russia-insider--2020-05-13--Anatomy of Fake News: US Govt Caught Funding Disinformation in Foreign Countries

There may be no other country on Earth lied about more than North Korea .
Western corporate media outlets have absolutely zero editorial standards when reporting on the country .
Absurd lies are routinely treated as newsworthy stories , from the cartoonish claim that Kim Jong-un executed his uncle by feeding him to pack of starving dogs ( fake news ) , to the notion that all North Koreans are drones forced to choose from state-mandated haircuts ( racist-tinged fake news ) , to the assertion that state media swore it uncovered a unicorn lair ( insanely stupid fake news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these lies are not just innocuous errors that come out of nowhere ; they are part of an insidious pattern , and a decidedly political one .
They are a form of information warfare aimed at destabilizing North Korea ’ s government , known officially as the Democratic People ’ s Republic of Korea ( DPRK ) , which has an independent foreign policy and geo-strategic location — and just so happens to be sitting on trillions of dollars worth of mineral wealth .
Many of these fake news stories originate with Korean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hilt by the US government ’ s National Endowment for Democracy ( NED ) , a CIA cutout created by the Ronald Reagan administration to push regime change against foreign countries that don ’ t sufficiently kowtow to Washington .
The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal published a documentary demonstrating how the NED bankrolls a global network of regime-change activists , whose unsubstantiated accusations against the DPRK , China , Russia , Venezuela , Nicaragua , Iran , and other nations targeted by the US are spun into unquestionable truths .
North Korean defectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and many of their claims have been proven to be false .
They are highly incentivized , however , with offers of nearly $ 1 million to continue cranking out the disinformation .
This April , we saw another textbook example of how NED-backed South Korean outlets notorious for spreading fake news are amplified by the international press corps to the point that their deceptions dominate the news cycle for days .
For nearly two weeks , dozens of major news networks across the globe provided a megaphone to unsubstantiated rumors that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The disinformation campaign kicked off on April 20 , when a little-known US government-backed media publication called the Daily NK ran a report claiming North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had just undergone heart surgery and was in bad health .
This story was later expanded into a shocking claim : Kim had died , at the young age of 36 .
The Daily NK followed up with an article stating that a video confirming that the supreme leader was dead had been going viral inside North Korea .
These reports unleashed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the globe published story after story claiming Kim was either dead or incapacitated after a botched surgery .
The anatomy of this fake news campaign is dissected below .
And it all began with the Daily NK .
But what exactly is this obscure publication ?
The Daily NK is a South Korea-based propaganda outlet funded by Washington to conduct information warfare against the government in the north .
It was founded by anti-DPRK activists who coalesced around the Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights .
This network has received millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Endowment for Democracy , the CIA cutout .
NED funding for the Daily NK itself goes back well over a decade , to when it was founded .
A search of the NED grants database shows that the Daily NK received $ 400,000 in US government funding in 2019 alone , and at least $ 1.2 million in American tax dollars between 2016 and 2019 .
Ho Park , the head of North Korean research at Daily NK and one of the publication ’ s co-founders , is a grantee who has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US-backed Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights is also linked to another major grantee called the Unification Media Group , which was given at least $ 2.4 million from the NED between 2016 and 2019 .
The NED notes on its website that the South-Korea based Unification Media Group consists of the Daily NK , Radio Free Chosun , and Open North Korea Radio .
In other words , the US government has over the course of several decades carefully cultivated a cadre of anti-DPRK propaganda outlets in Seoul , using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation machine that regularly spreads fake news and rumors from North Korean defectors .
This media apparatus is the spearhead of the US government ’ s campaign of hybrid warfare against the DPRK .
Birthed from the belly of the US-funded disinformation network in Seoul , the global press corps enthusiastically adopted the fake news and delivered it to the Western public .
After the initial Daily NK reports first appeared on April 20 , major media outlets in Hong Kong and Japan helped popularize the rumor .
The New York Post followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korean dictator Kim Jong Un rumored to be dead.
” ( Like many other outlets , the Post later edited this headline , as it became clear that the story was unconfirmed , but the original titles of many of these false reports can be seen in their URLs or through internet archives . )
The New York Post based its claims on a report from a Hong Kong broadcast network ( later identified as HKSTV – Hong Kong Satellite Television ) , which claimed it had a “ very solid source ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also amplified an article in a Japanese magazine insisting the North Korean leader was in a “ vegetative state.
” It even claimed that “ senior Community Party sources in Beijing ” had confirmed the rumor that Kim died in a botched surgery .
After the New York Post article , the fake news spread like wildfire through tabloids from TMZ to the Daily Express , to Metro , to The Sun ( UK ) , to the Toronto Sun , to the Irish Post , and finally , The Mirror .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media networks in the United States and other countries .
Next , seemingly “ respectable ” media groups fueled the fake news frenzy , including the National Interest , the International Business Times , Yahoo News , and Foreign Policy .
Neoconservative American politicians pounced on the rumors in predictable fashion .
Republican Lindsey Graham , the most fanatically militaristic member of the Senate since the death of his friend John McCain , told Fox News with an air of confidence , “ I pretty well believe he [ Kim ] is dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d be shocked if he ’ s not dead or in some incapacitated state , because you don ’ t let rumors like this go forever or go unanswered in a closed society , which is really a cult , not a country , called North Korea.
” Americans ’ gut instincts that the fake news just “ feels true , ” after decades of consuming a steady diet of loony regime-change rumors , was taken as proof that it must be true .
On Twitter , the hashtag # KimJongunDead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of users swallowed the fake news whole .
Next , a photoshopped picture went viral on social media purporting to show Kim dead in a glass coffin .
The image was reported on by Western media outlets like The Sun , a tabloid owned by the same right-wing Rupert Murdoch-owned media group that controls the New York Post .
As the fake news spread across the media ecosystem , Western journalists and professional Korea watchers began mulling the possibility that the presumably dead North Korean leader ’ s sister , Kim Yo-jong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without any solid evidence , dozens of outlets ran stories confidently asserting that Yo-jong was preparing to take her brother ’ s place .
The Daily Beast even published a piece purporting to explain why she is so “ feared ” in the country .
The Washington Post printed an op-ed by Jung H. Pak , a former senior analyst at the CIA and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution , with the title , “ Why we shouldn ’ t rule out a woman as North Korea ’ s next leader.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC , the New Yorker , TIME , Deutsche Welle , The Australian , and Newsweek all added to the baseless speculation .
While some of these outlets amplified the phony story while feigning a tone of skepticism , VICE News threw all caution out the window .
The “ hipster arm of the empire ” published an article trumpeting , “ A Prominent North Korean Defector is ‘ 99 % Certain ’ Kim Jong Un Is Dead.
” Its source was a defector trained and funded by the NED .
Days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also praised VICE for producing a slick documentary that effectively amounts to fawning PR for the disinformation outlet , in a perfect circle of propaganda .
Yet another “ dead ” foreign bogeyman shows up on TV Then on May 1 – the same day VICE News claimed there was a 99 percent chance Kim was dead – the house of cards came crumbling down , as DPRK state media published photos of the leader cutting a ribbon at a fertilizer plant .
Now that it is indisputable that the rumors they amplified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aforementioned news outlets have scrambled to edit their headlines and leads to soften the language , noting there was still confusion at the time .
But archived links do not lie .
And the fact of the matter is it was apparent from the beginning , to anyone with a brain , and the capacity to think critically outside of the corporate media bubble , that the rumors should not be trusted .
Actual experts , or even just expats in Korea who tweet in English , could tell from the get-go that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed out out that “ Hyangsan Hospital – the hospital where Daily NK said Kim had undergone heart surgery – ‘ is similar to a community clinic and isn ’ t a facility where operations or surgeries can be performed . '
” But one didn ’ t need to be a Korea specialist to recognize the pattern of disinformation .
