For Europe: a continental liberation program

Fostering change in Europe means deploying a continental liberation agenda. There is no change possible without such a great purpose. The liberation of our continent implies as a first step the constitution of confederative zones like Scandinavia (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland), the Balkans (Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania), Mitteleuropa (Benelux, GDR, RFA, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria). Italy, Spain (with Portugal) and France constitute sufficiently large spaces in view of this first stage. The idea of ​​a Scandinavian confederation has been the central axis of Swedish politics since 1944. The discovery of archives dating back to this year has just shown that Sweden was planning to mobilize 550,000 soldiers to liberate Denmark and Norway and to avoid at the same time, that Americans, British and Soviets do not seize Scandinavian territories. In this perspective, Scandinavia was to remain with the Scandinavians.

Since the economist NAUMANN, who wrote a project of “Mitteleuropa” in 1916, the idea of ​​a Swiss-type confederation applying to the Benelux countries, Germany and the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy had vanished. in the wake of the Treaty of Versailles, economic crises (1929) and the Hitlerian parenthesis. The Benelux states had preferred to withdraw from the central European bee-eater and opted for rapprochement with the Scandinavian monarchies. Albert I supported the Oslo Pact (1931) and the future Leopold III married a Swedish princess, Astrid, to seal this project. Today, in Germany, the idea of ​​a central-European confederation returns to the debates. These are the General e.r. Jochen LöSER and Ulrike SCHILLING, who drafted a first manifesto, aimed in fact at extending Austria’s neutral status to Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Benelux States. This zone would ensure its defense by itself according to the Swiss model and the military theories elaborated by the French General BROSSOLET, by the former Austrian Chief of Staff Emil SPANOCCHI, by LöSER himself and by the polemologist Horst AFHELDT. The army would be lifted on the spot, the communes would be responsible for logistics and equipment stored at police stations or gendarmerie. Anti-tank missiles, type MILAN, would constitute the armament of the infantry, as well as anti-aircraft missiles, types SAM 7 or Stinger. These troops, in symbiosis with the population, would also have light tanks, types Scorpion or Wiesel (airport). The reorganization of the Central European armies would thus aim to transform the geopolitical heart of our continent into an impregnable fortress, to impulse the strategy of the “hedgehog” against which any opponent would bump. This strictly defensive logic runs up against Washington’s refusal and American ill-will because the obsession of the White House is to see the reconstitution of a semi-autarchic Europe, capable of doing without American, agricultural or industrial imports.

In the Balkans, rapprochement projects were sabotaged by Moscow in 1948, during the “titist” schism. TITO accepts the Marshall Plan and advocates national routes to socialism. It aims at grouping the Balkan States into an autonomous confederation modeled on Yugoslav federalism. The USSR feared above all the British intervention in this zone: this explains its hostility to Titism. Today, after the constant Romanian impulse of independence, Moscow seems ready to soften its position. Washington, on the other hand, sees with a very bad eye PAPANDREOU’s benevolence towards the project of Balkan confederation. Hence the anti-Greek propaganda orchestrated in the Western media.

France has known the “third way” Gaullist, has emphasized its sovereignty. This Gaullist option is out of favor today. To make it a reality, France should adopt the project of “parliament of the regions and professions” of some Gaullist circles, a mode of management that would bring the governed closer to the rulers in a more direct way than the current partitocracy (“The Band of the Five”, PEN included). This rapprochement would also make it possible to adopt the military system by “meshing the national territory”, recommended by BROSSOLET or COPEL. This system would transform the French territory into a fortress similar to the Swiss “Burg”. In addition, the young French conscripts would perform their military service near their homes and the entire territory would also be defended, avoiding the concentration of troops in Alsace and Lorraine. Because for France as for Europe, the danger no longer comes from the East but from the West. By taking note of this evidence, France inherits a new mission: that of being the guardian of the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. His navy has a vital European role to play. Its nuclear submarines will be the spearheads of European civilization, the swords of the new “jus publicum europaeum” against cultural, economic and military threats from Disneyland, Silicon Valley, Corn Belt and Pentagon. At the same time, France must resume its hovercraft and surface effect ship projects (“NES” and “Jet-foils”). These projects have been shamefully abandoned, while the Americans and the Soviets rely heavily on these weapons of the twenty-first century. France would thus deploy its submarines and its fleet and make the approach of its coasts impossible thanks to a “marine cavalry” of NES and hovercraft. The symbolic figure of the French fighter of tomorrow must absolutely become the soldier of the “Royal”, the submariner, the youngest of the sea, the marine-rider, the “missilist” of the NES. The military theorist of this revaluation of the role of the French navy is Admiral Antoine SANGUINETTI.

