Latest news with #post-WorldWarI
The Wire
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
The Life of MI6's Forgotten Master Spy
Tim Willasey-Wilsey's The Spy and The Devi l is an incredible story of a British 'master spy' who gained direct access to Adolf Hitler in 1931 through Alfred Rosenberg, a Baltic-German theorist, who headed the Nazi party's foreign office (NSDAP) from 1933-1945. It recreates the post-World War I Europe, dominated by intrigues, treachery and predatory redrawing of borders through land grabbing. The story has shades of John Le Carre's enthralling drama, chronological clarity through assiduous research and a message on how governments should utilise intelligence services. Willasey-Wilsey, CMG, a former British diplomat, is currently Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College, London and Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He spent three years researching for this book. The author admits that some books had already acknowledged the spy's contributions, like professor Keith Jeffery's authorised MI6 history, The History of the Secret Intelligence Service, 1909–1949. Yet, not everything was revealed about how this 'important and courageous secret agent' operated at a time when the British government was divided over a coherent policy towards Nazi Germany. Also, in 1934, the agency 'saw Germany as a potential ally in the more important battle against Bolshevik Russia'. It was this spy who helped 'MI6's evolution from being a service providing low-level tactical information to the strategic organisation' for the British government. That was in 1938, when MI-6 chief Admiral Sir Hugh Sinclair consulted the spy when Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, requested the agency to draft a strategic paper 'What should we do?' to deal with Hitler. The spy was Baron Wilhelm Sylvester von der Ropp, or Bill de Ropp, code number 12821, a Baltic-German from Lithuania, who 'lived in the heart of Berlin under the noses of the three main German security services – the Gestapo, the Abwehr and the SD'. Yet, as Jeffery said, at least 70% of the political intelligence on Hitler's Germany was provided by him. Ropp studied in Birmingham University, became a British citizen in 1914. He joined the British army's Air Intelligence team (propaganda & interrogations) under press baron Lord Northcliffe due to his linguistic flair. Ropp came in touch with MI6 as part of his work with Northcliffe and moved to 'Occupied Germany' in 1919, where he worked in the weekly reporting section. After that job ended, MI-6 employed him for covering the Baltic States under cover as a Daily Mail journalist, courtesy Lord Northcliffe. Meanwhile, he got married to Marie Winifred Woodman, known as Jimmy, who helped him in his 'real' work. MI-6 reappointed him to Berlin where he started writing for Outlook magazine edited by John Balderston, an American. At the end of November 1926, Ropp published an article on 'Airships' in Outlook. 'Little did he realise that he would be discussing these very issues with Adolf Hitler himself only four years later." Very soon, he became their Berlin correspondent. The author said that his first piece on 'Germany inside the League' following Berlin's entry to the League of Nations in Geneva demonstrated his ability as a 'political analyst as well as his excellent written English.' In 1926, Ropp became a representative in Germany for the Bristol Aeroplane Company, which was used by MI-6's 'Air Section' led by F.W. Winterbotham, the 'Ultra' intelligence specialist. This facilitated achieving a three-fold object: 'selling Bristol engines for civil aircraft, watching out for the potential military use of civil aviation, and tracking the expansion of Russo-German relations since the Rapallo Treaty of 1922'. Ropp's reputation in Berlin as an expert on Anglo-German relations stabilised in this capacity. However, MI-6 was still not convinced that Germany was their prime concern even in 1930. Here the master spy became a catalyst to convince his bosses in London. The author quotes Ropp's post-retirement article in Daily Mail in October 1957, out of a series of five, permitted by MI-6: 'I should make friends with Hitler while he was no more than the leader of a minority, if boisterous, party and stay with him as his friend if he rose to power'. For this he adopted, as the author described in Chapter 11, a 'crab-like' approach to Hitler in five stages: First, he tapped Baron Walter von Medem, whom he had met in 1919 while recapturing Riga from the Bolshevik forces. Medem was a member of the Right Wing Stahlhelm (The Steel Helmet) of German war veterans. Medem introduced him to Major Hans Berthold, also of Stahlhelm, who in turn introduced him to Arno Schickedanz, a fellow Balt from Riga, who was the Berlin correspondent of the Nazis' influential newspaper Völkischer Beobachter (VB). Schickedanz suggested that Ropp should meet his boss, Alfred Rosenberg, who was the editor of VB. They got along well: 'In Bill de Ropp he found someone who was prepared to listen. He may never have realised that Bill only took an interest because he was being paid by MI6 to obtain intelligence'. Also, for long, Rosenberg had believed that Great Britain was a natural ally of Nazi Germany. Bill de Ropp allowed him to believe in that and 'kept it alive in Rosenberg's consciousness for many years to come'. The author describes how Ropp met Hitler in VB's office at Schellingstrasse, Munich in 1931: 'He [Hitler] was dressed in an old trench-coat