L-I: CASTRO: "A HOLOCAUST AND NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT, WHY?"

[Borba100@aol.com]

Lou posted a speech President Castro made in May about Yugoslavia.  The 
following is the relevant excerpt from an excellent speech he made on June 11 
- the day after the signing of the so-called peace agreement.  It is 
substantially different from the one Lou found.  Castro (as he says) has 
learned things - indeed, give the obvious inadequacy of his knowledge he is 
very careful to say "we are not trying to impose solutions on this delicate 
situation" - or words to that effect.  He calls for people in Kosovo to talk 
- but NOT under the gun. That is essentially the Yugoslav government 
position, though his views and theirs had a slightly different slant - at 
that time.  What he thinks today is unclear..

I assume he has learned a lot more since June 11 - given the full impact of 
the realization IN LIFE of the KLA and NATO programs for "multiethnic 
society" in Kosovo. Kosovo since June has taught everyone with open eyes, 
open mind, without bias.

There are a number of things I would like to point out:

1) Notice how a great revolutionary handles the problem of error.  He is open 
about it; he is amazed at what he and others did not know.  He points out 
that the problem of racism towards Serbs has been hushed up in Europe.  He 
demonstrates his intellectual integrity by not posing as knowledgeable where 
he is not - on the other hand, consider the implications of the fact that he 
did not understand, before, that the Serbs were the black people of the 
Balkans.  As he says (he is diplomatically uncritical, but he says it): the 
communist movement silenced this story.  Nobody called it genocide.  But now 
that we and Castro are AWARE of the unsurpassed racial oppression of the 
Serbs, these last Indian tribes, we must not tolerate statements about "the 
trash in Belgrade" any more than we would tolerate the use of the filthy 6 
letter word that starts with N or any other racial slur.
 
2) Notice that Castro clearly opposes a "revolutionary Kosovar solution" - he 
refers to these as the "extremist" forces.

To Macdonald, who expressed despair at some of the quality of what is seen on 
"the left", let me say: Here is an expression of your values, upheld by a 
leftwing leader  who so easily could adopt racist positions so as not to 
offend the Europeans whose financial ties he needs.  

Here is relevant part of Fidel Castro's amazingly candid speech:

The group of the seven richest countries in the world except Japan, which is
not a NATO member, took part in the attack on Serbia. The eighth country,
Russia, is ironically the country that has become poorer in less time. Its
per capita GDP is at Third World levels.

It is now an impoverished, indebted country depending on Western credits.
Still, I am not suggesting at all that these were the reasons for the sad
role it played in the Group of Eight. I believe that they were genuinely
concerned about the crisis unleashed, the danger of this adventurous war and
the impact on its own population, a mirror image of what might happen to
them some day. They must have grown aware of all the influence and strength
they have lost.
Actually, I would admit that their position is right in as much as they
advocate a political solution of conflicts and the United Nations Charter.
Their speech in the Security Council was critical and positive but, of
course, that is the Group of Eight which was no longer inviting Russia but
this time they called it, met with it and, in was in those circumstances
that they participated.

I think it was this morning that I read some news on the rapid advance of a
column of Russian paratroopers heading for Kosovo. It caught NATO by
surprise; in fact, it caught everybody by surprise. It was an undeniable
answer to the deceit of negotiating permission with the Yugoslavs so that
NATO would head security forces in Kosovo. It was not a United Nations
decision, it was not discussed with Russia. That was the humiliation, deceit
and trickery.

In short, NATO attacked and got stuck. They invented a meeting of the Group
of Eight and fabricated a peace plan. The peace plan which excited so many
discrepancies and differences with the Russians was finally adopted and
taken to the Security Council while the issue of who was in command of that
force remained unresolved. But, the question had already been solved. Right
there in his speech, the United States Representative informed that they had
permission from the Yugoslavs to take command of the Yugoslav province of
Kosovo. That is the way the matter was handled. I think that everything is
quite clear.

I want to say something else. We started delving as deep as possible in the
history of that region, its past and recent history, and we have put
together some interesting information. There is one in particular, however,
that has greatly struck our attention. It was denounced yesterday by our UN
Ambassador: when Hitler invaded Yugoslavia he set up a fascist government in
Zagreb which included Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and a great part of
Voivodina, almost to the doors of Belgrade.

