Gaddafi Has ‘Suicide Plan’ For Capital: Russia Envoy

[Purveyor]

Source: Agence France-Presse

MOSCOW — Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi has a "suicidal plan" to blow up the capital Tripoli if it is taken by rebels, the Kremlin's special envoy to Libya told a Russian newspaper Thursday.

"The Libyan premier told me: if the rebels seize the city, we will cover it with missiles and blow it up," Kremlin envoy Mikhail Margelov said in an interview with the Izvestia daily.

Margelov met Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmudi last month.

"I imagine that the Kadhafi regime does have such a suicidal plan," he added, saying that Kadhafi still had plentiful supplies of missiles and ammunition.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/14/gaddafi-has-suicide-plan-for-capital-russia-envoy/

[Lint Head]

1. Mad men to mad things.

[Javaman]

2. Is Paris burning?

is what Hitler said to his general upon the evacuation of Paris.

Paris was slated to be blasted to smithereens by the Nazi's if the allies captured it. But the commanding general thought better. I chose not to go down in history as the person who blew up one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

And here we have gaddafi.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. More like Hitler's determination that Berlin would fight to the death

because it's his own capital.

[psychopomp]

4. That is a more relevant metaphor

There is no way it will turn out like Berlin, though. Not without an overwhelming foreign troop presence on the ground.

[Javaman]

6. Upon reflection, I think a better analogy would be...

a 3 year old not sharing his blocks and instead of taking them home, he throws them in the fire.

[Xithras]

8. FWIW, that story is largely BS.

The German general in charge of Paris was a guy named Dietrich von Choltitz. This same guy had burned Rotterdam to the ground, had overseen the executions and deportations of thousands of Parisians, and had destroyed many beautiful and historical landmarks around Paris. He escaped execution, but spent years in prison for his actions. When he was released, he discovered that he was as vilified as other Nazi leaders and wasn't happy with it. To try an improve his reputation, he wrote a book about the Liberation of Paris that conveniently painted him as a hero. He described a peaceful handover, orchestrated by him, in which he acted nobly in saving the Parisians from warfare. It was a great story, and his memoir was adapted into a book many years later, was eventually made into a movie, and is now widely assumed to be true.

The reality is that the guy simply didn't have enough soldiers to defend Paris. As the Allies approached the city, it erupted into violent street fighting in which whole swaths of the city and its suburbs were liberated by French rebels. This fighting killed and wounded thousands of Parisians, and just as many Germans. He didn't have enough soldiers to retake those parts of the city, and most of the artillery and mechanized units had been relocated out of Paris for use elsewhere in France. According to captured communication logs, Choltitz desperately and repeatedly requested reinforcements, but was ignored...there were none to send.

As the American and French forces approached portions of the city that had already fallen to the French Rebels, the Germans realized that they had no hope of defending it. During the night before the French rolled in, the overwhelming majority of the German soldiers simply abandoned their posts and fled, or had laid down their arms of their own accord and waited for capture. By the best modern estimates, Choltitz had less than 3,000 combat capable soldiers still following his orders as the Allies entered the city. He simply didn't have enough men or weapons left to actually follow Hitlers orders, and knew that any attempt to inflict the limited damage they were capable of would just get he and his remaining men killed.

He surrendered to save his own life, not because of some lofty ideals about saving Paris.

[closeupready]

10. So why was he honoured posthumously by French authorities in 1994?

??

[Xithras]

12. Because everyone loves a good story.

It's like the story of the Battle of the Alamo. The traditional story is so well known that it's printed in many history books, still celebrated today, and has been the subject of books and movies. But when you actually peel back the layers and look at the reality of the battle, you'll find that the mythologized story glosses over many details, leaves others out completely, and basically romanticizes the entire story.

Same with the Liberation of Paris. Many in France still consider the guy a hero, but that ignores the facts. He was a genocidal Nazi who had previously participated in the destruction of two cities (Sevatapol and Rotterdam), personally sent tens of thousands of Jews off to the concentration camps, had ordered the deaths of thousands of Parisians during his tenure, and who had desperately requested additional soldiers so that he could "defend" Paris by turning into a battlefield.

