The West whitewashes Vatican's WWII crimes

The author of the attached analysis wanted to remain anonymous. He is a Serb born in the United States. His message to fellow Serbs is:

The Holocaust the Serbian people suffered during World War II is one of the most astonishing but also one of the most carefully kept secrets of the twentieth century. There is a good reason for this. What we must understand is that the West hostility against the Serbs was driven primarily by the Cold War imperative to maintain an image of moral superiority over the Russians. They could not do that if the Serbian Holocaust was known

To the Editor of
American Srbobran

I write this letter in response to the "Open Letter to My Serbian Friends" by Curtis Diles, which appeared in the Sept. 3, 2003 issue of the Srbobran. Mr. Diles was one of the hundreds of US Army Air Force men rescued by the Serbian Chetnik forces of Gen. Draza Mihajlovic. The letter is an honest and heartfelt account of his experience with the Serbs in World War II and his thoughts about what happen to Serbia in the larger context of his rescue.

In particular he made two important, perhaps decisive observations about the war and post war history of Yugoslavia and Serbia. The first observation was " … for sixty years... everything negative happening in the Balkans was to be blamed on the Serbs and all positive things attributed to others. The second was "I have yet to hear a rational explanation as to why our government abandoned the Serbians or neglected to intervene in the trial (of Draza Mihajlovic).

If I may paraphrase Mr. Diles’s first observation, there has been a conscious Western (US/UK/Western Europe) hostility to all things Serb since the middle of WWII to the present day, hour, minute, and second. The reason for this hostility is tied to the second observation of Mr. Diles. He is right in that there has not been a rational explanation of the abandonment and betrayal of the Serbian Orthodox resistance in WWII Yugoslavia. Rebecca West, regarded by many as the greatest English woman writer of the 20^th century said in a television interview shortly before her death "historians are liars". When she made that quote, she was speaking in the context of the history of WWII Yugoslavia about which she was very well informed. And no history has been lied about so much as that of Serbia and Yugoslavia since World War II. Even the Nazis, the Soviets, the Iraqis or Palestinians have been treated with more objectivity and fairness (such as it was) than the Serbs. Why so much hatred to a people who as Mr. Diles knows from first hand experience didn’t deserve it. The answer can be found in the real history of WWII, not the Cold War propaganda that most of us have accepted for generations as the truth.

The standard Western reason the British (who were "in charge of Yugoslavia during the war) have spun for the betrayal of Serbia was that Tito’s communist Partisans were a more effective fighting force against the Germans than the Serbian Orthodox (Chetnik) resistance. When the debriefings of Allied intelligence officers were made public, it became clear that the actual and potential military contributions and power of the Serbian Orthodox resistance was an order of magnitude greater then the Partisan. Then the story that the Serbian Diaspora at least, seems to believe is "we (US/UK) were tricked by clever communist moles into supporting Tito". Perhaps because Mr. Diles doesn’t feel the need to prove his "100% Americanism" as most Serbian Americans seem to do, he can see the truth that the "communist mole" story is just another half clever deception game (much like the phony weapons of mass destruction gambit was used against Iraq and believed by most turnip truck Americans).

The real history of World War Two has yet to see the light of day, but if it ever did you would know the following:

• The British and Americans mired in a decade long Great Depression knew that left alone, the Soviet Union would have the world’s largest economy and most powerful military by 1950.



• Great Britain, France and the Vatican promoted fascism in Europe including bringing Hitler to power in Germany as a "bulwark against Bolshevism" Even American State Department Officials had similar views" Only Nazi Germany could stay the advance of Soviet Bolshevism in Europe… many of the career State Department officials shared Bullet’s cynical enthusiasm for Hitler’s talents" from "The Splendid Blond Beast" by Christopher Simpson



• In additional to facilitating Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, and Hitler in Germany, the Vatican is organizing fascist forces in the "Intermariam" (between the Baltic and Adriatic Seas ) Catholic Curtain counties – Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and of course Croatia (temporarily a part of larger Orthodox Yugoslavia) as a political/military barrier against the Soviet Union



• Hitler did not want to conquer Great Britain, instead he sought an alliance (as the maritime component to Germany land forces) with Britain in his anti Soviet (Russian) crusade "They (Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoarse) were sure the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union only was the emery of the Axis and that they (UK) could quite easily come to a business like arrangement with Hitler" from "Outline of World History’ by H. G. Wells



• The Conservative Party faction around Winston Churchill who was as interested in the destruction of the Soviets as Chamberlain and Hitler distrusted the latter and feared the former may prevail in a war with Germany, so his plan was to ensnare the US in the war, which, of course we all know succeeded very well.



