5 Invasion War of History

Sad but true. Wars are part of human history. And although wars have been outlawed for a long time, so a war of aggression an invasion offensive war is wrong. But they still happen. Anyone who wants to start a war always looks for the best possible reasons for doing so. But a situation is manipulated so skilfully that an attack does not appear as aggression but as an act of defence. In this video here we show you a few examples from history that are used to construct grounds for war.

How lies and how the truth is distorted in order to assert one’s own interests. Wars that start with a lie. Unfortunately, they are not uncommon in history. In this video we tell you five very different cases that show how facts are deliberately falsified in order to start a war.

War Example 1: Rome versus Gaul

We begin as so often in antiquity. In 58 BC, Julius Caesar is proconsul, i.e. governor in the Gallic provinces of the Roman state. Caesar has made many enemies throughout his career in Roman politics. Now he aims to collect foreign policy successes that should strengthen his position. Of course, military success would be best. A war is needed.

The situation in what was then Western Europe in Gaul is complicated. Many Gallic tribal groups compete with each other for territory. About power and influence. They forge changing alliances. And some ally themselves with powerful neighbors Rome. One of these Gallic tribes are the Helvetii. They left their settlement areas at the time, why? You don’t really know.

If Julius Caesar is to be believed, they want to start a campaign of conquest. So he takes advantage of the moment. And officially invents several reasons for a war: First: A plea for help from the Aedui of an allied tribe. Second: The threat that the Helvetians could pose to the Roman province. Third: revenge for a defeat 60 years earlier.

It is said that Caesar was only carrying out a just punitive action against an aggressive tribe. This is, so to speak, the mother of all war lies. The attacker attacks only because he is asked for help. And soon a war of aggression turns into a seemingly legitimate military operation. We will encounter this pattern again and again. Once Caesar begins the war, the war goes on and on, ending in the conquest of all of Gaul. And by that I really mean all of Gaul.

War Example 2: Prussia against Austria

Frederick II, King of Prussia later known as “the Great”, was king for just 140 days in 1740 when he summoned his minister, Heinrich Graf von Podewils. Friedrich tells him that he wants to wage war. To decide to weaken Austria, then the most powerful country in the Holy Roman Empire.

Strictly speaking, the Prussian king wants to incorporate the territory of Silesia. And what does he do? He writes a report. In it he refers to rather confused centuries-old inheritance claims. commitments and agreements. Short side step. Such reports are quite important since leaflets have been circulated en masse in Europe since the invention of the printing press. A great propaganda tool that works almost as well as it does on social media today. Even then, good publicity was important to the rulers. They need the support of the people. Not only for the morale of the troops. And if you speak so openly about your “good” reasons, you can’t have anything to hide. Or is it?

In truth, of course, rulers are not concerned with transparency. It’s about power. In the case of Frederick II, too, the matter is crystal clear. He inherited a large, modern army from his father. He now wants to use them to finally make Prussia a great power and to reap glory as a successful warlord. I won’t go into detail about the actual report by Podewils, it’s far too complicated and far-fetched. You wouldn’t get half of it anyway. Let’s leave it out. But that’s just fine with Friedrich that it’s so complicated. So it seems there are good reasons for a war here. Alleged ancient legal claims. Without really solid evidence, but also difficult to refute. According to the motto: something will be there.

Friedrich gives the ruler of Austria, Queen Maria Theresa, an ultimatum. If she hands over Silesia to him, he will recognize her rule and even support her husband in the election to the German Emperor. But even before Maria Theresa can send an answer, Prussian troops invade Silesia. After “Old Fritz”, as he is also known, started the conflict, many years followed with various wars. In the end he wins with luck, but one has to say that Prussia is economically on the ground. Millions of people suffer from the indirect consequences of wars.

War Example 3: German Empire against Poland

In August 1939, Adolf Hitler, Chancellor and self-proclaimed leader of the German Reich, will unleash a long-planned war against neighboring Poland. The situation has been tense for a long time. The transition to arms is in the air. The SS, the so-called Schutzstaffel, has been faking alleged incidents that are supposed to point to a Polish attack for weeks. An operation is very well known. German SS men dress up in Polish uniforms and stage a raid on the radio station in Gleiwitz. It is often portrayed as Hitler referring to just this one incident in his speech at the beginning of the war on September 1, 1939. It is a whole web of lies and concealment, in which it is only a matter of finding the trigger. In a drop that breaks the camel’s back.

But Hitler’s speech already makes it clear what it’s really about. About the revision of the Versailles Treaty. The peace treaty after the First World War, which provided for numerous reparation payments and restrictions as well as the cession of territory for Germany. Adolf Hitler wants “justice to be done” for the German people, as he puts it. After the First World War, Germany had to cede territories to Poland. Danzig became a free city. Hitler has long been demanding that the city be returned to the German Reich. He paints a picture of an evil opponent who continues to produce Germany.

Which does not respond to warnings. Finally, in his Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939, Hitler uttered the famous words: “Tonight, for the first time, Poland fired on our own territory, also through regular soldiers. Since 5:45 a.m. they’ve been shooting back! And from now on bomb will be met with bomb! Whoever fights with poison will be fought with poison gas.”

