Libya and the Third Reich (comparison)
In 2012, the German newspaper "KOMPAKT Nachrichten" compared the fate of Libya (under Gaddafi) and the Third Reich (during and after WWII) at the hands of the US-Americans evaluating the question "why wars are fought".
Source
This is a translated source text. Spelling errors, translation errors and small errors in the content can be corrected. The source is given in the "Source" part and the original language is specified in the "Original language" part.
Solution of social problems
The leaders didn't talk around the problems, as is often the rule in the parliaments of today's Western countries, they acted. Both tried to free themselves from servitude by international high finance. A state-owned banking system ensured independence from the financial crises rampant in the rest of the world. This policy was not limited to its own territory. Germany developed international economic relations in the form of a barter system without the banks collecting their considerable fee as intermediaries. Libya, as a rich oil country, was even able to stand up to competition from the World Bank and provide financial aid to other African states without usury interest and conditions for "liberalization" and "democratization". What is more, Gaddafi planned a financial system for Africa independent of the West.
State models
Both society models, the „German National Socialism“ and the „grassroots democracy of the Libyan socialism“ proved themselves and solidified and it became apparent that they could serve as an example for other nations, unlike the communism of Lenin and Stalin. The establishment of the Soviet state cost millions of lives. The system could only be maintained by force. From the very beginning, the communist economic system bore the seeds of its downfall. Thus, apart from its military prowess/weight, communism posed no real permanent threat to the power of high finance.
Where there is light, there is also shade. In Libya as well as in the third empire members of the opposition were handled hard. Contradiction against the ruling doctrine was not tolerated. This may seem inhuman. One can even understand, that the no more leading high-finance did anything to overthrow the new system, particularly using the influence of the media.
When it became apparent that the two power systems could not be eliminated from within, the propaganda from abroad was fanned. Both leaders mutate into inhuman dictators. The small percentage of those who are oppressed in their views and goals become the people themselves. Reports of atrocities are circulating and taking up more and more space in the media. You can't back it up with "evidence" yet. The regimes are holding the reins tightly. The vast majority stands by their leaders. Now the boycott phase begins. At that time the jewish organizations called for trade repression against the Third Reich, today it is the organizations of the "free world of the West". War mood is built up. Of course, the "good guys" don't start a fight. They need something worth protecting that needs to be saved. In order to ensure the impression of neutrality and good humanity, those who have already initiated the boycott are initially not allowed to play a role.
External provocations
Germany felt strong enough to pursue its own interests in a straightforward manner. The reparation payments were stopped. At least the parts of the country that were populated by Germans and stolen after the First World War were to be brought back into the Reich. Of course, this could easily be portrayed as aggressive behavior. When the supplies to East Prussia and Danzig were cut off by the Poles and the repression against Germans in the occupied territories reached unbearable proportions, the Reich leadership started what they saw as a “rescue operation”. A treat for the opponents of the National Socialist system! A raid on former Reich territory is also a war of aggression. No "back rowing" helped, no peace offers helped - now the hated system could be struck, now the danger to the so lucrative business with worldwide usury could be eliminated.
Gaddafi acted far more thoughtfully and cautiously. With constant tactics, he managed to maintain his social model for decades and to avoid occasions for intervention. Without a doubt, Libya was not as much in focus as the German Reich. Nevertheless, the financial jugglers did not lose sight of Libya. Neither the accusations of being responsible for various terrorist attacks nor the bombing of his capital by US forces (1986!) provoked Gaddafi into ill-considered actions. He skilfully used his weapon – oil – and was able to consolidate Libya's position by early 2011.
But also Gaddafis history come to no good end. A produced uprising was the coat hanger for the invasion of Libya – publicly declared as a „maintenance of a no-fly zone for the protection of civilians“. As in the 30-s Gaddafis negotiations offers were also hushed up and were ignored. The Nato rushed with all power at the country to release the people from the dictator. Together with the troops and “rebels” there came the “embedded” journalists. They have the same job, that they had during the war against Germany: To document the operation in agreeable mode. A picture which shows the allies or NATO as noble liberators and the attacked should be presented for the world as person-despising dictators without deductions.
Allegiated atrocities
Then as now, news of mass murders and atrocities are spread. 50,000 prisoners were massacred by Gaddafi's people, mass graves were found... At first these reports only made the headlines sporadically. The people still stood by their leader and fought with all means against the military superiority with its almost immeasurable resources. Too much exaggerated propaganda lies are not yet presentable to the world public. It was only after the invasion, when the people were "democratized," that the "true extent" of Gaddafi's crimes became apparent. Any denial of this fact will be punished in the new democracy.
Hollywood stories
Hollywood already creates the history of the “liberation”. Tripoli was put in the desert of Qatar for the war reporting. What was presented to us as live news about the events in the Libyan capital on the screens, has turned out to be theatre. Small mistakes of the scenery have struck attentive spectators. Like the documentations for the time of the war against the German Reich, new forgeries are exposed constantly and discrepancies on independent net sides are uncovered. In spite of the destruction of the Libyan state media reports on the war crimes of NATO and her procession men appeared for example in Twitter, set up by independent journalists and other Internet users for the public. For a small public.
Most citizens still believe in what shimmers every evening as a day show about the screen or what is presented to us as a historical truth in the form of the Doku-Soap's of Guido Knopp, a history-forger in Germany. Nevertheless, more and more people uncover these stagings of a state and his servants, that creates endless wars and who calls himself God's own country.
The well documented revelations of what happened around 9/11, which heralded the war against the Islamic world, have already found their way into the mainstream media. Facts that the aggressors don't like about the wars in Iraq, against Yugoslavia, Korea and Vietnam are also made public. The alleged assassination attempt on the "Maine", which triggered the war against Spain, turned out to be a lie. A documentary film was even broadcast on public television about the sinking of the "Lusitania", revealing that an inhuman game was also staged here, which killed 1,200 civilians and which caused the USA to enter World War I. This gave the German Empire the deathblow and ultimately led to the misfortune of the Third Reich.
Are there connections between worldwide war propaganda that will force the vanquished into psychological bondage for generations to come? Between the "appointment" of unwelcome rulers as dictators and their elimination by the community of democratic nations?
Provocations in history
The deliberate provocation of the sinking of the Lusitania to pull America in the I world war joins to all the other triggers for wars. The attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor as a reason for the entry America in the II world war (consciously provokes and allow to happen), the attack of the north Vietnamese on an American destroyer in the golf of Tonkin as a trigger for the Vietnam war (has never taken place) and the allegiated attack of Osama bin Laden with his 19 Arabian assistants as a reason for the war around Afghanistan and Iraq, are all historical forgeries, smooth lies, or even produced events to bring the population in mood for a war and to be able to justify this. We can firmly calculate on the fact that the next war just provokes, produces and with the wrong assertion ‘we have been attacked’ is founded. Nothing is as well as it seems and how it is sold to us with propaganda.“
"History is a lie that historians agree upon!"