• The period between the defeat of Poland and the invasion of the Low Countries and France was correctly labeled as the "phony war" In other words as long as German aggression is headed east towards the Soviet Union, Britain and France had no reason or desire to actually fight Germany. After all this is consistent with Britain’s real policy aim - use Hitler as a "useful idiot" in the mutual destruction of its two biggest continental rivals - Germany and the Soviet Union.



• However, the German General Staff, having experienced a two front war in WWI insisted on dealing with France and Britain before an attack on the Soviets. As a matter of strategic planning, the General Staff always considered England Germany’s historical enemy, and had indeed supported Germany’s Rapallo cooperation agreements with the Soviets in the 20’s. However Nazi Germany made no serious effort to conquer Britain, although it was easily in their means. The London Blitz was a "slap on the wrist", a gesture the British understood as such, so in Western Catholic Europe for four years, life went on much as it did before the war, except the obvious fact of German occupation. In fact 95% of the destruction of life (30,000,000+ dead) and property in WWII Europe occurred in the Slav and/or Orthodox countries. Certainly this could not have been one of reasons why Pius XII did not speak out against Nazi Germany’ s aggression.



• On Dec 8, 1941 one day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor Churchill says "we’ve won" We meaning the US and UK, but certainly not Yugoslavia or the Russians. From that date on what concerned the British was not the fate of Germany, that was sealed, but what would Europe look like after the war. Would there still be a Soviet Union, a vastly diminished Union, or a great Soviet Union astride of Nazified Europe", only time would tell and as events unfolded



• The Serbian coup that toppled the government of Regent Prince Paul disrupts Germany’s timetable for "Operation Barbarossa" by a critical six weeks. President Roosevelt whose sympathies were clearly with Serbia throughout the war says that this event was the turning point of the war. John Keegan, the eminent British military historian calls the Serbian coup (which had overwhelming popular support throughout Serbia) "one of the greatest acts of defiance to tyranny in European history".



• The first and largest anti Nazi resistance movement is formed by unsurrendered remnants of the Yugoslav Army (we should be honest and just say Serbs) under the command of Draza Mihajlovic. This should be no surprise to anyone, including the British, as the military performance and heroism of the Serbs in the First World War is unsurpassed among all the combatants and the Serbs capacity to endure suffering and deprivation without surrendering is unsurpassed in world history. In post Middle Age warfare, when a country casualties (killed) approached 5% of its population, even the most committed and bravest (for example the American Confederate States in the American Civil War or the Japanese in WWII) surrendered, however the Serbs in WWI lost nearly one third of her population including 56% of its males and did not surrender, so the British know very well they are dealing with a people who don’t make deals, but will literally fight to the death for their beliefs.



• Whether the Hess mission to Britain resulted in a succinct secret understanding with the British we do not know (one reason being Hess was found dead under British guard in Spandau prison). For a detailed history of this refer to John Costello’s "Ten Days to Destiny". What we do know is that as far as the one of the two main fronts of the European War there was NO WAR in Western Europe from the fall of France June 1940 to June 6, 1944. There was in fact a de facto peace between the UK and Germany during WWII. This prompted Gen Eisenhower to record in his private memoirs that Britain refusal to open a second front to relieve the Soviets was betrayal of the Allied war strategy. Eisenhower as reported in a Canadian documentary on the Dieppe Raid commented to his fellow American officers on British cowardliness. Personally, my view is that Eisenhower incorrectly attributed British inaction, not realizing the Britain and America had different goals in the war (at least until the death of President Roosevelt).



• The British were learning in detail by the summer of 1941 of the Catholic Church’s inspired Ustashe slaughter of Serbian Orthodox in the Independent State of Croatia. The death toll by the end of the summer of’41 is over 500,000. Jasenovac becomes the first death camp in Europe.



• Britain, starting in late 1941 began recruiting in Canada known Yugoslav communist for training and insertion into Yugoslavia, despite the well known exploits of the Serbian Orthodox resistance.



• Britain kept its options open in Yugoslavia by establishing contact with and minimally aiding both Mihajlovic’s and Tito’ forces.