The fascist regime of Ante Pavelic enforced the so-called Three-Thirds
Doctrine. What did it mean? One third of the Serbs were to be deported,
another third assimilated and forcibly converted to Catholicism --the
official religion of the country (Croatia) because the others, the Serbs,
were Christians too but from another church, the Orthodox Church rather
close, in general, to the Catholic doctrine although with evident tensions
between them. The last third would be annihilated. That doctrine became the
political orientation of the State machinery which started organizing all
three things with unequally effective results.

Many of the converts were finally annihilated since deportation was not
easy. Thus, physical extermination became the most general practice.
Amazing! For us it was a discovery, a holocaust, a true holocaust of huge
magnitude.

In terms of the total Serb, not Yugoslav, population at that time it is
possible that they annihilated (I only say that it is possible, because I
still have not done the exact reckoning, someone should do it) a higher
percentage of Serbs as compared to the total Serb population living in
Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina than the percentage of Jews annihilated
during World War II, vis-�-vis their total number. A more detailed study
would be required. This holocaust has been hidden. The West never wanted to
mention it.

We have tried to learn as much as possible about the author of the research
contained in this small book [Shows it]. He is a journalist who works with
many humanitarian organizations. He was raised as a Catholic and not in the
least close to Marxism-Leninism or Communism. Looking for materials we found
this. We are collecting more information. Some of his articles have been
published and the book is certainly well written. It contains a lot of
interesting data.

Now what do Croat and Serb writers say? Croat writers acknowledge that there
were 200,000 victims, that is, those who were killed under the fascist Three
Thirds Doctrine.

What do Serb writers say? They speak of 1 million people killed.

What do more reliable sources say? That they were 400,000 to 700,000.

What does one of the admittedly most reliable sources, the British Admiralty
Archives, have to say? Do not forget that the United Kingdom was an ally of
Yugoslavia at the time taking part in operations in the Balkans and their
archives are considered important, serious sources. Raising the issue may
perhaps awaken interest so that better informed people can speak up on the
it. The British Admiralty Archives set in 675,000 the number of civilian
Serbs killed, including many peasants and people of all ages and gender who
were coldly murdered in concentration camps or in the places where they
lived. Whole villages were wiped out. That was the figure used yesterday by
our UN Ambassador. But there are other interesting data. I suspect the
number of victims to have been higher.

There is a population analysis based on 1941 population data of three
territories --Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina-- their different cultures,
ethnic groups and nationalities living there. Although among
Bosnian-Herzegovinians, Serbs and Croats one cannot actually speak of ethnic
differences because the three nations are ethnic Slavs. There is even a
Serbo-Croatian language. The difference is rather cultural, religious and
national. A single ethnic group may have several nations. In Latin America,
besides the language we share many ethnic traits. The Dominican Republic and
Cuba --just to mention an example-- belong to the same ethnic group and are
two independent nations.

According to statistics, in 1941 when there was still no war, how many
Croats lived in that territory? In that territory the population was 3.3
million. Forty years later, according to the 1981 census, how many Croats
were living there? 4,210,000, that is, an almost one million increase.

Muslims, who are Slavs too but of the Muslim religion: In 1941, there were
700,000; in 1981, there were 1,629,000 (more than doubled).

Serbs, how many Serbs were living in that same territory in 1941? 1,925,000.
How many after 40 years, according to the 1981 census? 1,879,000, that is,
approximately 45,000 less. Based on these facts, people who have analyzed
population, customs, habits, growth, etc. have estimated that in that
holocaust 800,000 to 900,000 Serbs died.

All of us have heard of Oswiecim and other concentration camps. Some of us
have had the possibility of visiting them and having a terrifying vision of
what those concentration camps were. Now we find out, or we are told, that
there was an extermination camp called Jasenovac, the equal of Oswiecim in
Poland. In Jasenovac lie the remains of hundreds of thousands of Serbs as
well as thousands of Jews, gypsies and people of all ethnic groups. People
say that the biggest Serbian city after Belgrade lies there, below the
ground.

How many of you knew about it? Did anyone of you know or had anyone of you
heard about this? We are going to keep on researching. Could you please
raise your hand if you knew it. (SOMEBODY RAISES A HAND). Good, tell us.
(ONE OF THE DELEGATES SAYS THAT A BOOK ON THIS SUBJECT WAS PUBLISHED IN
SERBIA AND TRANSLATED TO SEVERAL LANGUAGES, BUT THAT IN EUROPE PEOPLE ARE
GENERALLY IGNORANT OF THIS CROAT-NAZI FASCIST ALLIANCE AND THE GENOCIDE THEY
COMMITTED).