and an ill-fitting 'reach me down suit'. Hitler did not waste time with any formalities but plunged into his first question: 'What do the English think about my movement?'' Ropp worked on that to continue conversations with Hitler and Rosenberg. Hitler told him in his second meeting: 'If you could keep me informed of what, in your opinion, the English really think, you will not only render me a service, but it would be to the advantage of your country.' Both Hitler and Rosenberg thought that Ropp was spying on England for them. Ropp felt that Hitler was not very insightful. In his last meeting, he told Ropp, quoting Ribbentrop, that 'the British won't fight' as they would not get 'the backing of Australia, Canada or South Africa and their youth is too decadent and pacifist'. The author did not know how often Hitler and Bill de Ropp met over the next eight years 'although there is evidence of at least a dozen meetings'. Ropp and Jimmy finally left Berlin on August 29, 1939, just three days before the Nazi tanks entered Poland. From Rosenberg's diaries, the author felt that his correspondence with Ropp came to an end on 3 March 1940. At the end of the War, MI-6 terminated Ropp's services and paid a paltry final gratuity of £500. The 'Master Spy' passed away at the age of 87 on October 3, 1973 at Kingswood Hall, a care home at Kington near Peterchurch. 'There was no funeral and there were no letters from the MI6 officers who had known him so well. There are strict rules preventing contact between retired officers and their agents'. In the final chapter, the author assesses the importance of Ropp. 'Without him 'What Should We Do?' could not have been written and MI6 might have remained a source of low-level tactical information rather than the global geopolitical service that it is today'.
Business Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Europe can't rearm its way to security
[LONDON] As Russia's war on Ukraine rages on Europe's eastern frontier, the continent's leaders are finally willing to admit they have the power to revive their ailing economies. After decades of austerity, they are ready to spend again – but not to end poverty, accelerate decarbonisation, or reverse the collapse of essential public services. Instead, Europe's fiscal firepower is being directed towards tanks, missiles and fighter jets. Reorganising the economy around state-supported defence spending is known as military Keynesianism, though John Maynard Keynes – who rose to prominence by condemning the punitive post-World War I peace treaty that was imposed on Weimar Germany, which ultimately helped set the stage for Hitler's rise and another war – would probably not have endorsed the term. The reasoning behind the resurgence of military Keynesianism is not entirely without merit, as the pursuit of austerity policies has left many European economies punching below their weight. European productivity, which has grown at half the pace of the United States over the past decade, declined by 1 per cent in 2023. Real wages fell by 4.3 per cent in 2022 and 0.7 per cent in 2023, following a decade of stagnation. Meanwhile, investment is nowhere near where it needs to be to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate breakdown. Europe's self-defeating commitment to austerity is epitomised by the German doctrine of 'schwarze Null' ('black zero'). Even when Germany's economic miracle was in full swing, politicians refused to invest in long-term growth. As a result, Germany – like most of the continent – has suffered from chronic underinvestment in physical and social infrastructure, constraining productivity. Against this backdrop, rearmament may look like an easy fix. Unlike social expenditure, defence spending faces little political resistance. It enables politicians to appear tough – a valuable asset in an age of strongman politics – and keeps the arms industry, a powerful lobby with deep ties to political elites, flush with public money. But military Keynesianism is a dead end – both economically and politically. For starters, it's a weak engine of long-term growth. Modern weapons production relies on advanced manufacturing processes that use relatively little labour, so the industry has low multipliers compared to investments in health, education or green energy. It creates fewer jobs per euro spent and contributes little to the broader economy's productive capacity. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Military Keynesianism also deepens Europe's dependence on fossil fuels, given that modern militaries are among the planet's largest institutional fossil-fuel consumers. Expanding defence capabilities means locking in demand for carbon-intensive technologies at a time when Europe should be phasing them out. Worse still, prioritising defence over decarbonisation sustains the very system of petropolitics that gives regimes such as Russian President Vladimir Putin's the resources to wage war in the first place. As the Guardian reported earlier this year, the European Union has spent more on Russian fossil-fuel imports over the past three years than it has on financial aid to Ukraine. If the EU is serious about defeating Russia – not just on the battlefield, but geopolitically – then the bloc must confront the real source of the Kremlin's power: oil and gas exports. Russia, after all, is a petrostate, and its war machine is financed by the revenues that flow from Europe's addiction to fossil fuels. Oil and gas revenues have accounted for 30 to 50 per cent of Russia's