• The forces of Mihajlovic play an important role in the Allied victory in North Africa by destroying great quantities of German war material on Serbia’s railroads. The contributions to the war effort by the Partisans (who also fought with typical Serbian heroism) are minimal, simply because they have no presence in Serbia during the critical years of the war.



• The Battle of Stalingrad stops German expansion into Russia. However, the decisive battle of WWII is at the Kursk Salient in July – August 1943. Here Germany is truly defeated and from this time on will be on the defensive and in retreat. And everyone knows it. Germany will lose the war. The Soviet Union will win – D Day or no D Day. It’s been a chestnut of Cold War propaganda as well as a fraud of Western histories to raise D Day [June 6, 1944] to the level of importance of Kursk. Germany lost nearly more men fighting the Russian every month for four years than they did fighting the Americans and British from D Day to the end of the war. From a British perspective (but not to the Americans, again to the credit of Roosevelt) D-Day was the rescue mission to save Germany (and her vast industry) from the Soviets.



• Ironically, the Red Army victory at Kursk will doom Draza Mihajlovic and the Serbian people. For up until Kursk, the British government and the American Republican party (John Foster Dallas) are pushing a plan that calls for Germany to limit its conquest to the German speaking areas of Europe and then an alliance of the Western Allies (US/UK) with Germany against the Soviet Union. "In time Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles became two of the most influential advocates of a separate peace tactics in elite US circles. John Foster Dulles already a senior foreign policy expert for the Republican Party – publicly declared in the spring of 1943 that Poland was the place to draw the line against the Soviets. Allen Dulles meanwhile opposed FDR’s agreement to seek unconditional surrender of Germany" from the "Splendid Blond Beast by Christopher Simpson.



• After Kursk, Britain, the US, every corporal and up in the war knew the Red Army was going to win big and there was no chance for a stabilized Eastern Front in the western Soviet Union. What lay ahead would be a divided Europe with the Soviets occupying much if not all of the Catholic Curtain countries.



• One month after Kursk Brigadier Fitzroy MacLean arrives at Tito’s headquarters with a promise of whatever amount of aid to the Partisans to ensure a communist victory



• Meanwhile the British demand suicidal actions by Mihajlovic of no military consequence, yet will invite massive German reprisal at a ratio of 100 Serb civilians killed for every German. Mihajlovic remarks "The British are prepared to fight to the last drop of Serbian blood"

Everyone knows the rest of the story – Tito wins in Yugoslavia and Serbia is utterly defeated. But as Mr. Diles ask "why"? Well put your self in the position of the British. They really had no choice. Even if the British were fully appreciative of all the Serbian sacrifices they absolutely needed a "communist", or more precisely an anti-Serb victory in Yugoslavia. The British (remember who’s strategic concern is the post war landscape of Europe) send a seasoned anti-communist operative to a communist (Tito) to aid him against the pro West pro democracy Serbs of Draza Mihajlovic in a war they (the British) have manipulated to destroy Communism (Soviet Union). Well the British say – Tito is killing more Germans a nd that’s why we help him. Aren’t these the same British, Eisenhower accused of betrayal and cowardliness for not fighting the Germans for four years? Yes, they are the same ones.

No, British backing of Tito has nothing to do with killing Germans. They know Germany is defeated. So what does motivate the British into making Tito?

Remember the Serbian Holocaust. The British and the Americans know that as a result of the Battle of the Kursk Salient there will be a divided Europe with the Soviets occupying much of Catholic Europe. They also knew that communism holds great appeal to much of the population of two other great Catholic countries, France and Italy (where the communist were the effective anti Nazi resistance, but received no aid from the US/UK).

So, the situation that will face the Western allies at the end of World War II is Soviet occupation of the Intermariam Catholic counties in the East and massive popular support for communism and socialism in France and Italy.

The British were in a position along with the Americans to know all of the facts on the ground concerning the Serbian Holocaust and the role of the Catholic Church right up to Pope Pius XII. They also realized after Kursk there would be a divided Europe and a long ideological struggle with communism and that propaganda and claims to moral superiority (given the experiences of capitalism producing two world wars and the Great Depression in the first half of the twentieth century) would be crucial for victory. Simply put, the British and Americans feared a Serbian Orthodox victory in Yugoslavia would lead to Serb retribution and justice which very likely lead to the downfall of the Papacy and perhaps the entire Roman Catholic Church at a time when the Soviet Union enjoyed immense prestige for its role in defeating Nazi Germany, and at a time when the masses of Europe where shifting radically to the left.

