The Liberal Holocaust
Imperialism and the Democratic Party






Many people involved in US anti-war movement(s) have this naive belief that Democrats are not imperialists, that US imperialist policies, such as those pursued by the Bush administration, are just a recent deviation or limited to Republican administrations.  In fact, the Democratic Party has a long and bloody history of imperialism.  Democrats are imperialists and mass murderers.   Nor is this limited to the more conservative democrats; left-liberals have done the same.  Liberal governments have slaughtered millions.

Starting shortly before the end of World War Two, Democrats began recruiting many Nazi war criminals and using them to help expand the American Empire.  Hitler's intelligence chief in East Europe Reinhard Gehlen was used by the US, after the war, to build an intelligence network against the Soviets in East Europe.  They also dropped supplies to remnants of Hitler's armies operating in Eastern Europe, to harass the Soviet bloc. Other Nazi war criminals employed by the US included Klaus Barbie, Otto von Bolschwing and Otto Skorzeny. Some of these Nazis later made their way to Latin America, where they advised and assisted US-backed dictatorships in the area.

Harry Truman kicked up anti-communist hysteria, which lead to McCarthyism (which occurred during his administration) and helped start the Cold War.  He supported numerous dictatorships, including Saudi Arabia.  US involvement in Vietnam started under Truman with the US providing support for the French invaders and the CIA carrying out covert actions.  In 1950 his administration issued the ultra-hawkish NSC 68.  The subversion of Italian democracy was done by his administration - fearing electoral victory in 1948 by the Italian Communist party, the CIA funded various leftover Mussolinite Brownshirt thugs and other former Nazi collaborators, successfully manipulating the results to ensure pro-US candidates won.  A secret paramilitary army was formed to overthrow the government just in case the Communists managed to win anyway. 

In the years after World War Two a rebellion against the British puppet government in Greece broke out.   This client state was largely staffed by former Nazi collaborators who the British had put back in power.  The UK was unable to defeat the left-wing insurgency (which had previously fought an insurgency against the Nazi occupation during World War Two) and asked the US for help.  In 1947 Truman invaded Greece and proceeded to crush the revolutionaries, keeping the former Nazi collaborators in power.  Truman attempted to justify this by portraying the guerillas as mere pawns of Moscow and therefore a form of covert aggression, but he had no real proof of this.  The claim is also based on a double standard: when the USSR (allegedly) covertly supports revolutionaries in another country it constitutes "aggression" and is wrong, but when the US (or UK) send actual military forces to another country in order to prop up unpopular dictatorships this is somehow perfectly just.

At the end of World War Two Japan withdrew its forces from Korea, resulting in a brief period of self-rule.  A provisional government was set up in Seoul, but it had little power.  Across Korea, workers took over their factories and peasants took over their land.  Self-managed collectives were organized.  This did not last long, as the US and USSR quickly partitioned the country into a North and a South, under the occupation of each power.   In the south Truman installed a brutal military dictatorship, run mainly by former Japanese collaborators, complete with death squads, torture chambers and suppression of all opposition.  The United States and its client state suppressed an insurgency, leveled whole villages and massacred thousands of innocent Koreans.  The Soviets followed a similar policy in the north, where a Stalinist dictatorship was imposed.  Forces from each empire repeatedly clashed until war broke out in 1950.  Truman & his propagandists tried to portray the war as an attempt to defend South Korea from Soviet/Northern aggression, but the very existence of South & North Korea was the result of aggression by the US & USSR.  The Korean War was an inter-imperialist war between rival empires fighting for territory, rather like a turf war between rival mafia dons, in which lots of ordinary people (who had no real stake in the war) were sent to die for their elite.

These policies of mass murder continued in both the subsequent Eisenhower administration and the next democratic administration, Kennedy. Like every other president since World War Two (and many prior to that) he supported numerous puppet dictatorships that slaughtered thousands - Mobutu, the Shah, etc. Kennedy backed a coup against the democratically elected government in the Dominican Republic because it was too independent.  And lets not forget the Bay of Pigs and the many terrorist campaigns against Cuba.