Anyone who is even mildly familiar with the practically non-existent standards of media reporting on North Korea knows how these fake news cycles work , and knew not to jump to conclusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cautious skepticism , the media watchdog Fairness In Accuracy and Reporting ( FAIR ) called out corporate media outlets for spreading these rumors without any solid evidence , even before Kim appeared on state TV .
And while impressionable Western journalists were heavily circulating the fake news , South Korea ’ s government made it clear , “ Kim Jong Un is alive and well .
He has been staying in the Wonsan area since April 13 .
No suspicious movements have so far been detected.
” Chinese media outlets also emphasized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was clearly false .
But their insistence was dismissed as “ Chinese propaganda.
” This was not even the first time that rumors went viral claiming Kim Jong-un had died .
Back in 2012 , a strikingly similar similar fake news frenzy erupted when social media posts alleging Kim had passed away were momentarily amplified by mainstream outlets .
The latest paroxysm of propaganda was hardly the only regime-change disinformation campaign blown out of the water in recent weeks .
In April , The Grayzone documented the wave of bogus corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was dead – before he , too , appeared on TV very much alive .
Indeed , the deployment of fake news is of a part with a larger strategy of information warfare aimed at nations that refuse to bow to US domination .
From the waves of dubiously sourced reports about China ’ s supposed “ concentration camps ” full of millions of Uighur Muslims , to unhinged warnings of Russia ’ s supposed plans to hack the US electrical grid in the dead of winter , to lurid stories of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presentations of Iranian nuclear weapons files , the program is always the same : lie without shame and shrink away after the deception is revealed for what it is .
Because by then , the damage has already been done .
Ben Norton is a journalist , writer , and filmmaker .
He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone , and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast , which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal .
His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .

There may be no other country on Earth lied about more than North Korea. Western corporate media outlets have absolutely zero editorial standards when reporting on the country.
Absurd lies are routinely treated as newsworthy stories, from the cartoonish claim that Kim Jong-un executed his uncle by feeding him to pack of starving dogs (fake news), to the notion that all North Koreans are drones forced to choose from state-mandated haircuts (racist-tinged fake news), to the assertion that state media swore it uncovered a unicorn lair (insanely stupid fake news based on a mistranslation).
But these lies are not just innocuous errors that come out of nowhere; they are part of an insidious pattern, and a decidedly political one. They are a form of information warfare aimed at destabilizing North Korea’s government, known officially as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which has an independent foreign policy and geo-strategic location — and just so happens to be sitting on trillions of dollars worth of mineral wealth.
Many of these fake news stories originate with Korean opposition groups that are funded to the hilt by the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA cutout created by the Ronald Reagan administration to push regime change against foreign countries that don’t sufficiently kowtow to Washington.
The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal published a documentary demonstrating how the NED bankrolls a global network of regime-change activists, whose unsubstantiated accusations against the DPRK, China, Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, and other nations targeted by the US are spun into unquestionable truths. North Korean defectors are a particularly unreliable source of information, and many of their claims have been proven to be false. They are highly incentivized, however, with offers of nearly $1 million to continue cranking out the disinformation.
This April, we saw another textbook example of how NED-backed South Korean outlets notorious for spreading fake news are amplified by the international press corps to the point that their deceptions dominate the news cycle for days.
For nearly two weeks, dozens of major news networks across the globe provided a megaphone to unsubstantiated rumors that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was dead.
The disinformation campaign kicked off on April 20, when a little-known US government-backed media publication called the Daily NK ran a report claiming North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had just undergone heart surgery and was in bad health.
This story was later expanded into a shocking claim: Kim had died, at the young age of 36.
The Daily NK followed up with an article stating that a video confirming that the supreme leader was dead had been going viral inside North Korea.
These reports unleashed a firestorm. Dozens of media outlets across the globe published story after story claiming Kim was either dead or incapacitated after a botched surgery.
The anatomy of this fake news campaign is dissected below.
A Daily NK source in North Korea reported yesterday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un recently underwent heart surgery. https://t.co/ZhNQKNeHwt #DPRK #NorthKorea pic.twitter.com/rmKeBAXh8t — The Daily NK (@The_Daily_NK) April 21, 2020
And it all began with the Daily NK. But what exactly is this obscure publication?
US government’s NED bankrolls anti-DPRK fake news mill
The Daily NK is a South Korea-based propaganda outlet funded by Washington to conduct information warfare against the government in the north. It was founded by anti-DPRK activists who coalesced around the Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights.
This network has received millions of dollars in grants from the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA cutout.
NED funding for the Daily NK itself goes back well over a decade, to when it was founded. A search of the NED grants database shows that the Daily NK received $400,000 in US government funding in 2019 alone, and at least $1.2 million in American tax dollars between 2016 and 2019.
US government National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funding for fake news mill the Daily NK
Ho Park, the head of North Korean research at Daily NK and one of the publication’s co-founders, is a grantee who has been publicly honored by the NED.
The US-backed Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights is also linked to another major grantee called the Unification Media Group, which was given at least $2.4 million from the NED between 2016 and 2019.
The NED notes on its website that the South-Korea based Unification Media Group consists of the Daily NK, Radio Free Chosun, and Open North Korea Radio.
In other words, the US government has over the course of several decades carefully cultivated a cadre of anti-DPRK propaganda outlets in Seoul, using them to grease the wheels of a disinformation machine that regularly spreads fake news and rumors from North Korean defectors. This media apparatus is the spearhead of the US government’s campaign of hybrid warfare against the DPRK.
Anatomy of a fake news campaign
Birthed from the belly of the US-funded disinformation network in Seoul, the global press corps enthusiastically adopted the fake news and delivered it to the Western public.
After the initial Daily NK reports first appeared on April 20, major media outlets in Hong Kong and Japan helped popularize the rumor.
The New York Post followed with a stunning headline: “North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un rumored to be dead.” (Like many other outlets, the Post later edited this headline, as it became clear that the story was unconfirmed, but the original titles of many of these false reports can be seen in their URLs or through internet archives.)
The New York Post based its claims on a report from a Hong Kong broadcast network (later identified as HKSTV – Hong Kong Satellite Television), which claimed it had a “very solid source” that Kim was dead.
The Post also amplified an article in a Japanese magazine insisting the North Korean leader was in a “vegetative state.” It even claimed that “senior Community Party sources in Beijing” had confirmed the rumor that Kim died in a botched surgery.
After the New York Post article, the fake news spread like wildfire through tabloids from TMZ to the Daily Express, to Metro, to The Sun (UK), to the Toronto Sun, to the Irish Post, and finally, The Mirror.
It was then picked up by numerous local media networks in the United States and other countries.
Next, seemingly “respectable” media groups fueled the fake news frenzy, including the National Interest, the International Business Times, Yahoo News, and Foreign Policy.
Neoconservative American politicians pounced on the rumors in predictable fashion. Republican Lindsey Graham, the most fanatically militaristic member of the Senate since the death of his friend John McCain, told Fox News with an air of confidence, “I pretty well believe he [Kim] is dead or incapacitated.”
Graham continued, “I’d be shocked if he’s not dead or in some incapacitated state, because you don’t let rumors like this go forever or go unanswered in a closed society, which is really a cult, not a country, called North Korea.”
Americans’ gut instincts that the fake news just “feels true,” after decades of consuming a steady diet of loony regime-change rumors, was taken as proof that it must be true.
On Twitter, the hashtag #KimJongunDead went viral as well, and millions of users swallowed the fake news whole.
Next, a photoshopped picture went viral on social media purporting to show Kim dead in a glass coffin. The image was reported on by Western media outlets like The Sun, a tabloid owned by the same right-wing Rupert Murdoch-owned media group that controls the New York Post.
As the fake news spread across the media ecosystem, Western journalists and professional Korea watchers began mulling the possibility that the presumably dead North Korean leader’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, was being groomed to replace him.
Without any solid evidence, dozens of outlets ran stories confidently asserting that Yo-jong was preparing to take her brother’s place. The Daily Beast even published a piece purporting to explain why she is so “feared” in the country.