Who wrote that book? (HE SAYS THAT HE BELIEVES IT WAS WRITTEN BY TWO SERBS).

This one I have here, from which I took the information we are going to
research deeper into --the fact that Croat writers themselves acknowledge
the figure of 200,000, is significant-- was written by Josep Palau, an
ethnic Catalonian journalist. Since 1982 he has been involved in many
international activities linked to European peace movements and has been a
representative of various non-governmental organizations. He has also been a
United Nations consultant.

I asked our ambassador in New York if he had any information because we had
suggested to him to buy this book (Shows it). We sent him the references but
in a bookstore he was told that it would take six weeks to get it. Right
away, yesterday, we e-mailed him a copy. He had the whole book there. Then
he told me that he had read another very interesting article by the same
author who is considered one of the most knowledgeable in the history of the
Balkans and, in general, about these problems. We do not know anything else.
That is why I asked, in case any of you knew.

It is understandable that Yugoslav leaders avoided digging into the issue.
It is hard to do so when such a horrible thing has happened. When there have
been century-old conflicts, undoubtedly digging into this type of problems
would have run against the aim of building a solid federation, a united and
just state, a peaceful society.

One could ask why the West does not speak of this holocaust. It is
particularly important now when they have been dropping thousands and
thousands of bombs on that same nation. To this we would have to add that
these are only those who died in the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina because the fascist government imposed by Hitler covered more
territory, including part of Voivodina. However, it seems that there is
information only on the three aforementioned territories, not Voivodina.

We need to calculate the number of those who died in the territory ruled by
that government and those who died in parts temporarily occupied by Italian
fascists or Hungarian fascists.

The carnage must have ended by late 1942 because in 1943 there were many
liberated territories, the guerrilla force was stronger. I will try to
gather information to know what percentage of the population died in
concentration camps at that time. I do not mean in combats but in
concentration camps and killed in cold blood.

A holocaust and no one talks about it, why? There are sad and painful
stories of the more recent massacres and ethnic cleansing, and I do not
doubt that they did take place. I have not been there or seen it, nor am I
going to ask for the papers. It is enough to know a bit about the history of
hatred and real conflicts.

But I know too that during the 45 years that the Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia existed there was peace among all those ethnic groups. [Joseph
B.] Tito himself was an ethnic Croat but he knew how to win the love of the
Serbs and the Serbs were actually the backbone of the resistance. It is
understandable that in Tito's time there was not much talk about the matter.
Today, in a split-up Yugoslavia and when in one part of the country a crime
such as this has been committed, it is worthwhile making these truths known.

I must say that it is not my intention to incite nor blame anybody, least of
all the people in that country. I do not intend to blame Croats for this. It
would be like blaming the Germans for Hitler's massacres of Jews, gypsies
and many others who died in concentration camps, in the systematic efforts
to coldly exterminate an ethnic group, a nation, a multiethnic population or
a single ethnic group.

But a holocaust of such magnitude is tremendously important. Blaming the
Croat people would be like blaming the Italian people for the crimes of that
clown named Mussolini. I cannot think of calling him anything else because
that is what he was to a great extent and he killed many people, invaded,
waged war, sent troops to the Soviet Union. It would be unfair to blame any
people for the crimes committed by a fascist system. I want to make this
clear, honestly. I am not blaming anybody, I simply rely on historical
facts.

Something else must be said: The Jews who suffered the holocaust in Germany
and elsewhere were very friendly to the Serbs and very grateful to them
because the Serbs saved the lives of many Jews. It is even said that the US
Secretary of State, on her way from Czechoslovakia sought refuge in Serbian
territory and there she received help and support from the Serbs. They
played a role, fighting heroically against Nazism. And I reiterate that our
stance, the one we hold and shall hold, is based on principles.

If you have a chance, you can read the speeches delivered by our UN
Ambassador. Our position on Kosovo is very clear there. Not only now, but 12
days after the bombings began, when as a direct or indirect
consequence --surely, in my opinion, in the overwhelming majority of cases
as a direct result-- of the bombings, all sorts of conflicts must have
triggered or worsened, we offered doctors to a religious Catholic community
involved in assisting refugees. They told us about the tragedy there and we
offered to send up to 1,000 doctors. Twelve days after the conflict began!
This is not something new said a week before Cuba spoke in the United
Nations. We did not say it publicly because we left it to them. Eventually,
several weeks ago, we also said it publicly.

