NATO - BONN - MIDDLE EAST i ac German Federal Minent has Played a pro- id jn tole in arming Is- NC ng ethening it eco- Mlig y.. Militarily as by, idehead in the ary the pretext of Dine for the Bist the, oY Hitler fas- i Feder) cS: the West lags Tal Republic sup- Stael arms of ee "Dec silt to I H avy ] + t and dustrial equip- | tag ye? 800ds Pac A ’ itera which help- arma a increase Is- Mn, und Potential. In Pent a a S€cret arms j ot hen - ee between Teli pe or ~Adenauer ie tT) a #),» the = Inister Ben A, blic ‘ German Fede- ting of be With arp, /? million, ; 0) ie? ‘ ne and Sa West ith h r con eM on, .2etMan pub- ip Dlaneg! the first stage Bi Porter, woUding Nor- Bs Fouga ge 27 liaison als helj a-Magister jet ati “opters, lorries, hy = Wit} ~Cm-anti-air- Ib CONtro) .% Tequisite ? “quipment, 36 Rm the wed anti-tank ‘ German hs! BY the 4 soldiers were Bi Many ¢ deswehr in i 0 ra : Tater the inf &8ressive ‘hich Ste 1 Th yet istent] ’SPAaPETS, Nh © acty Uch infos ppert wnt Patticipatinn the S in the n of attack ace Ta 0 " r istangee@zine kh, ef | Sery:._ Vho h | i, “te aM Ae ns m ag] AL hs, these : 1 alge Much 4, 8lad Fila Mewget by ypteY, are Bae bef rape S ‘8 West Pigg Bates.” the 4, _turns Ble t ac Wasennin he ue da Viv With neton Ne, -'S, ta at th all the a h) | e,, NATO .ludies Blitzkrieg Bonn — drawing conclusions lorries to the Israeli army. It is known that ten Arab states broke off diplomatic rela- tions with Bonn as early as spring 1965 in protest against West Germany’s open coopera- tion in Israel’s preparations for aggression. After the aggression has been committed, the ruling circles of the West German Federal Re- public seek to justify the treach- erous Israeli attack launched against the Arab states, defend the aggressor and exploit the experiences of the Israeli “blitz” war for its own aggressive policy against the German Democratic Republic and other socialist states of Europe in order to bring about a revision of the territorial status quo in Europe. In this connection the revanchist forces in West Ger- many propagate the possibility of “limited wars” on the grounds that according to the latest ex- perience in the Middle East “wars were more than ever be- fore a means of politics.” Referring to a study of the chiefs of the general staff of NATO and in connection with Israel’s blitz aggression the weekly paper ‘Bayernkurier” of West German Finance Min- ister Franz Joseph Strauss pleads for “energetic forward defense, which will also secure territorial pawns in Central Europe deep in the territories of the Warsaw Pact.” Any acceptance of the aggres- secret service, which for a long time now has been conducting espionage work in the Arab countries with the assistance of West German “experts” engaged in different enterprises in those countries, All these services, which were gladly rendered by the United States and other Western coun- tries to Israel, supplemented the enormous material aid given to the latter country by the NATO states. The matter, notably, con- cerns the arming of the Israeli army, the training of its com- Manders, and_ reinforcement with skilled airmen. NATO headquarters displayed exceptionally keen interest in Studying the experience of the Israeli “blitzkrieg.” The battle- fields in the Middle East were for the Atlantic general a prov- ing grounds of a kind where some of their own strategical doctrines were checked up and where combat technique of the NATO countries was tested in action. A number of articles in the Western press, which are de- voted to an analysis of the mili- tary operations of Israel against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, discuss in detail the advantage of a surprise attack and the advisability of deliver- ing a “preventive” blow. They deal with the quality of the sion of Israel, any toleration of the occupation of Arab territo- ries by Israel thus also threatens the peace and_ security of Europe and ‘the world, because they would encourage the _ag- gressive forces of the imperial- ist powers to make other blitz war attempts. The Government of the Ger- man Democratic Republic is of the opinion that Israel’s military attack on the United Arab Re- public, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Kingdom of Jordan can- not be regarded as an accidental conflict of limited significance. Israel’s aggression must rather be seen in the context of the “slobal strategy” formulated by the NATO military bloc, which provides for “limited local ac- tions to secure a pawn for exert- ing pressure and operation ob- jectives” which can be attained in a relatively short time. Both the course of the aggression and the demands raised by the Is- raeli, U.S., British and West German sides to secure pawns for the annexation of Arab ter- ritories corroborate this state- ment. The Israeli aggression had long been prepared with this aim in» mind» and» with the active participation of the USA, Great Britain and the West German Federal Republic. The aggression was launched with the declared intention of securing for the im- perialist powers strategic posi- tions in the Near and Middle tanks and aircraft, which took part in the fighting, the effec- tiveness of the use of napalm in bombing airfields and personnel, etc, Needless to say, none of these articles contain a single word of condemnation of the Israeli aggressor. On the con- trary, the authors justify in every possible way the actions of Israel and, at the same time, the use of means of mass-scale destruction and annihilation in the interests of a “lightning” war. It is characteristic that some people hurry to make far-reach- ing conclusions. The