The Washington Post printed an op-ed by Jung H. Pak, a former senior analyst at the CIA and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, with the title, “Why we shouldn’t rule out a woman as North Korea’s next leader.”
The Guardian, Foreign Policy, the BBC, the New Yorker, TIME, Deutsche Welle, The Australian, and Newsweek all added to the baseless speculation.
While some of these outlets amplified the phony story while feigning a tone of skepticism, VICE News threw all caution out the window. The “hipster arm of the empire” published an article trumpeting, “A Prominent North Korean Defector is ‘99% Certain’ Kim Jong Un Is Dead.” Its source was a defector trained and funded by the NED.
Days before, the US government-funded Daily NK had also praised VICE for producing a slick documentary that effectively amounts to fawning PR for the disinformation outlet, in a perfect circle of propaganda.
For more on what Daily NK does, check out a short documentary by VICE NEWS on the organization - including an interview with Editor-in-Chief Lee Sang Yong. https://t.co/duipZm3925 — The Daily NK (@The_Daily_NK) April 22, 2020
Yet another “dead” foreign bogeyman shows up on TV
Then on May 1 – the same day VICE News claimed there was a 99 percent chance Kim was dead – the house of cards came crumbling down, as DPRK state media published photos of the leader cutting a ribbon at a fertilizer plant.
Another US regime media fail https://t.co/AeyNBEfDXg — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) May 1, 2020
Now that it is indisputable that the rumors they amplified were totally unfounded, some of the aforementioned news outlets have scrambled to edit their headlines and leads to soften the language, noting there was still confusion at the time. But archived links do not lie.
And the fact of the matter is it was apparent from the beginning, to anyone with a brain, and the capacity to think critically outside of the corporate media bubble, that the rumors should not be trusted.
Actual experts, or even just expats in Korea who tweet in English, could tell from the get-go that this campaign was bogus.
In 2019 alone, Unification Media Group and its Daily NK affiliate took in $1,000,000 from US taxpayers via @NEDemocracy.
To stay on the gravy train, they must deliver sensational "scoops" for the Empire. When their sources are compromised, we Americans have a hand in their fate. https://t.co/psSke2VUHe pic.twitter.com/6agF1Y1ZZk — King Baeksu (@KingBaeksu) April 24, 2020
Critics also pointed out out that “Hyangsan Hospital – the hospital where Daily NK said Kim had undergone heart surgery – ‘is similar to a community clinic and isn’t a facility where operations or surgeries can be performed.'”
Why I was right about Kim Jong-un:
1. Daily NK isn't a reliable source.
2. Kim was seen walking in Wonsan between April 15th and 20th.
3. There was no buildup of PRC troops along the DPRK border.
4. Hyangsan Hospital is unequipped for surgical operations.
5. I'm unowned.
Easy. https://t.co/JA4lPIctF7 pic.twitter.com/UQ0R49hCwI — King Baeksu (@KingBaeksu) May 2, 2020
But one didn’t need to be a Korea specialist to recognize the pattern of disinformation. Anyone who is even mildly familiar with the practically non-existent standards of media reporting on North Korea knows how these fake news cycles work, and knew not to jump to conclusions.
In a refreshing albeit rare example of cautious skepticism, the media watchdog Fairness In Accuracy and Reporting (FAIR) called out corporate media outlets for spreading these rumors without any solid evidence, even before Kim appeared on state TV.
And while impressionable Western journalists were heavily circulating the fake news, South Korea’s government made it clear, “Kim Jong Un is alive and well. He has been staying in the Wonsan area since April 13. No suspicious movements have so far been detected.”
Chinese media outlets also emphasized from the beginning of the disinformation campaign that it was clearly false. But their insistence was dismissed as “Chinese propaganda.”
This was not even the first time that rumors went viral claiming Kim Jong-un had died. Back in 2012, a strikingly similar similar fake news frenzy erupted when social media posts alleging Kim had passed away were momentarily amplified by mainstream outlets.
The latest paroxysm of propaganda was hardly the only regime-change disinformation campaign blown out of the water in recent weeks. In April, The Grayzone documented the wave of bogus corporate media stories claiming Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega was dead – before he, too, appeared on TV very much alive.
Indeed, the deployment of fake news is of a part with a larger strategy of information warfare aimed at nations that refuse to bow to US domination.
From the waves of dubiously sourced reports about China’s supposed “concentration camps” full of millions of Uighur Muslims, to unhinged warnings of Russia’s supposed plans to hack the US electrical grid in the dead of winter, to lurid stories of $750 condoms in Venezuela, to breathless presentations of Iranian nuclear weapons files, the program is always the same: lie without shame and shrink away after the deception is revealed for what it is.
Because by then, the damage has already been done.
Ben Norton
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.


russia-insider--2020-05-13--Russian Entrepreneur Raised $1.7 Billion for Liberating World Cryptocurrency - the US Destroyed It (

Russian Entrepreneur Raised $1.7 Billion for Liberating World Cryptocurrency - the US Destroyed It (Telegram, Durov)

Messaging service Telegram said on Tuesday it is abandoning its blockchain platform Telegram Open Network ( TON ) after a lengthy battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) .
“ Today is a sad day for us here at Telegram .
We are announcing the discontinuation of our blockchain project , ” wrote Pavel Durov , the founder and chief executive of Telegram , on his channel .
A U.S. court made it impossible for the messaging service , used by more than 400 million users , to continue development of Telegram Open Network , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How ?
Imagine that several people put their money together to build a gold mine – and to later split the gold that comes out of it , ” he wrote .
“ Then a judge comes and says : ‘ These people invested in the gold mine because they were looking for profits .
And they didn ’ t want that gold for themselves , they wanted to sell it to other people .
Because of this , they are not allowed to get the gold.
’ ” “ If this doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are not alone – but this is exactly what happened with TON ( the mine ) and Grams ( the gold ) .
A judge used this reasoning to rule that people should not be allowed to buy or sell Grams like they can buy or sell Bitcoins , ” he added .
Today ’ s announcement comes as a surprise , as just last month Telegram had assured people that it would launch TON by April 2021 and offered investors a refund of $ 1.2 billion , a significant part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year after the supposed launch of TON .
Durov noted today that the U.S. court declared that Grams could not be distributed even outside of the United States , as U.S. citizens would have found workarounds to access the TON platform .
“ Sadly , the US judge is right about one thing : we , the people outside the US , can vote for our presidents and elect our parliaments , but we are still dependent on the United States when it comes to finance and technology , ” he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Kevin Castel of Manhattan issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the suit by the Securities and Exchange Commission to bar the launch of TON blockchain platform .
Telegram first floated the idea of TON blockchain and its cryptocurrency to investors in 2017 .
Benchmark and Lightspeed Capital , as well as several Russian investors , put up $ 1.7 billion in exchange for the promise of future Grams .
“ I want to conclude this post by wishing luck to all those striving for decentralization , balance and equality in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle .
This battle may well be the most important battle of our generation .
We hope that you succeed where we have failed , ” wrote Durov , cautioning people to stay away from independent versions of TON built by third-party entities .
“ So be careful , and don ’ t let anyone mislead you .
”

Messaging service Telegram said on Tuesday it is abandoning its blockchain platform Telegram Open Network (TON) after a lengthy battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
“Today is a sad day for us here at Telegram . We are announcing the discontinuation of our blockchain project,” wrote Pavel Durov, the founder and chief executive of Telegram, on his channel.
A U.S. court made it impossible for the messaging service, used by more than 400 million users, to continue development of Telegram Open Network, he wrote in a blog post.
“How? Imagine that several people put their money together to build a gold mine – and to later split the gold that comes out of it,” he wrote.
“Then a judge comes and says: ‘These people invested in the gold mine because they were looking for profits. And they didn’t want that gold for themselves, they wanted to sell it to other people. Because of this, they are not allowed to get the gold.’”
“If this doesn’t make sense to you, you are not alone – but this is exactly what happened with TON (the mine) and Grams (the gold). A judge used this reasoning to rule that people should not be allowed to buy or sell Grams like they can buy or sell Bitcoins,” he added.