These are the premises of our “new HARMEL doctrine”. A doctrine which, like that elaborated by the Liège conservative in the 1960s, is based on a concept of Total Europe and seeks to detach Europeans (from both East and West) from their American and Soviet tutors. . This doctrine advocates inter-European dialogue and rejects the logic of the cold war. At the same time, it implies a diplomacy of the hand open to people who want, everywhere on the planet, to preserve their autonomy and their specificities. In conclusion: the harmonious collaboration between Europe and the “Third World” goes through the collapse of the status quo in Europe. By the death of Yalta.

What attitudes to take in Europe?

Faced with this courageous independence of Malagasy, Seychellois and Maldivians, what attitude should Europe take? The possible positive choices are diverse.
1. There is the so-called “Leftist Gaullist” option which remains exemplary even if, in France, Gaullist independence is indeed dead. The political writer who best expresses this option is Paul-Marie de la GORCE. He refers to the speech made by DE GAULLE in Pnom-Penh in 1966 and believes that France must position itself against the Empires, alongside the oppressed peoples. P.M. de la GORCE joins here the option of HAUSHOFER and the League of Oppressed Peoples. For Edmond JOUVE, advocate of the Euro-Arab dialogue, we must oppose a philosophy of the right of peoples to the individualist and Western philosophy of human rights. These two authors, located in the movement of “leftist Gaullism”, should serve as a reference in the development of our geostrategy.

2. There is the Swedish option, carried by Olof PALME, recently assassinated. Sweden has advocated non-alignment, established itself as an independent military industry, and championed the creation of “Peace Zones” in Europe. Unfortunately, this Swedish option, unlike the Gaullist option, has advanced its pawns under the disguise of the ideology Ireneist sixty-eight, decried and demonetized today. This policy pursued by PALME must now be analyzed beyond the manifestations of this outdated ideology and ultimately very silly. Behind the face of a PALME sporting the little hand of the One-Worldists of SOS-Racism (“Do not touch my friend”), you have to recognize and analyze your independence policy. PALME was looking for outlets for its industries in the Third World, so as to ensure their viability because other European countries refused to cooperate with the Swedes. We saw it at home with the “market of the century” where three planes were in the running to be in the Dutch, Belgian, Danish and Norwegian teams. A Swedish SAAB, a French Mirage and the American F-16. It is of course the latter who was chosen. If the Scandinavian and Benelux States had chosen the Swedish apparatus, it would have created in Europe an autonomous industry of military aeronautics. Today, SAAB can no longer compete with American firms that, thanks to this contract, have been able to finance an additional step in military electronics. To save the furniture, Sweden had to practice a very heavy taxation which gives the opportunity to the disgusting followers of selfish and anti-political liberalism to systematically denigrate Stockholm. When PALME and the Swedes spoke of “Peace Zones”, they wanted areas clear of Soviet and American influence where industries within these areas would collaborate with each other. For Swedes, Scandinavia or the Balkans could constitute such areas. Given the Swedish military policy, these areas should logically have given themselves a dissuasive military power and not vegetate in pacifist unrealism.