Kennedy also escalated US involvement in Vietnam.  During Eisenhower's term the Vietnamese defeated US-backed French invaders and the war with France was brought to an end.  The country was partitioned in two, with the Vietnamese nationalists/Communists taking over the north and the French puppet government temporarily ruling the south.  Elections were to be held to reunite the two, but the US intervened to prevent this (because the Communists would have won free elections) and put in power a right-wing dictatorship headed by Ngo Dinh Diem which relied on a reign of terror in order to stay in power.  In the late '50s popular rebellions erupted against this dictatorship.  By the time Kennedy came to power the survival of Diem's dictatorship was increasingly precarious and so Kennedy escalated the situation from state terror to outright aggression.  The US military, mainly the air force, was sent to crush the resistance.  This failed to defeat the resistance, so Johnson fabricated a bogus attack on US destroyers by North Vietnamese forces and used this as an excuse to escalate the war, launching a full-fledged ground invasion of the south and began bombing the north.  US forces set up concentration camps (called "strategic hamlets") and committed numerous atrocities during the war.  Even John Kerry testified:

"Several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. ... They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. ... We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. ... We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals. ... We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater."

Kerry has since claimed that Vietnam was an exception to the norm, but the evidence presented in this article shows otherwise.  This testimony is corroborated by numerous other primary sources, including many Vietnam veterans. Colin Powell admitted these atrocities occurred and defended them, writing in his memoirs (My American Journey):

"If a helo [helicopter] spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM [military-aged male], the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen, Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong." 

In addition, Powell defends the torching of civilians' huts in his memoirs.  There are also many Vietnam veterans who strongly deny that the United States committed any kind of atrocities or wrongdoing in Vietnam at all, but they are not the first murderers to strongly deny murdering anyone.  These are the kinds of atrocities the Democrat's foreign policy leads to.

Democrats (and Republicans) tried to portray the war as a result of Chinese (or even Soviet) aggression that had to be stopped or else it would cause a "domino effect" leading to "Communist" conquest of the globe.  This is shear fantasy.  Vietnam became independent in 1945 and for a brief period of time the whole country was united under the rule of Ho Chi Min and his fellow nationalists and Marxists.  Then France invaded, with US support, leading to the creation of "South Vietnam," which was a foreign puppet from day one.  Attacks on it by Vietnamese were no more "aggression" than attacks on the Vichy government by the French resistance. Communists in China didn't come to power until 1948, whereas Vietnam declared independence in 1945, so portraying the war as "Chinese aggression" is particularly absurd.  Eventually, China did provide weapons, money and advisors to Vietnam (as did the USSR), but merely giving supplies to people fighting for independence hardly constitutes "aggression."  If China giving some weapons and supplies to a Vietnamese movement with substantial popular support constitutes "aggression" then what are we to make of the US, which went well beyond sending weapons and sent over 100,000 troops to keep in power a deeply unpopular puppet government?   By this kind of logic, the American war for independence constituted French aggression because France gave the rebels support, just as China & Russia gave the Vietnamese support, except France went even further and sent warships to fight the British and help the US win the war.  The Vietnam War was a brutal colonial war, started mainly by democrats, against a people struggling for national liberation.

Even if we ignore Vietnam, Johnson was still a murderous warmonger. In 1965 Johnson launched a secret war on Laos, which would eventually drop more bombs on it then were dropped during World War Two, in order to defeat the leftist Pathet Lao.  When a popular rebellion erupted against the US-backed dictatorship in the Dominican Republic, LBJ invaded and defeated it, keeping a US puppet government in power.  In Brazil LBJ supported and encouraged a fascist coup against the mildly reformist Goulart administration.  Johnson also backed a right-wing coup in Indonesia. The previous ruler, Sukarno, committed the crime of trying to stay neutral in the cold war and desiring to build a strong Indonesia independent of foreign powers. So he was removed and general Suharto seized power. The US helped Suharto liquidate dissent and gave him lists of "subversives" to kill.  Between 500,000 and a million people were massacred by Suharto in the period following the coup, with the covert help of the Johnson administration.  When the Greek ambassador objected to the President's plan for a resolving a dispute over Cyprus LBJ told him:

"Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution.  America is an elephant.  Cyprus is a flea.  If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good.  ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador.  If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long."