Today’s announcement comes as a surprise, as just last month Telegram had assured people that it would launch TON by April 2021 and offered investors a refund of $1.2 billion, a significant part of their investment, or 110% in a year after the supposed launch of TON.
Durov noted today that the U.S. court declared that Grams could not be distributed even outside of the United States, as U.S. citizens would have found workarounds to access the TON platform.
“Sadly, the US judge is right about one thing: we, the people outside the US, can vote for our presidents and elect our parliaments, but we are still dependent on the United States when it comes to finance and technology,” he added.
In late March, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel of Manhattan issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the suit by the Securities and Exchange Commission to bar the launch of TON blockchain platform.
Telegram first floated the idea of TON blockchain and its cryptocurrency to investors in 2017. Benchmark and Lightspeed Capital, as well as several Russian investors, put up $1.7 billion in exchange for the promise of future Grams.
“I want to conclude this post by wishing luck to all those striving for decentralization, balance and equality in the world. You are fighting the right battle. This battle may well be the most important battle of our generation. We hope that you succeed where we have failed,” wrote Durov, cautioning people to stay away from independent versions of TON built by third-party entities.
“So be careful, and don’t let anyone mislead you.”


russia-insider--2020-05-13--Eurozone Breakup Risk Reaches New High

Eurozone Breakup Risk Reaches New High

... Germany pays , one way or another !
The German Constitutional Court made an unexpected and significant ruling last week against the ECB and Quantitative Easing .
In the midst of a pandemic and an important presidential election , it is very easy to miss globally significant events .
Here is one that is way under the radar : The German Constitutional Court ruled the ECB 's QE Program Could be Illegal .
That is a landmark ruling that challenges the independence of the ECB and the authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future of the EU Eurointelligence explains What it Means for the Future of the EU .
The ruling raises complex and potentially troubling issues for the EU as a whole .
The German constitutional court has accused the ECB and the CJEU , the court of Justice of the European Union , of abusing their power , and of acting beyond their assigned competences .
That concept is known in German constitutional law as acting ultra vires .
In the German legal interpretation of European integration , all sovereignty still rests with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a federal state , but a deferred power .
Member states have transferred certain rights to the EU .
The German court said it accepts that it is bound by CJEU rulings , but only those that occur within the EU 's agreed competences .
All bets are off it the CJEU goes ultra vires .
And , crucially , the German court decides if and when that happens .
This is the most serious challenge to the EU 's legal framework we have yet come across .
In the UK , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicts between EU and UK law would always be settled on the basis that EU law is supreme .
The ruling is unusually explicit about the breach of competences on the part of the CJEU .
It criticised the CJEU 's positive ruling on the asset purchases as implausible , and objectively arbitrary .
It accused the EU court of an evident neglect to investigate the wider consequences of the ECB 's programme .
The word evident crops up many times in the ruling .
It is a legally more loaded word than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the ruling accuses the CJEU of a breach of EU treaty law .
The German court 's interpretation will have important consequences if other national courts follow suit , which we think is very likely .
Poland 's deputy justice minister already declared that member states have regained their position as the masters of the EU treaties .
We expect the ruling to strengthen the determination by the Polish government to press ahead with judicial reform , and to resist interference by the EU into what they consider domestic legal affairs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling .
In the ECB ’ s view , the negative effect of lower interest rates was the price to pay for keeping the euro intact .
That price to pay keeps rising and rising .
This Eurozone Crisis Will Be Even Worse Than Last Time Please consider The shock of coronavirus could split Europe The economic fallout of Covid-19 hits all members of the currency bloc .
But no mechanism exists that allows the governments of the eurozone to respond jointly to such a shock .
The result is that the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly national – accentuating differences rather than bringing Europe together in a time of crisis .
Even in the face of a symmetric shock , the eurozone responds asymmetrically .
Germany reacted forcefully to Covid-19 .
Berlin abandoned its cherished debt-brake – which sharply constrains its government borrowing – and legislated a €750bn rescue package for the German economy .
Italy , the country with the highest number of infections and deaths from the virus , does not have the same fiscal leeway .
Its response to Covid-19 amounts to a mere €28bn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the German package .
This substantial disparity in the policy response is exacerbated by differences in initial conditions .
In 2019 , Italian output was still 4 % lower than in 2007 while German GDP was 16 % higher .
Owing to the ongoing GDP collapse , the Italian public debt ratio will soon approach 150 % of GDP – even without a new support package .
Yet despite their comparatively tepid response , Italian policymakers already have to nervously watch the interest rate differential between Italian and German government bonds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The writing is on the wall : without solidarity from its fellow eurozone members , Italy will not be able to respond to the crisis in the same way that other countries can .
It is at risk of an economic depression on top of a humanitarian catastrophe .
In March of 2015 , ECB president Mario Draghi forced more reserves into the system , via a Quantitative Easing QE program .
The ECB also forced interest rates negative then required the banks to pay the ECB interest on those reserves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on excess reserves .
In the process , the Fed slowly recapitalized US banks over time .
The ECB 's negative interest rate policy further damaged European banks that were in terrible shape to begin with .
Before he served as ECB president , Draghi was president of the Italian central bank from 2005 through 2011 .
What better way to get Eurobonds and debt commingling than cripple the entire European banking system with negative rates and massive QE programs ?
If the European banking system went down , including Deutsche Bank , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with banking changes ?
My counter-argument is on grounds of Occam 's Razor which suggests when stupidity is one of the possible answers it is highly likely to to be the correct one .
Actually , Occam 's Razor says simpler explanations are more likely to be correct , but what is simpler than stupidity ?
The EU is not used to surprises .
But the German court ruling makes three in a row .
Because in every case to date , the German Constitutional Court looked the other way , There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German court threw to the CJEU with obvious consequences .
And there was no indication that the German court would suddenly reverse course .
So I am not only surprised by the ruling , I am shocked that it was 7-1 .
Even Those Who Filed the Suit Were Surprised What Germany fears now and has from the outset is `` debt mutualization '' in which Germany would bailout Greece , Spain , Portugal , and Italy .
That is why Germany insisted the Maastricht Treaty , which founded the Eurozone , prohibit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , politicians and the ECB found ways to chip away at the treaty .
And they still do even in the wake of the German court ruling .
New Battle Cry - Step Up or Risk Extinction Today , Spain ’ s Deputy PM Calls for EU to Step Up or Risk Extinction Pablo Iglesias , Spain 's Deputy PM .
says a “ certain [ level of ] debt mutualisation is a [ necessary ] condition of the [ continued ] existence of the EU ” .
He also wants Portugal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum income guarantee cause to “ establish European standards of dignity and to protect consumption ” .
`` Everyone now understands you need an activist state , '' says Iglesias .
Given the 7-1 ruling might I suggest there is a major flaw in the Iglesias ' understanding of the word `` everyone '' .
Germany Pays One Way or Another I understand where Germany is coming from .
And I expected this outcome all along .
But one way or another , creditor states pay through the nose .
Either Germany agrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in smoke .
Target is a measure of capital flight and purchases of goods by debtor nations that can not possibly be paid for .
Italy and Spain owe nearly a trillion euros to Germany .
That 's an amount that can never be paid back .
But everyone pretends the debt is good because the ECB guarantees the debt .
And those guarantees represent a fundamental flaw in the Eurozone that allowed this debt to pile up in the first place .
If Italy were to withdraw from the eurozone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be redenominated in its new currency .
Germany would not get paid back in in euros , but rather Lira or some new currency , assuming Germany got paid back at all .
For further discussion , please see my August 2018 article , Debate Over Target2 Continues : Twilight of the Euro The question is not whether Italy should pay its Target2 deficit , but how it possibly could .
The Bank of Italy would almost certainly default on a bill for half a trillion euros .
As long as everyone can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one will leave the Eurozone , then everything is fine .
But what if Italy or Spain jumps ship ?
