ORIGINAL FRENCH ARTICLE: http://www.humanite.fr/etienne-bali...
by Hervé Fuyet
Translated Tuesday 28 October 2014, by
A comment on Étienne Balibar’s article"In Favour of the Kobane Resistance Fighters"
Naturally, I support the Kurdish struggle in Kobane just as the philosopher Etienne Balibar does, and also, indeed, as far as I am concerned, that of the progressives in Donbass in Ukraine. However, the comparison Balibar makes between the Turkish Army watching passively the Kurds being killed in Kobane with events in Warsaw in August 1944, is, to my mind, distasteful, totally inaccurate and out of place. In fact, as the Quebec newspaper ‘Le Devoir’ correctly stated on 22nd October, “The Warsaw uprising, frequently confused with that of the Jewish Ghetto in 1943, began on 1st August 1944. About 50,000 insurgents, principally young Scouts, civilian soldiers of the Resistance answering to the Polish government in exile in London, took up arms against the Nazi occupation. Over 63 days of fighting, almost 200,000 civilians were killed and the town was transformed into a heap of rubble. Adolf Hitler then gave orders that practically all that remained be razed. Directed militarily against the Germans, the uprising equally had as its aim political self-protection against Stalinist Russia: the insurgents hoped to welcome the Red Army into Warsaw as masters of their own house.” According to currently available records, the Red Army regrouped its forces as rapidly as possible, before engaging in battle. It requested that the “army inside” should wait so that the Red Army could regroup its forces in front of Warsaw before engaging in battle. It is true that historians are still divided in their analysis of the battle of Warsaw. Balibar would have done better not to embroil himself in such a dubious and inevitably nauseating attempt at comparison.
Note added by Henry Crapo:
Mr. Balibar also makes disparaging comments about sections of the Kurdish resistance, saying that the unity the PKK and PYD have achieved in their battle against the mercenary forces attacking Syria is a "break" with their "traditions". Apparently Balibar sees hope only in those movements the US and their allies are now willing to admit they supply with arms, and for which they provide the adjectives "democratic", "moderate", and the like. This is the stream of thought flowing from Washington, their strategy to dismantle Syria while pretending to attack the very forces the US have trained, armed, and sent.