The Second World War begins with lies. A staged robbery. And what’s more, the time that Hitler says isn’t even correct. The Germans start bombing a good hour earlier. And then this allusion that Poland will now use poison, at least some Germans are naturally afraid of this attack. You see, with Hitler we find a special combination of assertions. The danger posed by external enemies, a threat to be forestalled, and Germany’s supposed rightful claim. He justifies war as a means of politics. Hitler reverses right and wrong.

Hitler is the model for many aggressors after him.

War Example 4: Soviet Union versus Czechoslovakia

On August 21, 1968, the newspaper of the ruling SED of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany published a text. “Personnel from the Czechoslovak Republic loyal to socialism have asked the governments of the Soviet Union, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland for military aid.”

The reason: Counter-revolutionaries working with the USA supposedly want to overthrow the socialist state and social order in Czechoslovakia. Socialist allies to help prevent criminal coup d’état. 400,000 soldiers with more than 6,000 tanks, mainly from the Soviet army, invade the socialist brother country. Are they preventing an illegal coup d’état? But on the contrary. The Czechoslovak party and state leader Alexander Dubcek and the majority of his comrades in the government want to implement reforms in 1968. The buzzword is socialism with a human face. And the movement gets the name “Prague Spring.” It’s about democracy and freedom of expression.

The hardliners are in the minority. Five of them write a letter to Leonid Brezhnev, Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for help. This letter is then used to claim that there was an official request for help. Caesar sends his regards, we heard that earlier. Strictly speaking, the invasion is a Warsaw Pact action. The communist military alliance that defined the Soviet Union.

Against the background of the Cold War, the Moscow Communist Party does not want to allow a country to leave its sphere of influence and possibly even switch to the democratic camp. This is the motive with which the Soviet Union, but also the USA, wage various wars in their sphere of influence. The Czechoslovak government has nothing to oppose to this military contingent. And asks the population to keep calm and not to fight back. This avoids open war. Nevertheless, 108 people die. Most are run over or shot by military vehicles.

But not only dictators or monarchs invent reasons for war. Democratic states do this too. They often argue with alleged threats that must be countered. Intervene before a “bad guy” takes action against you.

Example 5: USA against Iraq

It may well be that you know this picture here. Then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell addresses the United Nations Security Council February 5, 2003. He holds up a glass tube containing anthrax pathogens. Anthrax, a biological weapon. According to Colin Powell, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possesses such biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. And he also wants to build an atomic bomb. For all these and other claims, the US Secretary of State is presenting supposed evidence to the world public.

US President George W. Bush has been looking for a reason to invade Iraq for some time. Many conservative American politicians believe that overthrowing Saddam, a democratic Iraq, could disrupt order throughout the Middle East. Other dictators would then also fall. The regime in hostile Iran could also be swept away. So a war to bring democracy, freedom and peace? Observers who are more critical of US policy say the point is that the US wants access to Iraq’s oil reserves.

This video is about invented reasons for war. That’s why we’re concentrating on that. US and UK intelligence services have amassed a wealth of evidence. There are very accurate computer animations of trucks that Iraq has converted into mobile laboratories for the production of chemical and biological weapons. There are satellite images of nuclear bunkers and missile launch pads. Networks supporting terrorism. In the end, the UN Security Council does not agree, but a so-called “coalition of the willing”, a group of 43 countries, joins forces to attack Iraq.

In addition to the USA, however, only the British provide associations on a larger scale. The attack is illegal because there is no UN resolution on it. The US government at the time said it was a preventive war. “We act to prevent worse.” Such a war, which eliminates a great danger, is fundamentally not a forbidden war of aggression in the classical sense. But rather something like a police action on a larger scale.

However, it quickly turns out that the evidence presented is not evidence at all. No chemical weapons are found in Iraq, nor biological, nor nuclear. A blatant lie in that regard. The actual war lasted only a few weeks. From March to May 2003. But after that there was a civil war and guerrilla warfare by various groups against the occupying forces. Hundreds of thousands of people die. After the US troops withdrew, another war against IS ensued. The Islamic State terrorist group.

It must be said very clearly at this point: the intervention of the USA is causing devastating damage. Til today. With all the loss of human life, the fact that the moral claims of the so-called “West”, of western democracies as a whole, have been emphatically damaged, also weighs heavily. But especially in democracies, trust is the most important asset.

There were now five wars, the reasons for which were all made up. Disguised as a preemptive strike. As assistance. As a defense or fulfillment of historical legal claims. It is sometimes difficult to say whether the war mongers are always deliberately lying or perhaps even believe they are right. A good example of this are wars that are fanatically waged on a religious basis. What is zeal? What is hunger for power? Aside from the question of right and wrong, the biggest problem with the basic war lies is that they work. That they are well thought out and difficult to invalidate.

That they are emotionally charged. Today Hitler’s demagogic speeches seem downright absurd to us. At that time he convinced most Germans with his lies. The Allies were able to spread the truth with so many leaflets and radio broadcasts, there were always people who believed it and there are still people today who believe in what Hitler said back then. The first casualty of war is always the truth. And apparently long before the first shot was fired. So what can we do to avoid falling for war lies and propaganda?