And what are the other options ?
• None Germany and the creditor nations forgive enough debt for Europe to grow • None Permanently high unemployment and slow growth in Spain , Greece , Italy , with stagnation elsewhere in Europe • None The German court signaled it has had enough of the current path towards more mutualization .
• None It is unreasonable to expect # 2 to last forever .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ # 3 .
Option 3 can be planned or chaos .
Germany is arguably in the best shape to suffer the consequences so it would be wise for it to leave the Eurozone rather than have Spain or Italy default , setting off a cascade of defaults .
I outlined those three alternate paths in my 2016 post Michael Pettis Calls Surplus Trade Statements by German Finance Minister “ Utter Lunacy ” Kick the Can - How Long Can It Last ?
The court ruling comes in the midst of a pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greens , a eurosceptic Italian government , and an EU judicial clash with Poland .
Yet , these can kicking episodes last far longer than anyone expects .
The difference this time is the unexpected ruling by the German constitutional court .
The ECB can not do more , nor can the CJEU , nor will there be coronabonds or eurobonds unless Germany agrees .
Undoubtedly , the path of least resistance is still door number 2 : Germany will talk solidarity but act against it .
The result will be a continuation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spain , Greece , Italy , with stagnation elsewhere in Europe ... .
until the major unexpected happens , Italy or some other country decides it has finally had enough .

The German Constitutional Court made an unexpected and significant ruling last week against the ECB and Quantitative Easing.
QE Deemed Illegal
In the midst of a pandemic and an important presidential election, it is very easy to miss globally significant events.
Here is one that is way under the radar: The German Constitutional Court ruled the ECB's QE Program Could be Illegal.
That is a landmark ruling that challenges the independence of the ECB and the authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
In announcing the ruling, German Chief Justice Andreas Voßkuhle said the CJEU had approved a practice that “was obviously not covered” by the ECB’s mandate. Voßkuhle spent months crafting the 77-page decision, announcing the ruling just a day before his official retirement on Wednesday. "
Dismissing a 2018 CJEU decision to allow the bond purchases, the German court ordered the ECB to provide Germany with adequate justification for the program within the next three months. Should it fail to do so, the Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, would no longer be permitted to participate in the program.
What it Means for the Future of the EU
Eurointelligence explains What it Means for the Future of the EU.
The ruling raises complex and potentially troubling issues for the EU as a whole. The German constitutional court has accused the ECB and the CJEU, the court of Justice of the European Union, of abusing their power, and of acting beyond their assigned competences. That concept is known in German constitutional law as acting ultra vires. In the German legal interpretation of European integration, all sovereignty still rests with the member states. The EU is clearly not a federal state, but a deferred power. Member states have transferred certain rights to the EU. The German court said it accepts that it is bound by CJEU rulings, but only those that occur within the EU's agreed competences. All bets are off it the CJEU goes ultra vires. And, crucially, the German court decides if and when that happens. This is the most serious challenge to the EU's legal framework we have yet come across. In the UK, the courts operated under the assumption that conflicts between EU and UK law would always be settled on the basis that EU law is supreme. The ruling is unusually explicit about the breach of competences on the part of the CJEU. It criticised the CJEU's positive ruling on the asset purchases as implausible, and objectively arbitrary. It accused the EU court of an evident neglect to investigate the wider consequences of the ECB's programme. The word evident crops up many times in the ruling. It is a legally more loaded word than it appears at first sight. Moreover, the ruling accuses the CJEU of a breach of EU treaty law. The German court's interpretation will have important consequences if other national courts follow suit, which we think is very likely. Poland's deputy justice minister already declared that member states have regained their position as the masters of the EU treaties. We expect the ruling to strengthen the determination by the Polish government to press ahead with judicial reform, and to resist interference by the EU into what they consider domestic legal affairs.
Surprise 7-1 Ruling
Perhaps the biggest surprise was the 7-1 ruling.
Price to Pay
In the ECB’s view, the negative effect of lower interest rates was the price to pay for keeping the euro intact.
That price to pay keeps rising and rising.
This Eurozone Crisis Will Be Even Worse Than Last Time
Please consider The shock of coronavirus could split Europe
The economic fallout of Covid-19 hits all members of the currency bloc. But no mechanism exists that allows the governments of the eurozone to respond jointly to such a shock. The result is that the policy reactions to the pandemic are so far overwhelmingly national – accentuating differences rather than bringing Europe together in a time of crisis. Even in the face of a symmetric shock, the eurozone responds asymmetrically. Germany reacted forcefully to Covid-19. Berlin abandoned its cherished debt-brake – which sharply constrains its government borrowing – and legislated a €750bn rescue package for the German economy. Italy, the country with the highest number of infections and deaths from the virus, does not have the same fiscal leeway. Its response to Covid-19 amounts to a mere €28bn – about 4% of the size of the German package. This substantial disparity in the policy response is exacerbated by differences in initial conditions. In 2019, Italian output was still 4% lower than in 2007 while German GDP was 16% higher. Owing to the ongoing GDP collapse, the Italian public debt ratio will soon approach 150% of GDP – even without a new support package. Yet despite their comparatively tepid response, Italian policymakers already have to nervously watch the interest rate differential between Italian and German government bonds. The spread widened substantially in recent weeks. The writing is on the wall: without solidarity from its fellow eurozone members, Italy will not be able to respond to the crisis in the same way that other countries can. It is at risk of an economic depression on top of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Negative Interest Rates
In March of 2015, ECB president Mario Draghi forced more reserves into the system, via a Quantitative Easing QE program.
The ECB also forced interest rates negative then required the banks to pay the ECB interest on those reserves.
In contrast, the Fed paid interest on excess reserves. In the process, the Fed slowly recapitalized US banks over time.
The ECB's negative interest rate policy further damaged European banks that were in terrible shape to begin with.
Why?
Before he served as ECB president, Draghi was president of the Italian central bank from 2005 through 2011.
What better way to get Eurobonds and debt commingling than cripple the entire European banking system with negative rates and massive QE programs?
If the European banking system went down, including Deutsche Bank, wouldn't Germany be forced to go along with banking changes?
My counter-argument is on grounds of Occam's Razor which suggests when stupidity is one of the possible answers it is highly likely to to be the correct one.
Actually, Occam's Razor says simpler explanations are more likely to be correct, but what is simpler than stupidity?
Surprise, Surprise
The EU is not used to surprises. But the German court ruling makes three in a row.
Brexit Vote Brexit Vote Success German Court Ruling
I am surprised too.
Why?
Because in every case to date, the German Constitutional Court looked the other way, There have been numerous ECB-related challenges which the German court threw to the CJEU with obvious consequences.
And there was no indication that the German court would suddenly reverse course.
So I am not only surprised by the ruling, I am shocked that it was 7-1.
Even Those Who Filed the Suit Were Surprised
“I was surprised by how clear the ruling was," said Peter Gauweiler, a 70-year-old Eurosceptic lawyer who has been waging a legal war against the EU and ECB for almost three decades.
Debt Mutualization
What Germany fears now and has from the outset is "debt mutualization" in which Germany would bailout Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
That is why Germany insisted the Maastricht Treaty, which founded the Eurozone, prohibit debt mutualization.
But time and time again, politicians and the ECB found ways to chip away at the treaty.
And they still do even in the wake of the German court ruling.
New Battle Cry - Step Up or Risk Extinction
Today, Spain’s Deputy PM Calls for EU to Step Up or Risk Extinction
Pablo Iglesias, Spain's Deputy PM. says a “certain [level of] debt mutualisation is a [necessary] condition of the [continued] existence of the EU”.
He also wants Portugal and Italy to join the a pan-EU minimum income guarantee cause to “establish European standards of dignity and to protect consumption”.
"Everyone now understands you need an activist state," says Iglesias.
What "Everyone" Understands
Given the 7-1 ruling might I suggest there is a major flaw in the Iglesias' understanding of the word "everyone".
Germany Pays One Way or Another
I understand where Germany is coming from. And I expected this outcome all along.