federal budget over the past decade and still represent roughly 60 per cent of its export revenues. These industries provide the vital dollars that enable Russia to import military technologies and other critical inputs. Without that income, the Russian economy would quickly collapse under the weight of hyperinflation. The most effective long-term strategy for countering Russian aggression, then, is not to ramp up military spending but to accelerate the green transition. What Europe needs is a real Green New Deal: a democratic, continent-wide mobilisation to decarbonise the economy, ensure energy security, and create millions of well-paying green jobs. To be sure, this would require massive investment in renewable energy, public transit, retrofitting, and industrial electrification. It would also mean reshaping supply chains, restoring public ownership of key infrastructure, and breaking the stranglehold of fossil-fuel capital on European politics. But a Green New Deal would do more to strengthen the EU's geopolitical standing than any number of new tanks and artillery shells. A Europe that produces its own clean energy, builds resilient green industries, and reduces its dependence on volatile global commodity markets is a Europe that cannot be held hostage by petro-tyrants. Europe's political elite faces a stark choice: continue propping up a broken growth model by funnelling public money into the military-industrial complex, or invest in a livable future rooted in solidarity, sustainability and democratic control. In the long run, building an inclusive green economy is the only way to counter the rage and alienation fuelling the rise of far-right forces – the greatest and most immediate threat to Europe's democracies. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer, a former research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the author of several books, including Vulture Capitalism: How to Survive in an Age of Corporate Greed (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024) and The Corona Crash: How the Pandemic Will Change Capitalism (Verso, 2020)
Black America Web
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Black America Web
Ryan Coogler's ‘Sinners' Will Returns to IMAX
Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE Source: Warner Bros. Pictures / Warner Bros. Pictures Ryan Coogler's 'Sinners' Will Returns to IMAX After a strong theatrical run, Ryan Coogler's latest film Sinners is making a grand return to select IMAX theaters for a limited 70mm re-release, starting May 15 through May 21. Originally released over Easter weekend on April 18, Sinners has already pulled in $48 million and continues to perform steadily at the box office. Now, Warner Bros. is giving fans another chance to experience the film the way it was meant to be seen — in full-scale 70mm IMAX. The re-release will run in nine IMAX locations across North America, including theaters in Los Angeles, Irvine, New York City, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, Dallas, and Toronto. 'We heard the audience loud and clear,' said Jeff Goldstein, President of Global Distribution at Warner Bros. Pictures. 'This is the kind of film that truly deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Ryan crafted Sinners with IMAX in mind, and we're thrilled to offer moviegoers the opportunity to immerse themselves in it again — or for the first time — in 70mm.' Set in post-World War I Mississippi, Sinners follows twin brothers — both played by Michael B. Jordan — who return home only to find themselves face to face with a deeper, more sinister threat. The film also stars Hailee Steinfeld, Delroy Lindo, Wunmi Mosaku, Jayme Lawson, Omar Miller, Jack O'Connell, and Miles Caton. Written and directed by Academy Award nominee Ryan Coogler, the film has drawn critical acclaim and industry praise, with Spike Lee calling it a genre-defying masterpiece. 'Ryan created something completely new. I don't even know what to call it — it's not just horror. But it's something we really need right now,' Lee said in a recent podcast appearance. In a letter to fans, Coogler reflected on the purpose behind the film. 'This was always meant to be a story for audiences, inspired by my family and ancestors,' he wrote. 'We made this with the theater in mind, knowing the emotional and communal power of the cinematic experience.' He continued, 'Your response to this film means everything. It's a reminder of why we do what we do. Maybe together, we can even reshape what a blockbuster looks like — and who it's made for.' RELATED: sinners Ryan Coogler's 'Sinners' Will Returns to IMAX was originally published on
Bloomberg
24-02-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Summers Calls US Demands in Ukraine Talks ‘Beyond Versailles'
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers denounced the pressure being applied by the Trump administration on Ukraine to turn over a share of its natural resources to the US, drawing a sharp distinction with American traditions in past major conflicts. 'What the Trump administration seems to be proposing — and to be fair, we have not seen all the details — is a Versailles-like agreement imposed, not on aggressors, but imposed on the victims of aggression,' Summers said on Bloomberg Television's Wall Street Week with David Westin. He was referring to the post-World War I Treaty of Versailles, which imposed strict financial and other penalties on Germany and is widely viewed as ensuring the inevitability of another major war.