In 1965 the Greek king, aided by the CIA, removed Prime Minister George Papandreou (who's foreign policy was too independent for Washington) from power.  In 1967 the Greek government was forced to finally hold elections again, but when it looked like George Papandreou was going to win again a military coup prevented him from coming to power.  George Papadopoulos, leader of the coup and head of the new military dictatorship, had been on the CIA payroll for 15 years and was a Nazi collaborator during World War Two.

Carter, the so-called "human rights" president, was also an imperialist warmonger. He continued US support for brutal tyrants in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. Carter supported Pol Pot's forces after they were thrown out of power due to a war with Vietnam.  Under Ford Indonesia invaded East Timor and proceeded to slaughter 200,000 people.  Although this invasion occurred under Ford, the worst atrocities happened under Carter's reign.  As atrocities increased, he increased the flow of weapons to the Indonesian government, insuring they wouldn't run out and could continue massacring Timorese.  Carter also backed the massacre in Kwangju by the South Korean military dictatorship. Many of the things which liberals like to blame Reagan for were actually started under Carter. Deregulation began under Carter, as did US support for the Contras in Nicaragua.  Six months before the Soviets invaded he also initiated US support for the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists/"freedom fighters" in Afghanistan which would later include Bin Laden.

Bill Clinton was a mass murderer and war criminal, too.  He backed numerous dictatorships, continued the proxy war against Marxist guerillas in Columbia and bombed more countries than any other peacetime president, including Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan.

Clinton laid siege to Iraq with sanctions, "no fly zones" and bombings, killing 1.5 to 3 million people.  UN-approved sanctions on Iraq were originally imposed at the start of the Gulf War in response to the invasion of Kuwait, but continued after the end of the war at US (and UK) insistence.  The United States used sanctions as a weapon against Iraq.  One military intelligence document titled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities noted:

"Iraq depends on importing-specialized equipment-and some chemicals to purify its water supply ... With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations sanctions to import these vital commodities. ... Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease and to certain pure-water-dependent industries becoming incapacitated, including petrochemicals, fertilizers, petroleum refining, electronics, pharmaceuticals, food processing, textiles, concrete construction, and thermal power plants.  Iraq’s overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt ... Unless water treatment supplies are exempted from the UN sanctions for humanitarian reasons, no adequate solution exists for Iraq’s water purification dilemma, since no suitable alternatives ... sufficiently meet Iraqi needs. ... Unless the water is purified with chlorine epidemics of such diseases as Cholera, Hepatitis, and Typhoid could occur ... Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements. ... Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs. ... Alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

This and other documents show that the United States intentionally used sanctions to destroy Iraq's water supply with full knowledge of the consequences.  In addition to water problems, the sanctions also interfered with the importation of basic necessities like food and medicine.  The UN itself, the organization that implemented the sanctions (due to US/UK insistence), reported that they resulted in mass death.  UNICEF found that on average 5,000 children died every month as a result of sanctions. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in 1995 that 567,000 children in Iraq had died as a result of the sanctions.  Those sanctions continued until the invasion in 2003, killing even more.  This began under the first Bush administration, but most of it occurred under Clinton's administration.