But one way or another, creditor states pay through the nose. Either Germany agrees to debt mutualization or Target-2 liabilities go up in smoke.
Target-2 Imbalances
Chart from the ECB Data Warehouse Target Balances.
Target is a measure of capital flight and purchases of goods by debtor nations that cannot possibly be paid for.
Italy and Spain owe nearly a trillion euros to Germany. That's an amount that can never be paid back.
But everyone pretends the debt is good because the ECB guarantees the debt. And those guarantees represent a fundamental flaw in the Eurozone that allowed this debt to pile up in the first place.
If Italy were to withdraw from the eurozone, its banks’ assets and liabilities would be redenominated in its new currency. Germany would not get paid back in in euros, but rather Lira or some new currency, assuming Germany got paid back at all.
For further discussion, please see my August 2018 article, Debate Over Target2 Continues: Twilight of the Euro
The question is not whether Italy should pay its Target2 deficit, but how it possibly could. The Bank of Italy would almost certainly default on a bill for half a trillion euros.
As long as everyone can pretend these claims are good and no one will leave the Eurozone, then everything is fine.
But what if Italy or Spain jumps ship? And what are the other options?
Three Alternative Paths
Germany and the creditor nations forgive enough debt for Europe to grow Permanently high unemployment and slow growth in Spain, Greece, Italy, with stagnation elsewhere in Europe Breakup of the eurozone
Pick Your Poison
The German court signaled it has had enough of the current path towards more mutualization.
It is unreasonable to expect #2 to last forever.
The only door remaining is door #3.
Option 3 can be planned or chaos. Germany is arguably in the best shape to suffer the consequences so it would be wise for it to leave the Eurozone rather than have Spain or Italy default, setting off a cascade of defaults.
I outlined those three alternate paths in my 2016 post Michael Pettis Calls Surplus Trade Statements by German Finance Minister “Utter Lunacy”
Kick the Can - How Long Can It Last?
The court ruling comes in the midst of a pandemic, Brexit, the rise of the German Greens, a eurosceptic Italian government, and an EU judicial clash with Poland.
Yet, these can kicking episodes last far longer than anyone expects. The difference this time is the unexpected ruling by the German constitutional court.
The ECB cannot do more, nor can the CJEU, nor will there be coronabonds or eurobonds unless Germany agrees.
Undoubtedly, the path of least resistance is still door number 2: Germany will talk solidarity but act against it.
The result will be a continuation of high unemployment and slow growth in Spain, Greece, Italy, with stagnation elsewhere in Europe .... until the major unexpected happens, Italy or some other country decides it has finally had enough.


russia-insider--2020-05-13--Should the US Have Fought in World War II? Absolutely Not!

Should the United States have fought in World War II ?
Given the remembrances across Europe and here this past weekend evincing the usual trope about the war being a patriotic , heroic , and unavoidable good-versus-evil clash for the United States , it ’ s a propitious moment to ask this unusual – and in polite society , impertinent – question .
But an honest assessment of usually ignored facts yields an unusual answer , in the negative , and the retrospective exercise offers lessons for the current moment .
Seventy five years ago last week , `` Victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in a speech broadcast to the nation at 3PM on May 8 , 1945 , followed by similar remarks before Parliament .
Known ever after as `` V-E Day , '' at 9PM that same night King George VI addressed the British people by radio .
And shortly thereafter in Berlin , the third and final capitulation of all German land , sea , and air forces took place , with the surrender signed on behalf of the German High Command by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luftwaffe ) , and Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg ( Kriegsmarine ) .
Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov signed the document on behalf of the Supreme High Command of the Red Army , and signing on behalf of General Eisenhower was British Air Marshal Arthur W. Tedder , the Deputy Supreme Commander , Allied Expeditionary Force .
The bloodiest war in the long and consequential history of Europe was over , followed four months later by the surrender of Japan .
Estimates of total war dead , military and civilian , vary widely , between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 30-37 million were in Europe .
The death count was only one part of this horror story , though : between 1939 and 1945 , at least 60 million European civilians had been uprooted from their homes .
27 million had left their own countries or been driven out by force .
Four and a half million had been deported by the Nazis for forced labor ; it is thought that hundreds of thousands more had been sent to Siberia by the Russians .
When the war ended , 2.5 million Poles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more than 12 million Germans fled or were expelled from eastern Europe .
Obviously the economy , commercial society , and indeed all major institutions of civilization itself had been destroyed across Europe : the financial and real wealth destruction was incalculable and decades-long in reverberation , with , as one emblematic example , the British finally extinguishing World War II debts to the United States in 2006 .
Due to the Coronavirus , long-planned observances this past weekend were canceled across Europe , though remembered in subdued fashion in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battlefields .
In London , Mr. Churchill ’ s speech to the British people was replayed at the same hour at 3PM , while Queen Elizabeth II offered televised remarks on BBC One at the precise hour her father spoke 75 years ago .
But even without all the patriotic pomp that had been planned there and here , it ’ s a good exercise now for American taxpayers , who have been asked to fund several trillions of dollars ’ worth of questionable warfare on the other side of the world since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this historical mile-marker via a sober assessment : was the war worth fighting , for the Americans ?
The traditional stylized textbook story of American involvement in World War II is straightforward : the world was besieged by the tyrannical Axis powers with Hitler , Mussolini , and Tojo forming an evil triumvirate in Germany , Italy , and Japan , respectively .
All were bent on conquest and the destruction of free societies in their wake , and rolled across a series of easy victories in Europe and East Asia , respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States , which President Roosevelt dubbed the `` arsenal of democracy '' in 1940 , could `` save the world '' from destruction at the hands of the Axis tyrants .
The American people were , as late as the spring of 1941 , more than 80 % opposed to entry into any European [ or Asian ] war , and indeed the incumbent president based his campaign in 1940 in part on a virtual reprise of Woodrow Wilson ’ s 1916 theme of `` He kept us out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , Mr. Roosevelt ’ s `` brilliant leadership '' prepared the nation for eventual entry into a war that `` could not be avoided '' in spite of serious attempts at a peaceful resolution to multilateral disputes with Japan , and continual dialogue with the German government to restrict the war in Europe and end hostilities there in favor of Britain .
The unavoidable war came in both theaters in December of 1941 , and Mr. Roosevelt did indeed then , via his `` stellar generalship , '' proceed to save humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tyranny '' and averting the destruction of civilization , along with Prime Minister Churchill ( Stalin , tellingly , is never mentioned in this context as world-saver , perhaps because the standard meme about World War II being one of `` good versus evil , '' and fought `` to preserve freedom and democracy , '' doesn ’ t fit the Soviet Union ) .
Thus , in the end the war was regrettable and costly , but necessary on both fronts , as the Tripartite Pact tyrants were all defeated , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry that Korea and Vietnam weren ’ t core to our strategic interests , and who today question the American involvement in Muslim wars on the other side of the world , almost universally acknowledge the necessity of World War II , which is often dubbed `` the good war . ''
The Correct Analysis and Lessons for Today There is much wrong with the foregoing stylized summary : beyond blatant falsehoods such as the thesis that Mr. Roosevelt earnestly tried to achieve peace with Japan , even many of its plausible-sounding assertions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Further , there is a glaring elephant in the room here : the Soviet Union was , likely , the most tyrannical regime on earth in 1941 .
For the Americans to enter into a world war on the side of this corrupt , cruel , murderous Marxist dictatorship , even against another alleged tyrant , made no strategic or moral sense at the time , and does not 75 years later , either [ and , again , it is why the standard story about American entry into the war only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belli of `` preserving the free world '' is explained , and Stalin ’ s name is never uttered ] .
Indeed , the United States lost more than 400,000 lives in World War II , and ran up gross federal debt equal to 118 % of GDP by 1945 , a record only now soon to be broken .
Was it worth it , and was it necessary ?
The only honest answer , after full examination of the facts , is no : • None Neither Hitler nor Mussolini had any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , Hitler went out of his way to avoid war with the Americans until he felt duty-bound to support Japan .
