Rebane's Ruminations
May 2011
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

A little noticed rearrangement of Europe’s security apparatus will have a great impact on how ‘old Europe’ will finally react to its historical threats from the east (Russia) and south (Islam).  NATO had the con on defending Europe against international communism (USSR) during the Cold War.  With the collapse of the USSR and the rehabilitation of communism – it is now an openly pursued alternative form of governance in the US and the rest of the world – NATO entered its muddled decline that has become a farce with its forces arrayed tentatively and far from the territories it was intended to protect.

VisegradGroup In this interval, European countries have reduced their defense expenditures to nil, letting Uncle Sam be the world’s policeman and do all the heavy lifting – literally.  The German Bundeswehr – son of Wehrmacht, the inventor of the mechanized army and blitzkrieg – could not even transport its soldiers to the Polish border if they would reprise their attack of September 1939, the troops would have to hitchhike.  In the meanwhile Germany has decided, that for its economic survival, it must make nice with the thugocracy that today is Russia.

And that leaves Poland and the other central Europeans to again play the role of buffer and pawns.  They have been screwed, blued, and tattooed many times over the centuries by their neighbors, and they see it coming again.  Their latest experience was the defection of Great Britain and France who signed mutual aid and guarantee of borders treaties after WW1 with the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, … .  When Stalin and Hitler attacked (per their secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in the spring of 1939), all these countries called for the military aid they had been promised.  What they got was a fistful of diplomatic cables from the west that in essence said, ‘just kidding’.

Polish national memory recalls that it was that country which halted the tide of Islam’s Ottoman Turks in 1683 at the Battle of Vienna.  Under the command of Poland’s King Sobieski the Muslims were thrown back into the Balkans where they have retained their European toehold to this day.  Minarets on Europe’s skylines were postponed for three centuries.

Recently Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have quietly united to revive the historic Visegrad Group.  Under this union these countries recently announced the formation of a military force that is totally independent of NATO, and charged with the defense of central Europe.  Expect the Visegrad Group to soon include the Baltics, Rumania, Bulgaria, Austria, and (here come the fireworks) the Ukraine.  Eventually, the Christian remnants of Yugoslavia would also become natural members of this alliance, or assume the role of new pawns between Islam and Europe.

Stratfor has focused on tracking this development, and reports on it in ‘Visegrad: A New European Military Force’  by George Friedman (nearby map from that article).  Those of us on these shores who are not mollified by the politically correct views of Islam should pay particular attention as this is the beginning of the renewed polarization of the next regional hegemons, Turkey and Poland.

As a footnote here, keep an eye on how Turkey will break its silence on the Arab Spring.  Turkey cannot stand on the sidelines of this growing Islamic parade.  It must step in there to take a leadership position when it sees that a caliphate-like coalescence is starting among the revolting countries of north Africa and the Middle East.  President Obama’s 19may11 speech also laid the groundwork for that.

Posted in ,

13 responses to “The Visegrad Group – as NATO disintegrates, Poland steps up”

  1. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Probably a very good move on their part

    Like

  2. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    George, the left will attack this as being NOT politically correct and call the Europeans racists. Just watch.

    Like

  3. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Just another historical correction–Great Britain and France had mutual aide treaties with Czechoslovakia and Poland, but not Hungary. They sold out the Czech’s, but didn’t they declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland? Isn’t that how WWII actually started? It certainly was not the mutual aide the Poles wanted, but considering the state of their military it may have been the best they could do. Hungary was not invaded by Germany, they voluntarily joined the Axis in 1940, and took part in the invasion of Russia (Operation Barbarossa).
    I admit, I am less clear on the mutual aide arrangement with the Baltic states–but I have read several histories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and I don’t remember an existing mutual aid agreement.
    Just kind of bothers me when people are not accurate about these things–now I may be wrong–and if historic references can be cited I would recant my critique.

    Like

  4. read history Avatar
    read history

    for the one above me : uk and france declared war on germany but they remained only with the declaration. remember france was occupied (vichy regime)and GB was attacked day and night untill hitler invaded Russia. big aid for poland hmm

    Like

  5. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    The Baltic States were given to the USSR by the hidden treaty if I recall.

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    Yes, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact assigned the Balric states to the USSR after start of hostilities.

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Well I guess my memory hasn’t vacated my brain yet. I read that forty years ago. Thanks George.

    Like

  8. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    My original comment still stands, until George can provide evidence in the historical record that shows Great Britain and France had mutual aid treaties with the Baltic States or Hungry. All of my reading on pre-WWII diplomatic history says they did not. Thus the original statement was historically inaccurate. I would love to proved wrong!

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    Under the Briand-Kellog treaty of 1928, to which Great Britain, France, Estonia, and a number of other countries (including the United States) were signatories, aggression by force was renounced as a solution to international problems between the signatories (confirming that WW1 was “the war to end all wars”). Even though no specific sanctions were spelled out against violators, it was understood by the signatories that a violating nation would suffer the forceful opposition of the remaining signatories. This understanding was explicitly confirmed by the USSR, which in the spring of 1939 attempted to get “consent” from Great Britain and France (in the so-called Moscow Negotiations) that they would not retaliate in the event that the USSR abrogated its existing non-aggression treaties with the Baltics, and invaded them under the guise of “guaranteeing its own security”. Great Britain and France refused to give the USSR such guarantee. Nevertheless, when, under the concurrently forged secret Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, spelling out the division of eastern Europe, the USSR did invade the Baltics, Great Britain and France recognized that they were impotent against the German/Soviet alliance and did nothing to fulfill their tacit obligations to defend the Baltics and the other invaded signatories.

    Like

  10. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Kind of a dissembling answer George–So lets make this short and sweet–by your own admission, there was absolutely no provisions for sanctions in the Kellog-Briand Pact; Estonia was not a signatory, they filed a declaration of adherence, as did the Soviet Union; and Great Britain and France had no treaty obligating them to come to the mutual aid of the Baltic States or Hungry.
    I hate to be a nudge, but being of Estonian origin, I would assume you wish to be accurate.
    I must note that your response bears little resemblance to the issue I raised. The short answer was “Yes Steve, you are correct, here is the actual diplomatic situation in 1939”.
    (Please note that my defense of British and French obligations is half-hearted, and is not intended to in any way condone the criminal acts of the Soviet Union in the ‘secret protocol’)

    Like

  11. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    By the way I must note that a new effort including a treaty obligating the central European powers to mutual aid and defense is probably a good thing, if it coordinates it activities with NATO. In 30 years I will be very happy to have a new block in central and eastern Europe acting as a counter-balance to a perennially hegemonic Russia.

    Like

  12. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    George, the hubris of the left is too silly to even take seriously. I guess you, being a 13 year of escaping from your country just can’t compete with the smartest fellow in Truckee. My condolences.

    Like

  13. Steven Frisch Avatar

    Well Todd, when one is correct they are correct, because there are things called FACTS. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Like

Leave a comment