In 1996, faced with mounting humanitarian concerns that threatened to end the sanctions, an "oil for food" program was implemented.  Officially, this was supposed to allow Iraq to import a limited amount of food and supplies in exchange for limited amounts of oil but in practice it did little to alleviate the suffering of Iraqis caused by the sanctions.  Everything imported by Iraq had to be approved by a UN sanctions committee that, due to US/UK influence, frequently stopped or delayed importation of needed supplies.  All money Iraq made from the sale of oil was kept by the UN in an escrow account with the bank of Paris and was not at the discretion of the Iraqi government.  Some of this was used to pay for administrative costs related to the sanctions and about a third were used to pay reparations to Kuwait, the remainder was inadequate for Iraq's needs.  In 1998 Dennis Halliday, the first head of the UN's "oil for food" program resigned because the sanctions continued to result in a humanitarian catastrophe.  In 2000 Hans Von Sponeck, the new head of the "oil for food" program, resigned for the same reason.  On the May 12, 1996 edition of "60 minutes" journalist Lesly Stahl asked Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, "We have heard that a half million children have died [from sanctions on Iraq]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright's response was, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Clinton attacked and dismembered Yugoslavia, using a "divide and conquer" strategy to install US/NATO puppet governments ruling over its corpse.  During and after World War Two Yugoslavia underwent its own Leninist revolution, independent of Soviet tanks, and eventually evolved a market socialist economy based on a limited form of worker self-management.  Most of the economy was run by enterprises that were officially worker owned, with elected managers, and sold their products on the market.  Yugoslavia was a federation of different nationalities in southeastern Europe, with six different republics united under a federal government.

As the Soviet empire declined and fell western financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank began pressuring Yugoslavia to implement neoliberal capitalist reforms such as privatization, austerity measures and so on.  Yugoslavia implemented these on a limited basis.  These programs lead to a declining economy that opened the door for opportunistic politicians to whip up nationalism for their own benefit, scapegoating other nationalities for economic problems.  They also stressed relations between the federal government and the republics because money that would have gone to the republics instead went to servicing Yugoslavia's debt.  The United States and Western Europe took advantage of this to encourage the breakup of Yugoslavia into NATO protectorates.

In 1990 separatists won elections in Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia.  The new Croatian government began to persecute the Serb minority living in Croatia, even bringing back the flag and other symbols from when it had been a World War Two Axis puppet government (run by a fascist organization called the Ustase) that attempted to exterminate the Serbs (who were regarded as "subhuman").  Croatian President Franjo Trudjman refused to condemn the Ustase and claimed, "the establishment of Hitler's new European order can be justified by the need to be rid of the Jews."  Croatia and Slovenia declared independence in 1991.  West Europe and then the US recognized Slovenia and Croatia as independent states despite warnings from the UN that this would encourage Bosnia to declare independence and bring about a civil war, which it did.

The Yugoslav federal government fought a small ten-day war with Slovenia, after which Slovenia was allowed to leave Yugoslavia.  Croatia and Bosnia fought bloody civil wars with the Yugoslav government.  In Bosnia the main forces fighting against the federal government were Croat fascists, supported by Croatia, and Islamic fundamentalists, led by Alija Izetbegovic, who aimed to turn Bosnia into a theocracy similar to Iran or the Taliban.  Most of Bosnia's Serb minority sided with the Yugoslav federal government.  The US covertly backed the Islamists and fascists by secretly supplying them with weapons and even flying in Muslim 'holy warriors' from Afghanistan so they could join the Jihad.  Initially the Islamists and fascists in Bosnia worked together against the Serbs and Yugoslav government.  Later they started fighting each other, but US & West European pressure eventually put a stop to that.  When the Yugoslav government started winning the war NATO sent in the air force to bomb them and support the separatists.  Many atrocities were committed on both sides of the war, but Western governments and media emphasized and exaggerated Yugoslav and Serb atrocities while downplaying or ignoring atrocities committed by the separatists.

In 1995 the war came to an end, in a defeat for Yugoslavia.  Under a UN fig leaf, NATO "peacekeeper" troops occupied much of the former Yugoslavia while Bosnia was made into a de-facto NATO colony, occupied by NATO troops and with a "high representative" responsible to foreign powers in charge of the country.  Yugoslavia was dramatically shrunk, with only two out of six Republics, Serbia and Montenegro, remaining in the union (Macedonia had been allowed to peacefully leave the union in the early '90s but at this time was still largely outside the Western sphere of influence).