Further , Hitler had said as far back as 1925 that he regarded Britain and its sea power as a natural ally for a resurgent Germany that could keep the peace as the predominant land power in Europe ( Britain was also , for Hitler , racially harmonious with Germany ) .
For Hitler , any German war would be fought in the East , as Asian Bolshevism was considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercial life and , indeed , Christian civilization itself ( and bluntly , it was conquest of the `` backward Slavs '' that had always animated Hitler , in dreams of a German Empire ) .
• None Long-ignored , too , is the inconvenient fact that it was France and Great Britain which declared war on Germany in 1939 , not the other way around , and done so only because of the former ’ s guarantee to Poland , a promise completely untenable and foolhardy .
Strategically , any German suzerainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and represented no threat to American vital interests ; morally , was the American taxpayer duty-bound to clean up and retrieve foolhardy promises made by corrupt European empires ?
• None Meanwhile the Japanese Empire manifestly did not want war with the Americans .
Instead it was the Roosevelt Administration which persistently ratcheted up pressure on Japan in years of negotiations through the fall of 1941 : the United States unilaterally abrogated the 1911 Commercial Treaty with Japan in 1939 , implemented various economic sanctions across 1940 , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embargo that included the freezing of Japanese assets in the United States .
The inconvenient truth here is that the United States had , in a diplomatic sense , committed acts of war against Japan well before Pearl Harbor , and in effect provoked the Japanese .
Indeed even late into the fall of 1941 , Emperor Hirohito was instructing Prince Fumimaro Konoe , the prime minister , to seek a rapprochement with the Americans and avoid war .
Admiral Yamamoto , senior naval officials , and most of the Japanese ruling class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States and doubted any prospect of victory ; only Hideki Tojo and certain radicals in the army thought the Americans were too weak to fight a war of any duration in the Pacific .
• None In sum , then , the United States interjected itself into what were primarily German-Russian and Sino-Japanese conflicts ( 8 of 11 German war-dead and some 7 in 10 Japanese were in these theaters ) .
Had the United States consistently followed the long ago advice of George Washington in his famous Farewell Address to avoid all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely quit the European war before 1941 , leaving Germany and Russia to fight a death-struggle .
The mutual slaughter would have weakened both , to the strategic benefit of the West .
One can posit the Germans eventually prevailing since the Russians would not have received the massive Anglo-American aid that kept them alive in the war , and at the same time , the persistent attempts by liberal-minded Germans to assassinate Hitler would have , at some point , borne fruit .
Therefore it is more than possible that Germany may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminating the Soviet menace , while at the same time eventually liberalizing .
The 200 million souls trapped behind the Iron Curtain in the Warsaw Pact may well have been spared bitter suffering for decades after the war , and likely achieved a proto-capitalistic standard of living far earlier than they did .
• None Meanwhile , a Japanese-Chinese struggle across Asia would have ended indeterminately , but there again , the rise of Maoism would have been prevented , and Western-leaning elements in the Japanese ruling class could have been leveraged over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history after 1949 , it is not hard to posit a better , richer life for China ’ s billions of people across the 20th century .
• None The Cold War and its tensions – and massive costs – would have been entirely avoided .
How much wealthier , and fiscally healthier , would the United States be today , had all that been avoided ?
And given the precedent of avoiding entirely senseless wars that have no relationship to the national security of the United States , it is likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never have germinated .
That is , the United States would have essentially retained , or , after the folly of an also-avoidable World War I , have returned to the status of a free and great commercial republic , and avoided entirely its de facto transformation into a corrupt , globally expansive empire .
Again , how many tens of trillions of dollars would have been saved and invested in the growth of a peaceful and prosperous America , instead of being squandered on a series of endless wars and foreign adventurism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , that have in the event rendered us less safe , less free , and poorer now ?
Let us therefore have the courage to face the truth : World War II , like most all wars the United States has fought before it or since , was a needless war , fought on behalf of corrupt special interests .
It made us poorer and less free , and sadly steered American foreign policy into new and harmful directions : over time the United States was transformed into an arrogant `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of `` Global Policeman , '' a role which other empires had pursued in prior history always and uniformly to bad ends .
The world would be a better , richer place today , had the Americans remained the envy and aspiration of peoples everywhere : a free and great republic , dedicated to peace , commerce and friendship with all .
In the end , American entry into World War II made half of Europe `` safe for Bolshevism '' and poverty , while it ensured the Maoist hell that China became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spread elsewhere around the globe and ensure further enslavement of peoples in places such as Angola , Cuba , Nicaragua , North Korea , or North Vietnam .
Let us digest these real lessons from what ended 75 years ago last week , and in Japan this coming September 2nd .
Going forward , it is never too late to do the right thing : may a renewed reflection of fundamental American values lead us to a return to the historic foreign policy enunciated by George Washington and John Quincy Adams , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Guarantor only of our Own .
Once this truly `` small-r '' republican foreign policy is taken up again , there will be no more world wars , no more Koreas , no more Vietnams , no more Iraqs , no more Afghanistans , no more Syrias , no more Libyas – and no World War III .
Mr. Chapman is an economist and investor in Washington .

Should the United States have fought in World War II? Given the remembrances across Europe and here this past weekend evincing the usual trope about the war being a patriotic, heroic, and unavoidable good-versus-evil clash for the United States, it’s a propitious moment to ask this unusual – and in polite society, impertinent – question. But an honest assessment of usually ignored facts yields an unusual answer, in the negative, and the retrospective exercise offers lessons for the current moment.
Seventy five years ago last week, "Victory in Europe" was declared in London by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in a speech broadcast to the nation at 3PM on May 8, 1945, followed by similar remarks before Parliament. Known ever after as "V-E Day," at 9PM that same night King George VI addressed the British people by radio. And shortly thereafter in Berlin, the third and final capitulation of all German land, sea, and air forces took place, with the surrender signed on behalf of the German High Command by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel (Wehrmacht), Colonel-General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff (Luftwaffe), and Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg (Kriegsmarine). Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov signed the document on behalf of the Supreme High Command of the Red Army, and signing on behalf of General Eisenhower was British Air Marshal Arthur W. Tedder, the Deputy Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force.
The bloodiest war in the long and consequential history of Europe was over, followed four months later by the surrender of Japan. Estimates of total war dead, military and civilian, vary widely, between 60 and 85 million: of these, 30-37 million were in Europe. The death count was only one part of this horror story, though: between 1939 and 1945, at least 60 million European civilians had been uprooted from their homes. 27 million had left their own countries or been driven out by force. Four and a half million had been deported by the Nazis for forced labor; it is thought that hundreds of thousands more had been sent to Siberia by the Russians. When the war ended, 2.5 million Poles and Czechs were transferred to the U.S.S.R., and more than 12 million Germans fled or were expelled from eastern Europe. Obviously the economy, commercial society, and indeed all major institutions of civilization itself had been destroyed across Europe: the financial and real wealth destruction was incalculable and decades-long in reverberation, with, as one emblematic example, the British finally extinguishing World War II debts to the United States in 2006.
Due to the Coronavirus, long-planned observances this past weekend were canceled across Europe, though remembered in subdued fashion in the media and in all combatant capitals and battlefields. In London, Mr. Churchill’s speech to the British people was replayed at the same hour at 3PM, while Queen Elizabeth II offered televised remarks on BBC One at the precise hour her father spoke 75 years ago. But even without all the patriotic pomp that had been planned there and here, it’s a good exercise now for American taxpayers, who have been asked to fund several trillions of dollars’ worth of questionable warfare on the other side of the world since World War II ended, to commemorate this historical mile-marker via a sober assessment: was the war worth fighting, for the Americans?