In other words if the Vatican was exposed as complicit in mass murder, if Pius XII was in the defendant box at Nuremberg, most of Western Europe may have gone communist by free elections.

So, what to do you do if you are the British and Americans? You create in the form of Tito a force that is: one, anti Serb and two, entirely dependent on the West for its survival. And this is the reality behind Anglo American policy in World War II Yugoslavia. They supported Tito not because his forces were killing Germans, they supported Tito because the British and Americans knew Tito’s Partisan were killing Serbs.

The strategy worked and brilliantly so. Tito did cover up the Serbian Holocaust, the Catholic Church was saved. The Roman Church did go on as anticipated to agitate in Poland, Lithuania, and the rests of Catholic Eastern Europe, hastening the collapse of communism. So, far from being a mistake or being tricked, the Anglo-American support of Tito was in fact a brilliant anti-communist strategy.

"In January 1944, General Korneev who was sent as chief of Soviet mission to Tito, asked Bill Deakin who was sent in May 1943 as the first British mission, why were the British helping Tito when the Soviets had no confidence in the military worth of the partisans and considered Mihajlovic as the only group of some significance... At that time Deakin said "I thought Korneev must have believed we were helping Tito because of some secret political motive" from a speech by Nikola R. Pasic III

President Roosevelt asks him (Yugoslav ambassador to the US Fotic) on Dec 20, 1941 "How, after such horrible crimes we could expect the Serbs to live in the same state with the Croats". And on an earlier occasion he (Roosevelt) had said "It would be for the Serbs to decide what sort of community they intended to retain with the Croats after the war. On several occasions Roosevelt spoke of Serbia, not Yugoslavia in his public utterances. From the "The Fall of Yugoslavia" by Ilija Jukic

Roosevelt had quite different war aims then Churchill. Among them was the dismantling of the British Empire. However, with his decline in health and death, Anglophiles and American Catholics (Allen and John Foster Dulles and William Donavan) in the US government under the "useful idiot" Truman were responsible for, among other things, the betrayal of Serbia, the dropping of atomic bombs (against the advice of every senior US military leader) on defenseless Japanese cities, and the Cold War itself with its insane arms race which still threatens the existence of all humanity.

Only the Catholic Church and the British needed the second Yugoslavia as a means of covering up the greatest crime of the 20^th Century and denying the Serbs enormous sacrifice and contributions to the Allied victory.

Will the truth about Serbia ever be known. Remember Rebecca West’s "historians are liars". All history to some degree is contemporary history or as George Orwell noted "he who controls the past controls the future". As long as the Cold War persisted, the truth of the Serbian Holocaust could never see the light of day. Just as the Canadians could not accuse their British cousins of deliberate lying and manipulation during the Cold War for the disastrous Dieppe Raid that cost thousand of Canadian casualties or the sex scandal that surrounds the Catholic Church today (but whose events happened in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s ),could the crimes of Western states or institution be known or else the spotless mantle of Western moral superiority would be stained.

At the end of the Cold War, Serbs had a world historic opportunity to correct the record and restore the name of Serbs and Serbia to its century’s long reputation for what is best in humanity. In Serbia, the "The Museum of the Victims of Genocide" opened in Belgrade in 1991 and started reveling the hidden history of the Serbian Holocaust. The man that authorized that museum is now on trial for his life in The Hague. His successors immediately closed that museum while putting hundreds of millions of US dollars in their pockets. Meanwhile in the US, the Serbian Orthodox church remains openly hostile to any member that tries to remember the dead of the Serbian Holocaust. Serbian American institutions, including the church in their anti communist zeal have been at most times witting accomplices in the cover up of the Serbian Holocaust. And that Mr. Diles is what it was about in 1943 and in 1993. The West’s suppression of the history of the Serbian Holocaust was the only thing that matter to them in regards Yugoslavia for the last 60 years. And their attacks on all things Serbian will continue until Serbia is cleansed of heroes and then the West can rest and know that we ourselves will destroy our own history for our 30 pieces of silver. In another generation, unless something is done, the Serbian Holocaust and its aftermath will be lost for eternity. In the final analysis, when you sweep away all of the ideological blinders and deliberate misinformation, Draza Mihajlovic and Slobodan Milosevic, the last two genuine Serb leaders both trod the same path of heroic resistance and martyrdom standing alone against a corrupt world.

September 15, 2003