Express Tribune
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Acrimony over the right to Indus water
Listen to article Punjab's allocation of an estimated budget of Rs211 billion for the construction of canals to channel water from the River Indus to the Cholistan region in South Punjab has sparked controversy. This project has raised alarm in Sindh, where residents fear catastrophic consequences for the province's 60 million inhabitants, who are already grappling with water shortages. Beyond irrigation concerns, the construction could harm local flora and fauna and exacerbate soil salinity. The plan has also triggered apprehension in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Before discussing the rights of provinces over historic water usage, it is pertinent to note that the River Indus originates from the mountain springs northeast of Mount Kailash in Western Tibet. Flowing northwest through Gilgit-Baltistan, the river passes through Hazara Division and District Swabi in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. The Kabul River joins it at Khairabad, Nowshera (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa), after which it flows southward into Punjab. The Panjnad River (formed by the Chenab, Beas, Jhelum, Ravi and Sutlej rivers) merges with the Indus at Mithankot. The conflict over the Indus River's waters dates back to the post-World War I era, involving disputes between Punjab, Sindh, Bahawalpur and Bikaner states. The British government initially acted as arbitrators to manage these disputes. However, tensions resurfaced after the partition, not only between India and Pakistan but also among Pakistan's federating units. Although the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, brokered by the World Bank, resolved disputes between India and Pakistan, it sparked new controversies within Pakistan. Under the treaty, Pakistan forfeited its rights to the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi rivers, upsetting the balance between water demand and supply. This loss created persistent tensions among Pakistan's provinces, straining the federal structure. The Constitution of Pakistan temporarily addressed provincial disputes over water through the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991. Signed by all four provinces, the Accord established allocations and a distribution mechanism for Indus Basin water. Its key features include: a) Protection of existing canal water usage in each province; and b) Apportionment of surplus river supplies (including floodwaters and future storages) among provinces. The Accord allowed for minimum water flows into the sea and stipulated that surplus or shortages would be shared among provinces. The agreed distribution was: Punjab 69.03 km³ (55.94 MAF); Sindh 60.17 km³ (48.76 MAF); Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa 7.13 km³ (5.78 MAF), plus 3.00 MAF from ungauged canals above rim stations; and Balochistan 4.78 km³ (3.87 MAF). The remaining river supplies (including floodwaters and future storage) were to be distributed as follows: Punjab and Sindh (37% each), Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (14%) and Balochistan (12%). Total allocations under the Accord amounts to 141.11 km³ (114.35 MAF), plus an additional 3.00 MAF above rim stations. Despite the allocations, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa remains unable to fully utilise its share. The province is allocated 8.78 MAF annually but uses only 5.97 MAF, leaving an unused resource of 2.81 MAF due to insufficient infrastructure. This issue was highlighted in the National Water Policy of 2018. The federal government had committed to approving the CRBC Lift-cum-Gravity Project for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, but the project never materialised. Furthermore, the federal government has failed to provide funds for its share of this Public Sector Development Program (PSDP)-financed project, perpetuating inequitable treatment of provinces. Consequently, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa loses approximately 34% of its due share annually, as per the 1991 Water Accord. To ensure fair distribution and resolve disputes, the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) was established as a regulatory body. If grievances remain unresolved, disputes can be escalated to the Council of Common Interests (CCI). The Constitution of Pakistan, under Article 155, addresses complaints regarding interference with water supplies. It provides a mechanism for resolving disputes concerning hydro or thermal power station construction. Article 155 states: "If the interests of a Province, the Federal Capital, or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or any of their inhabitants, in water from any natural source of supply or reservoir have been or are likely to be affected prejudicially by: a) any executive act or legislation taken, passed, or proposed; or b) the failure of any authority to exercise its powers with respect to water use, distribution, or control from that source, the Federal or Provincial Government concerned may file a written complaint with the Council." Upon receiving such a complaint, the Council may render a decision or request the President to appoint a commission of experts in irrigation, engineering, administration, finance or law. This commission will present its findings, after which the CCI must record its decision on the matter. Both federal and provincial governments are then constitutionally obligated to implement the Council's decision faithfully. The constitutional framework and the 1991 Accord emphasise that contentious issues like water disputes must be resolved through mutual deliberation. Federalism provides mechanisms for the equitable collection and distribution of natural resources. Any deviation from these principles could encourage centrifugal tendencies, undermining national unity. In this context, no province should unilaterally decide on the use of the River Indus's waters. Adhering to the Constitution and respecting federal arrangements is crucial to maintaining harmony among Pakistan's federating units. Let us uphold the principles of federalism that bind our federation together.