West Ger- man newspaper, Die Welt, in an article, with a significant head- ing, “NATO Lesson,” calls upon the Atlantic alliance to urgently take the experience of the Is- raeli “blitzkrieg” into considera- tion. Despite all the differences of the European situation in comparison with that in the Middle East, the newspaper claims, this experience can be applied in Europe as well. “Swiftness in delivering @ blow,” which, in the opinion of the author of the Die Welt con- tribution, is a decisive condition of success, calls not only for a higher degree of combat readi- ness of the Atlantic bloc armed forces, but also for a still great- er concentration of power in the hands of the NATO Joint Com- mand (actually meaning 1n the hands of the Pentagon generals) in order that, when necessary, it could launch military operations without losing any time in con- sultation with the Governments of the Atlantic countries. East as well as the continued ex- ploitation of the mineral wealth, especially of the rich petroleum deposits of the Arab countries. That is why the national inde- pendence of the Arab states was to be undermined, their hard- earned social progress nullified and the national liberation move- ment thrown back. Israel has made itself a tool for these im- perialist plans and intentions. In exchange, the USA, Great Britain and the West German Federal Republic have equipped it with the most up-to-date of- fensive weapons and such bar- barous means of extermination as napalm. In November 1966 the so- called “North Atlantic Assem- bly”, in connection with the problems of the developing countries, affirmed the import- ance of the “forward strategy” and called upon the NATO states “to strengthen the flanks of the Atlantic front, especially in the South-East, both militarily and economically.” In implementation of this directive the NATO military bloc. intensified, in the months fol- lowing, the preparations for an attack against the progressive anti-imperialist forces in South- Eastern Europe and ‘the’ Arab countries. In April 1967 the democratic people’s movement in Greece was forcibly suppres- sed by a fascist military coup. In May 1967 the NATO re- view “Revue Militaire Générale” < High combat which is published under the patronage of the U.S. Supreme Commander of NATO Forces in Europe, General Lemnitzer, and the West German Commander in Chief of the NATO forces Cen- tral Europe, former Hitler Gen- eral Graf von Kielmansegg, dealt with the problem of how NATO could militarily safeguard the flow of oil from the Arab coun- tries to Western Europe. In this review the British Vice-Admiral Schofield’ suggests that the “Middle East area should be brought within the orbit of either a revised NATO, or within that of an expanded CENTO.” He demands that “action” should be taken in order to “meet this new situation.” The strategic study of the British Vice-Admiral in the NATO re- view concludes with the aggres- sive assertion that “in the Mid- dle East a vacuum is about to occur which it is up to the na- tions of Europe to fill.” That is the de facto demand for the sub- jection of the Arab peoples to the colonial rule of the imperial- ist powers again. Immediately after Israel’s ag- gression the foreign ministers of the NATO states, at their meet- ing in Luxemburg on June 13-14, coordinated their further aggres- sive objectives against the Arab countries. In this connection U.S. Secretary of State Rusk called for an unhindered flow of Arab oil to the NATO states and for the securing of the South- Eastern flank of NATO by ex- tending the military positions of the imperialist states in the Near East. - Excerpt of a statement of the government of the German Democratic Republic to the spe- cial session of the United Na- tion’s General Assembly. readiness HE tenser the situation in the world becomes the louder resounds the claims of the Bonn politicians and generals from across the Rhine to the “leading role” of the Federal Republic of Germany and its Bundeswehr among the United States European partners in NATO, the more insistently they stress the need to strengthen this aggressive bloc. Bonn political and military circles are drawing their “con- clusions” from the events con- nected with the Middle East crisis and the Israeli aggression. Since the mid-east war both the Bundeswehr general inspec- tor, Maiziere, and the command- er-in-chief of the joint NATO force in Central Europe, Kiel- mansegg insists on nuclear weapons for the West German army. Kielmansegg publicly de- mands that the Bundeswehr “be able to wage both conventional and nuclear warfare.” The New York Times correspondent also reported the idea now current in the Rhine capital is that of “building up a reserve with high combat readiness as in Israel.” Apparently the laurels of the Israeli victors are giving no peace to the West German ad- herents of revenge and forcible recarving of the map of post- war Europe. Is it not for this reason the West German govern- ment has again put into motion the insane assertion about the “threat” of the establishment of “communist or Russian domina- tion” over West Europe? Bonn is intensively boosting itself as a “bulwark” of NATO and the “free world” which lacks one thing only—the atomic bomb— for “defense” against the “‘com- munist threat.” The recent interview given by Kiesinger, FRG, Chancellor, to U.S. News and World Report, confirms that, as the Chancellor put it, drawing “the most im- portant” conclusion for our- selves from the “new interna- tional situation that has arisen in the Middle East as a result of the war”, new revanchist am- bitions are flaring up on the Rhine.