Likewise, when the Americans who occupy a base in our territory informed
us --they usually do not do it-- rather than request permission they
informed that they would bring 20,000 Kosovars, in violation of the terms of
the agreement under which they stay there, an agreement which has been
violated by all possible means, but at least this time they had the decency
of telling us, perhaps they thought that we would say that they should not
bring the Kosovars but we told them: "We absolutely agree that you bring
them. We are ready to cooperate in everything. We can offer our hospitals,
water services, all the help we can give them."
Later, perhaps they thought things over. Because it was really disgusting to
unleash a war which, in its turn, would unleash a colossal migration, a
human drama and bring those people from Albania to a naval base in a
tropical country, a long distance away. I believe they finally brought 2,000
to a camp in their own territory. Out of the 1 million, with a generous and
humanitarian spirit they have assisted a little over 2,000 refugees, Great
Britain another handful, I believe that 0.8 percent the two of them combined
or some other rather negligible number of refugees.

We said that we agreed, that they would be welcomed in the occupied Cuban
territory. We offered medical care and we reiterate it now. That was our
clear and categorical position: respect for their cultural, national and
religious rights and support for their autonomy. We went even further, and
possibly many Yugoslavs do not understand this, or many Serbs do not
understand this well, but we admitted the idea of independence provided all
Kosovo ethnic groups attained a fair peace and the Serbs in other territorie
s of that republic reached an agreement peacefully and decided to do it.
Yes, I say that it has to be peacefully and mutually agreed.

I believe that such a possibility exist. Yet, I do not think we should
interfere with this delicate issue. We have stated our position. We have
done our duty. We do not do things to make friends or enemies. Sometimes we
hurt friends and make enemies at the same time. But there is something much
more important than any temporary advantages: seriousness and honesty.

I have criticized the Europeans with the words I have used without having
any feelings of animosity against them. But one day I will be able to
demonstrate that I warned them very precisely, and only seven days after the
attacks began, I warned them of what was going to happen exactly. I
apologize for preserving and not declassifying this material.

One of the big European mistakes was that instead of working with moderate
forces, they worked with the most extremist called by them fearful
terrorists just a few months ago. It was only in 1998 that the movement went
>from a few hundred armed men to over 15,000 to 20,000 armed men. Now we have
to find out what the famous CIA did, how many it trained, with which
weaponry and what tasks it gave them. What nobody doubts is that this war
practically had a time-table. I believe that the greatest chance for peace
was in supporting moderate groups and not extremist groups, called
terrorists shortly before. They use any term, any adjective.

This is the last idea I want to share. Why should we be so concerned about
this policy, this onslaught on sovereignty, this attempt to do away with the
principles of the UN Charter? Why are all these theories invented, these
doctrines I mentioned, so many pretexts for humanitarian intervention or
against global threats? As I was saying, there is something called diplomacy
supported by force which is another concept. What else will follow?

We have had bitter experiences with the behavior of US political leaders.
Once in a while they elect someone with a religious ethic. I would dare
mention a case in point: President James Carter. I cannot think of Carter
waging this type of genocidal war. But we have known a few U.S. presidents
of whom the same cannot be said.

We have just sued the United States for 181 billion dollars, I already told
you a bit about it. I hope they give you a copy of our legal demand. I think
you had one in your briefcases, but just in case, for the benefit of those
who have not read it since you have not had much time, I will brief you
about it. In those pages there are two things, two major cases of cynicism
described. In the lawsuit we said: "The unquestionable historical truth
about these events and the cynicism and lies that have invariably
accompanied all American actions against Cuba can be found in the original
documents of the time, produced by those who, from within that country,
planned the policy of aggression and subversion against Cuba."

The plots against Cuba and their actions began as soon as we passed a Land
Reform Act because U.S. companies owned here estates of 10,000, 50,000 and
even 150,000 hectares. We passed a Land Act that logically and inevitably
affected their properties and as of that moment their crimes against Cuba
began. By August the first terrorist actions were carried out, the first
plans to assassinate Cuban leaders, and it was an honor that they devoted a
good number of them to me. They started in November 1959. It is right there,
in that same section.


IX PART


     --- from list leninist-international@lists.econ.utah.edu ---