Conventional Analysis of American Participation in World War II
The traditional stylized textbook story of American involvement in World War II is straightforward: the world was besieged by the tyrannical Axis powers with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo forming an evil triumvirate in Germany, Italy, and Japan, respectively. All were bent on conquest and the destruction of free societies in their wake, and rolled across a series of easy victories in Europe and East Asia, respectively. Only the might and moral superiority of the United States, which President Roosevelt dubbed the "arsenal of democracy" in 1940, could "save the world" from destruction at the hands of the Axis tyrants.
The American people were, as late as the spring of 1941, more than 80% opposed to entry into any European [or Asian] war, and indeed the incumbent president based his campaign in 1940 in part on a virtual reprise of Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 theme of "He kept us out of war." But at the same time, Mr. Roosevelt’s "brilliant leadership" prepared the nation for eventual entry into a war that "could not be avoided" in spite of serious attempts at a peaceful resolution to multilateral disputes with Japan, and continual dialogue with the German government to restrict the war in Europe and end hostilities there in favor of Britain.
The unavoidable war came in both theaters in December of 1941, and Mr. Roosevelt did indeed then, via his "stellar generalship," proceed to save humanity from a cruel fate, "defeating tyranny" and averting the destruction of civilization, along with Prime Minister Churchill (Stalin, tellingly, is never mentioned in this context as world-saver, perhaps because the standard meme about World War II being one of "good versus evil," and fought "to preserve freedom and democracy," doesn’t fit the Soviet Union).
Thus, in the end the war was regrettable and costly, but necessary on both fronts, as the Tripartite Pact tyrants were all defeated, and their regimes collapsed. Even analysts who worry that Korea and Vietnam weren’t core to our strategic interests, and who today question the American involvement in Muslim wars on the other side of the world, almost universally acknowledge the necessity of World War II, which is often dubbed "the good war."
The Correct Analysis and Lessons for Today
There is much wrong with the foregoing stylized summary: beyond blatant falsehoods such as the thesis that Mr. Roosevelt earnestly tried to achieve peace with Japan, even many of its plausible-sounding assertions are made with no reference to facts. Further, there is a glaring elephant in the room here: the Soviet Union was, likely, the most tyrannical regime on earth in 1941. For the Americans to enter into a world war on the side of this corrupt, cruel, murderous Marxist dictatorship, even against another alleged tyrant, made no strategic or moral sense at the time, and does not 75 years later, either [and, again, it is why the standard story about American entry into the war only mentions Churchill and Roosevelt when the casus belli of "preserving the free world" is explained, and Stalin’s name is never uttered].
Indeed, the United States lost more than 400,000 lives in World War II, and ran up gross federal debt equal to 118% of GDP by 1945, a record only now soon to be broken. Was it worth it, and was it necessary?
The only honest answer, after full examination of the facts, is no:
Neither Hitler nor Mussolini had any kinetic designs on the United States. In fact, Hitler went out of his way to avoid war with the Americans until he felt duty-bound to support Japan. Further, Hitler had said as far back as 1925 that he regarded Britain and its sea power as a natural ally for a resurgent Germany that could keep the peace as the predominant land power in Europe (Britain was also, for Hitler, racially harmonious with Germany). For Hitler, any German war would be fought in the East, as Asian Bolshevism was considered the primordial threat to European harmony and commercial life and, indeed, Christian civilization itself (and bluntly, it was conquest of the "backward Slavs" that had always animated Hitler, in dreams of a German Empire).
Long-ignored, too, is the inconvenient fact that it was France and Great Britain which declared war on Germany in 1939, not the other way around, and done so only because of the former’s guarantee to Poland, a promise completely untenable and foolhardy. Strategically, any German suzerainty of Poland was of no consequence to the United States and represented no threat to American vital interests; morally, was the American taxpayer duty-bound to clean up and retrieve foolhardy promises made by corrupt European empires?
Meanwhile the Japanese Empire manifestly did not want war with the Americans. Instead it was the Roosevelt Administration which persistently ratcheted up pressure on Japan in years of negotiations through the fall of 1941: the United States unilaterally abrogated the 1911 Commercial Treaty with Japan in 1939, implemented various economic sanctions across 1940, and in the summer of 1941 installed a full embargo that included the freezing of Japanese assets in the United States. The inconvenient truth here is that the United States had, in a diplomatic sense, committed acts of war against Japan well before Pearl Harbor, and in effect provoked the Japanese. Indeed even late into the fall of 1941, Emperor Hirohito was instructing Prince Fumimaro Konoe, the prime minister, to seek a rapprochement with the Americans and avoid war. Admiral Yamamoto, senior naval officials, and most of the Japanese ruling class feared the industrial might of the United States and doubted any prospect of victory; only Hideki Tojo and certain radicals in the army thought the Americans were too weak to fight a war of any duration in the Pacific.
In sum, then, the United States interjected itself into what were primarily German-Russian and Sino-Japanese conflicts (8 of 11 German war-dead and some 7 in 10 Japanese were in these theaters). Had the United States consistently followed the long ago advice of George Washington in his famous Farewell Address to avoid all foreign entanglements, the British would have surely quit the European war before 1941, leaving Germany and Russia to fight a death-struggle. The mutual slaughter would have weakened both, to the strategic benefit of the West. One can posit the Germans eventually prevailing since the Russians would not have received the massive Anglo-American aid that kept them alive in the war, and at the same time, the persistent attempts by liberal-minded Germans to assassinate Hitler would have, at some point, borne fruit. Therefore it is more than possible that Germany may well have expanded in the East, eliminating the Soviet menace, while at the same time eventually liberalizing. The 200 million souls trapped behind the Iron Curtain in the Warsaw Pact may well have been spared bitter suffering for decades after the war, and likely achieved a proto-capitalistic standard of living far earlier than they did.
Meanwhile, a Japanese-Chinese struggle across Asia would have ended indeterminately, but there again, the rise of Maoism would have been prevented, and Western-leaning elements in the Japanese ruling class could have been leveraged over time. Given the horrors of Chinese history after 1949, it is not hard to posit a better, richer life for China’s billions of people across the 20 th century.
The Cold War and its tensions – and massive costs – would have been entirely avoided. How much wealthier, and fiscally healthier, would the United States be today, had all that been avoided? And given the precedent of avoiding entirely senseless wars that have no relationship to the national security of the United States, it is likely that the "welfare-warfare state" model would never have germinated. That is, the United States would have essentially retained, or, after the folly of an also-avoidable World War I, have returned to the status of a free and great commercial republic, and avoided entirely its de facto transformation into a corrupt, globally expansive empire. Again, how many tens of trillions of dollars would have been saved and invested in the growth of a peaceful and prosperous America, instead of being squandered on a series of endless wars and foreign adventurism, all on the other side of the world, that have in the event rendered us less safe, less free, and poorer now?
Let us therefore have the courage to face the truth: World War II, like most all wars the United States has fought before it or since, was a needless war, fought on behalf of corrupt special interests. It made us poorer and less free, and sadly steered American foreign policy into new and harmful directions: over time the United States was transformed into an arrogant "hyper-power", and assumed the role of "Global Policeman," a role which other empires had pursued in prior history always and uniformly to bad ends. The world would be a better, richer place today, had the Americans remained the envy and aspiration of peoples everywhere: a free and great republic, dedicated to peace, commerce and friendship with all.
In the end, American entry into World War II made half of Europe "safe for Bolshevism" and poverty, while it ensured the Maoist hell that China became over time. Marxism-Leninism was given oxygen to spread elsewhere around the globe and ensure further enslavement of peoples in places such as Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, or North Vietnam.
Let us digest these real lessons from what ended 75 years ago last week, and in Japan this coming September 2nd. Going forward, it is never too late to do the right thing: may a renewed reflection of fundamental American values lead us to a return to the historic foreign policy enunciated by George Washington and John Quincy Adams, among others: Friend of Liberty everywhere, Guarantor only of our Own. Once this truly "small-r" republican foreign policy is taken up again, there will be no more world wars, no more Koreas, no more Vietnams, no more Iraqs, no more Afghanistans, no more Syrias, no more Libyas – and no World War III.
Mr. Chapman is an economist and investor in Washington.