The next phase of Clinton's conquest of Yugoslavia began in the late '90s when the CIA began covertly supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a terrorist organization that has been linked to Osama Bin Laden.  The KLA launched a guerilla war in the Kosovo province of Serbia, advocating independence for Kosovo.  In 1999, under the guise of "peace negotiations," the US/NATO issued an ultimatum demanding Yugoslavia allow NATO troops to occupy the entire country.  Yugoslavia obviously refused this unreasonable demand and Clinton used this refusal as an excuse to begin a major bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.  After several months of bombing pulverized the country a peace deal was reached allowing NATO "peacekeeper" troops to occupy Kosovo (but not the rest of Yugoslavia), effectively turning the province into a NATO protectorate.  A year later a revolt led by US-funded groups and politicians overthrew the Yugoslav government, putting pro-US/NATO leaders in charge.  The new government abolished Yugoslavia and became a Western puppet.  This conquest was completed shortly after Clinton left office, when KLA forces attacked Macedonia.  Macedonia saw the writing on the wall and allowed NATO troops to occupy it.  Clinton succeeded in not only ripping Yugoslavia apart, but in achieving US/NATO domination over the Balkans and in forcing an economic system favorable to Western investors on the region.  A wave of privatization has swept over the former Yugoslavia, transforming it into a corporate capitalist economy colonized by Western capital.

The standard excuse Clinton used to justify the military interventions in Yugoslavia was that it was supposed to stop "ethnic cleansing"/"genocide" allegedly being perpetrated by the Serbs/Yugoslav government.  This is obviously bogus because the US helped instigate the conflicts that lead to the various massacres in the war and also because Clinton largely turned a blind eye towards atrocities committed by separatist forces (like the massacres in Gospic and Krajina).  It is also not credible because Clinton ignored other genocides (such as Rwanda) and even funded Turkey's genocide against the Kurds, which occurred at roughly the same time and resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds.

The death toll of the democrats is quite large:

Greek Civil War: 160,000 (Truman)
Korean War: 3 million (Truman)
Assault on Indochina: 5 million (started under Truman, accelerated under Kennedy & LBJ)
Coup in Indonesia: 1 million (LBJ)
East Timor: 100,000 (Carter)
Kwangju Massacre: 2000 (Carter)
Argentine Dirty War: 30,000 (mostly Carter)
Iraq sanctions: 1.5 million (mostly Clinton)
Turkish Kurdistan: 40,000 (mostly Clinton)

That's at least 10,8022,000 killed by democrats, 9,292,000 if one only counts the liberal governments (Clinton wasn't really a liberal). For comparison, the Nazi holocaust killed roughly 6,000,000 Jews.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg; these are only the most famous incidents over the last couple of decades. If you add up the total from periods preceding this and the less famous incidents the number get much, much higher. If you add in starvation (a direct result of capitalism) it gets even higher.

Democrats could have stopped the congressional authorization for the Iraq war (via filibustering) but instead lots of them defected to the warmongers’ side. They could have stopped many of the nasty things the Republicans are doing by filibuster but choose not to. Many democrats actively supported the war. Most of those who did oppose it offered little opposition, chickening out when the shooting started and either abstained or voted in favor of the pro-war "support our troops" resolution in March. Even Dennis Kucinich, leader of the "anti-war" opposition in the house, abstained from the vote instead of voting against it.  It was only after Bush's war started going sour that vocal criticism began to come from democrats, which is completely opportunistic. Bush's lies and fabrications about the Niger Uranium had already been exposed prior to the war, but it wasn't until after the invasion was completed and the democrats needed an issue to attack Bush with that they started whining about it.

The Democratic Party, the party of slavery, has a long history of mass murder and empire building. They are not an alternative to the American Empire. Especially on foreign policy, there is remarkable consistency between republican and democratic administrations. If the Nuremberg standards were applied every President since World War Two, both democrat and republican, would have to be hung. Both parties have the same basic goals; they just disagree on minor details. It would have been much harder for Bush to conquer Iraq (perhaps politically impossible) if Clinton hadn't been waging war against it for his entire term. The policies implemented by the US government have more to do with the specific circumstances of the time period then with which particular individual happens to occupy the white house. If a democrat is elected he will inherit this Pax Americana and it is unlikely that he would dismantle it (or even be capable of dismantling it). A vote for the democrats is a vote for imperialism and war (as is a vote for the Republicans).

Home