None of these facts can really be disputed, but we choose to ignore them nowadays. For some reason, we prefer the story of the noble Nazi who handed Paris over peacefully and saved the most beautiful city in Europe from destruction. It pushes all the right "aww shucks" buttons, and has just enough historical truth in it to get us to buy it. We choose to ignore the fact that it's not what really happened.

[closeupready]

13. Good points.

nt

[JackRiddler]

18. 1994 should give you a clue.

Here's another - a photo from 1984:



Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterand (former petty official in Vichy France, I believe?)

The "Good Wehrmacht" as opposed to the evil SS and Nazi leadership, and the "heroes of July 20th 1944" serve as founding myths for the Bundesrepublik. France and Germany are core allies and EU overlords now, and happy to share in a common mythological mix. For example, in exaggerating La Resistance (and cutting out that most of the impetus and leadership came from Polish exiles).

[WranglerRog]

17. At the risk of being pilloried let me say a few things here.....

Dietrich von Choltitz was only a lieutenant-colonel in a German airborne unit at the time of the Rotterdam bombing (May 1940). He wasn't promoted to command the regiment until September 1940. As best I can tell he had no hand in calling in the bombing raid that destroyed inner Rotterdam. Whether the raid was a mistake or a calculated act of destruction on the part of the Germans is beyond my determination.

If a besieged city (Sevastopol) doesn't surrender it has always run the risk of being destroyed. Had a vigorous defense of Paris, by the Germans, been initiated does anyone think the Allied Armies would NOT have destroyed it?

Von Choltitz did not take command of Paris until August 9th, 1944. He was posted to Italy and Normandy after leaving the Eastern Front. He actually started negotiations with the French Resistance soon after arriving. Paris was liberated on August 25th. He did disobey Hitler's order to destroy Paris or defend it until the Allies destroyed it.

After his capture, von Choltitz admitted to other German officers that he had deported Jews, amongst others, to the death camps on the Eastern Front. These conversation were being recorded and he was convicted of war crimes. He served 3 years in prison before being released. At his death, his funeral was attended by many senior French officers.

He was absolutely wrong not to refuse the unlawful deportation order (others did) but it's very hard to stand up for the right thing when all around you society has gone berserk. As the French would say "it's dangerous to be right when the king is wrong."

Does anyone remember the name of the helicopter pilot who stopped the My Lai massacre?????? We all remember Colin Powell. it's not good to make waves......

ps. Helicopter pilot was High Thompson and he was ostracized by the US military for doing the right thing.......

[MADem]

24. +1 nt

[Javaman]

19. Well then, gaddifi is his own version of a

prick.

thanks for the info! :)
Cheers

[MADem]

23. Great film! nt

[pampango]

5. Aljazeera: Gaddafi's 'suicidal plan' for Tripoli

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/africa/2011/07/14/gaddafis-suicidal-plan-tripoli

Mikhail Margelov, the president's special envoy to Africa, said in an interview with the Russian Izvestia newspaper that the regime of Muammar Gaddafi has "a suicidal plan” in place if rebels move to seize Tripoli. “The Libyan premier told me, 'If the rebels take over the city, we will cover it with missiles and blow it up,'" he said. "I imagine that the Gaddafi regime does have such a suicidal plan."

Margelov met Baghdadi al-Mahmudi, the Libyan prime minister, in the capital last month but hasn't yet met Gaddafi.

He also questioned some Western reports that Gaddafi is running out of weapons.

“Gaddafi still hasn't used a single surface-to-surface missile,” he claimed. However, Margelov did confirm that the regime is running out of fuel. Petrol queues several kilometres long have formed on the road from the Tunisian border.

Not sure why the Russians would invent such a "suicidal plan" since Russia has been the largest critic of NATO's bombing. If true, Gaddafi won't be the first dictator to think that his countrymen shouldn't want to live without him.

In the past a ruler could accurately predict that if his capital city were invaded many civilians would die in the crossfire. Not sure why the Libyan prime minister didn't just leave it at that, but went to describe a "suicide pact" that would insure that civilian casualties are maximized.

[WatsonT]

7. Well one thing is for certain: if this happens

the US will be blamed for it.

[cliffordu]

9. "Seal Team Six, your table's ready, Seal Team Six, your table's ready..."

[Capitalocracy]

11. Does he have the means to do this? nt

[daleo]

14. Standard war propaganda from both sides

Churchill said pretty well the same thing about London:

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender.

