Speech by Barack Obama at the American Cemetery at Normandy, June 6, 2009.

10. La Presse, op. cit.

11. J.V. Stalin, Correspondence with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman Vol. 2 (1941 - 1945), footnote no. 67.

12. J.V. Stalin, Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People's Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations, November 6, 1943, Collected Works, Vol. 15.

13. Order of the Day, No. 70, May 1, 1944, op. cit.

14. Ibid.

15. J.V. Stalin, Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Voters of the Stalin Electoral District, Moscow. February 9, 1946.

(Translated from the original French and abridged for publication by TML Weekly on the 74th anniversary of D-Day.)

Haut de



Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca