The Gleiwitz incident (Polish: Prowokacja gliwicka; German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz) was a provocation staged by the SS in Gleiwitz, Silesia (Gliwice in Polish) on August 31, 1939. A group of German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms attacked a German radio transmitter to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, as part of a series of propaganda pretexts for the Nazi invasion the next day.

Was the “Syrian” attack on Turkey last October a Middle Eastern reprise of Gleiwitz? Interestingly enough, to read an investigation of what happened, one must consult hard-left sources, since the MSM won’t touch any serious investigation of disinformation and provocation instigated by NATO, and many right-wingers seem to share the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for bringing down the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

JLH has translated a left-wing Austrian article that discusses the issue. Given the source, one must preserve a measure of skepticism about the report. However, any information concerning the “civil war” in Syria must be treated with equal skepticism, since everyone involved is feeding questionable information to sympathetic media outlets.

I’ve had my suspicions about the incident on the Turkish-Syrian border since the day it occurred. After all, how stupid could Bashar be, to openly lob mortar shells into Turkey? It would be as stupid as… well, as stupid as the Poles attacking a German radio tower in Silesia in 1939.

JLH includes this introduction:

I do not know much about the source for this article — neopresse — which appeared on Quotenqueen. But, as you see, I went to the original magazine edition and found the little article which is cited in the article below. I have included approximately the first half of the article, leaving out the clearly communist cant that makes up the ending.

Another step back took me from quotenqueen to the neopresse, which likes to select “the most interesting new articles from free and independent news sources,” and from there to the source of this editorial article — a site called Solidar-Werkstatt (“Solidarity Workplace”), a pretty clearly leftist, antifa-type of blog. Interestingly, while striving mightily to discredit what they might call the “fascist and imperialistic” NATO, they produce reasonable evidence that Islam, in the person of Erdogan, is playing the same game as in the Hitler example. Take it with whatever measure of salt makes it palatable — here is an example of the Left blithely indicting its frequent partner in anti-right street demonstrations in Germany and Austria.

Clearly, they are Moscow-influenced, since there has been a Russian connection to Syria since the reign of Assad’s father. So the hammer-and-sickle decides in this case which side of the crescent to be on.

But we may learn from this that the other side can supply some facts and information our own “side” may not want us to know. In a game of “Whom do you trust?” the best answer is, “No one.” We can also recognize in the technique of claiming without any evidence that “the majority of the population thinks” a particular way, that the uncritical leftists in Europe are not so different from some political commentators in this country, who like to tell us what “the American people” think.

It also makes what seems to be a legitimate point: that Patriot missiles are of no use in repelling mortar shells. So we can withdraw defensive missiles from our Eastern European allies, but put some into a very questionable, highly Islamized Turkey.

And it raises the question in my — admittedly paranoid — mind: What do we really know about the comparatively small “chemical” attack on insurgents and where it came from and why? And how easy will it be to attribute it to Assad? What is the desired end result?

And for that matter, does anyone really know all the players without a program: the Kurds, the slated-for-extinction Alawites, Al Qaeda, the Ikhwan, etc., etc.? Does anyone in a position of power or influence know or care who — if any — our likely allies are? Just listen to the naked ignorance emanating from all agencies and offices.

Translated from neopresse:

Now it is Official: The Mortar Attack on Turkey was Orchestrated

Shades of Gliwice!

(At the end of August, 1939, SS men in the uniform of Polish soldiers took over broadcast station Gliwice [German=Gleiwitz] on the border with Poland, to give Hitler a pretext for the attack on Poland.)

A brief report in the newspaper, The Soldier,* which is considered the mouthpiece of the Austrian defense minister, has blown things up. The NATO countries and/or the forces allied with them in the Syrian civil war apparently orchestrated the murderous fireball in October, 2012 which served as a reason for the stationing of German, US and Dutch Patriot missile batteries on Turkey’s border with Syria.