The Russians sacrificed Stalingrad during WWII.

Atlanta was burnt during the U.S. civil war:

On the night of September 1, Hood evacuated Atlanta, burning military supplies and installations, causing a great conflagration in the city (the dramatic fire scenes depicted in the 1939 film Gone with the Wind). Union troops occupied Atlanta on September 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Campaign

Many other examples could be cited.

[pampango]

16. Churchill didn't propose burning London, just to fight Germans in it.

Stalin didn't propose burning Stalingrad, just fighting Germans in it.

The Confederate government didn't propose burning Atlanta. General Hood did burn military installations and supplies. It did get out of hand and cause extensive damage, but there's no evidence that Hood or any other Confederate leader had a plan to intentionally burn Atlanta if the North conquered it.

Of course, the Russian envoy could be totally clueless or making stuff up (for some unknown reason). If he's right and Gaddafi really has a plan that "if the rebels seize the city, we will cover it with missiles and blow it up" that goes way beyond

we shall fight (the rebels) on the beaches (of Misrata),
we shall fight (them) on the landing grounds (of Benghazi),
we shall fight (them) in the fields and in the streets (of Tripoli),
we shall fight (them) in the hills (western mountains);
we shall never surrender.

The French did not blow up Paris when they lost it. The Poles didn't blow up Warsaw. The English never proposed blowing up London if they lost it. If you love something, you may fight for it (and it may suffer as a result - like Warsaw, London and Stalingrad), but you don't threaten to blow it up yourself.

[EFerrari]

20. This is just the latest in a long line of bs stories about Gaddafi. n/t

[daleo]

21. Some people will believe any tale about Ghaddaffi

Or whoever the enemy de jour happens to be. At any rate, they claim they believe it.

[pampango]

25. The only unusual part was that it came from a Russian envoy rather than from the British, French or

Americans. While Russia abstained in the UN vote on Libya it has been among the biggest critics of how the NATO campaign has unfolded.

While it would be highly suspicious if a British, French or American official "revealed" a "newly discovered" suicide plot, it is strange that a Russian representative would invent a story that provides support to NATO's anti-Gaddafi bombing campaign. That doesn't mean that the story is necessarily true (or necessarily false) - probably only a handful of people in the world know that, but one has to wonder what the Russian motivation would be to invent such a story.

[EFerrari]

27. The Russians have denied the story and so has Gaddafi.

I saw the new report on Al Jazeera last night.

It has been a real challenge to try to sort out the avalanche of propaganda on both sides, imo.

[daleo]

22. The Russians used a scorched Earth policy against Napoleon

And against the Nazis. It's a common enough tactic, considered heroic by supporters and despicable by opponents.

Remember the phrase "better dead than red". It was official NATO policy to destroy the Earth rather than give in to Soviet expansion, known as mutually assured destruction in its more sophisticated elaboration.

Plus, I simply don't believe every half baked story I hear about Ghaddaffi. It amazes me how people fall for pro-war whoppers, time after time.

[pampango]

26. Agree that every half-baked story about Gaddafi or the rebels shouldn't be believed.

If this story were coming from a NATO source, I would give it a 99.9% chance of being false. Since it comes from a Russian envoy whose country has been among the most critical of NATO's actions in Libya, I'll at least give it a 50% chance of being true, but who really knows.

You are right about the Russian "scorched earth" policy during WWII. I'm not so sure that "mutually assured destruction" falls in the same category though, since the threat was that "we will blow us your cities if you blow up ours" rather than "we will blow up our own cities rather than let you take them over". And of course that wasn't just American policy but Soviet policy as well. I don't think they threatened to blow up their own cities if we started a war, but they threatened to blow up our cities.

[daleo]

28. The NATO position was basically

"We will use tactical nukes if you break through our lines in Germany with conventional forces".

That would most likely have led to all out nuclear war, including 100s or 1000s of city busters, and possibly nuclear winter for the planet. It amounted to threatening to blow up everyone. The Soviets were never as explicit about that threat, but the implication was clear that they would probably do the same. Nobody had (or has) clean hands when it comes to war or threatened war.

Whether anyone was really mad enough to carry out this strategy, nobody knows. But it was the policy.

[No Elephants]

15. Everybody into the bunker, one last time.