• The Turkish government immediately accuses the Syrian government of having fired the mortar round. “Turkey will not leave unpunished such provocations which threaten our national security.” declares President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday in Ankara. ^[1] Immediately afterwards, Turkish artillery shells Syrian artillery emplacements, killing — according to Al-Jazeera — 34 people.
• One day later, the Turkish parliament knee-jerks a war authority for the regime. From that moment, Turkish soldiers can carry out military operations over the border in Syria “the extent, number and times of which will be determined by the administration.”
• As early as October 3, 2012, at Turkey’s request, the NATO council met in Brussels on the basis of Article 4 of the NATO treaty: “The parties shall consult when, in their opinion, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of one of the parties is threatened.” The NATO council sharply condemns the “aggressive action” and classes it as a “violation of international law.” The Syrian leadership must “put an and to this outrageous violation of international law,” says the NATO announcement. ^[2] No attention is paid to the Syrian regime denying responsibility for the shelling. The burning question of who fired what rounds and, above all to what purpose, is not asked politically or in the media.
• The Syrian regime is declared guilty without further investigation of events. The EU foreign delegate, Catherine Ashton, calls on Syria to end the violence and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. France’s foreign minister. Laurent Fabius, pushes for a clear denunciation of the Syrian government in the UN Security Council. His British colleague, Hague, publicly supports Turkey’s military reaction. The Austrian foreign minister, Spindelegger, immediately holds Damascus responsible for the fireball. ^[3] German Chancellor Angela Merkel snaps at Russia and China, who are not prepared to simply endorse the NATO pre-judgments, “The UN Security Council is not fulfilling its responsibilities, because China and Russia are blocking any further demands. We’re encountering resistance here which I cannot really understand.” ^[4]
• Directly after this (rush to) judgment, the West escalates. On the basis of Article 5 of the NATO treaty (obligation of support when a NATO member is attacked), the USA, Netherlands and Germany decide to place so-called Patriot missiles on the Turkish border with Syria. The German foreign minister. Westerwelle, before the Bundestag: “When a NATO partner asks for help,, we must have very good reasons not to comply. I see no such grounds.” ^[5]
• The decision is waved through the Bundestag in December, 2012. The placement begins promptly in January, 2013 and is already far along by the end of January — against the vigorous protests of the Turkish population and the peace movement.

It is important to know: Patriot missiles are useless against mortar rounds. They are for shooting down airplanes and ballistic missiles. They have a very competent radar facility which enables surveillance within 150 km. So the placement of Patriot missiles provides the technological prerequisite for establishing a “no-fly zone” and thus escalating the Syrian war along the Libyan model. To be sure, that is not officially admitted, but the Turkish regime has in the past frequently asked for that. Under the pretext of protecting the Turkish population, weapons systems are installed which serve the purpose of accentuating the military escalation of the Syrian war and or the conflicts in the whole region. The great majority of the Turkish population rejects this placement. They know that it is not for their protection, but to draw their country further into a military conflict.

So, in quick time, those are the events since October 3, 2012. What started it all, those mortars which killed 5 people in Akcakale, has hardly been mentioned since. Turkish investigative reporters doubted the official version from the beginning. The Turkish newspaper Yurt, ^[6] just a few days after the shelling, reported that it had been determined from the inscriptions on the mortar shells, that these were actually NATO munitions. Since the Syrian army had no access to NATO weapons, only the “rebels” supported by the West could be the originators of the bombardment. But this topic was taboo in Western media and political circles, while the decisions about the Patriot emplacements had not yet been made.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

* Der Soldat, # 1 for Friday, January 18, 2013

The mortar attack out of Syria which killed 5 Turks definitely came from NATO munitions. Apparently, NATO member Turkey supplied Syrian rebels with weapons. And this must have been approved by NATO staff.

Sources:

1.		WAZ, 03.10.2012
2.		Tagesschau, 04.10.2012
3.		ORF-Abendjournal, 04.10.2012
4.		Stern, 05.10.2012
5.		Die Zeit, 21.11.2012
6.		www.yurtgazetesi.com.tr