Irish Blog Whacked

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Statement Issued in the Name of the IRA

Statement issued in the name of the IRA, claiming
responsibility for the attack on a prison warder earlier this month.

The following statements were published in the Belfast-based Irish
News this morning.

"On Thursday, 1st of November, 2012, an active service unit of the IRA
executed prison guard David Black.

"While the IRA never takes this type of action lightly, the IRA has a
responsibility to protect and defend republican POWs.

"This action was in direct response to the torture and degradation of
POWs held in Maghaberry.

"The issues that led to the IRA taking action might have been avoided if
his 'superiors' had honoured the agreement they signed with prisoners in
August 2010."

"Rather than showing the leadership necessary to resolve the protest in
Maghaberry they continue to play politics with the lives of republican
POWs and indeed their own guards and PCOs.

"Similarly, the charade of hypocritical condemnation from the local
political classes does nothing to resolve the issues created by their



MI5 Political Internment Act of War British Occupied Ireland

Marian Price is just one of several Irish people still interned in British Occupied Ireland for almost 18 months, during which time neither Marian or her lawyers have been allowed to see any of Britain's ‘alleged’ evidence against her.

• She has been kept in solitary confinement in a ‘male’ high security prison
• She is effectively interned without a trial, sentence, or release date.
• She has not been given any timescale for any investigation.
• She has not been allowed to see the evidence that the state claims to have
• Her release has been ordered on two occasions by judges. However, on both occasions the British Vice royal has overruled those decisions.
• The Vice royal claims they ‘revoked Marian’s license, ’despite Marian never being released on license. She was given a Royal Pardon.
• Marian’s Royal Pardon has ‘gone missing’ from the home office (the only time in history). The British Vice royal has taken the view that unless a paper copy can be located – it must be assumed that she does not have one. It is generally agreed that MI5 shredded her majesty's pardon.
• Despite no ‘license’ existing for her release from prison in 1980, it is the non-existent licence that is being used to keep her in prison.
• She can only be released by Theresa Villiers the current Vice royal responsible for Marian's internment.

The second last time Marian appeared in court, the charges against her were thrown out of court for lack of evidence by a Judge. Now the very same charges have been re-instated against Marian again in front of the very same Judge!

In secret courts, being introduced secretly, by the back door, through legislation in the House of Lords, MI5 the British secret service, push for secret trials to take place, with secret evidence by secret witnesses, that not even the defendant's lawyers are allowed to know or see. The length of sentence is secret with it all kept secret, under penalty of a long jail sentence, of their Official Secret's Act.

Despite protests of defence lawyers, the secret courts will operate, with virtually no rules of evidence, no discovery rules, no rules of decision and no rules regarding precedent. Not only will traditional law be in short supply, so too, will any sense, as to what interpretive practices would be followed by the 'judges' or what precedent values will exist. 

In the constant existential crises, of the nonsensical British scum state, established on the basis of a British mentored sectarian headcount, with rules and ongoing lawlessness of farcical law, its obvious injustice, commands no respect from informed Irish citizens, with the exception of Her majesty's cultivated bigoted, sectarian, neo-colonial, commoners.

With indefinite internment without a fair trial, without formal charges, where counsel is uniformed, where an individual cannot have their day in open court, events such as the miscarriages of justice like the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 will become the secret norm. Internees without trial are being secretly judged, by observers with a vested financial and political interest to infer guilt by often bigoted, prejudiced, sectarian, racist, blackmailed, intimidated bureaucrats of colonial perceptions.

The dehumanization of internees such as Marian Price, through the infliction of pain and torture, not only damages her body and mind, it is as Elaine Scarry wrote, world-destroying, "It is the intense pain that destroys a person‘s self and world, a destruction experienced spatially as either the contraction of the universe down to the immediate vicinity of the body or as the body swelling to fill the entire universe. Intense pain is also language destroying; as the content of one‘s world disintegrates, so the content of one‘s language disintegrates; as the self disintegrates, so that which would express and project the self is robbed of its source and its subject. Thus, physical erasure also eliminates the intelligible voice, reducing human speech to the primordial expression of pain, a state anterior to language."

In addition to these erasures of her body, mind and self, British torture achieves a third form of physical erasure by the very fact
of the political prisoners‘ torture, requiring concealment. The retreat of torture from respectability by European standards, means that the British must perform their brutality in hiding, primarily with censorship. However they also conceal their involvement in rendition, as they hide their activity in subcontracted assassinations, with more curtains over their already, shrouded victim's bodies such as several human rights lawyers liquidated in British Occupied Ireland

While in some instances, their prolonged stress positions along with other techniques, constituting cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, may not always rise to the level of torture, they nevertheless were found guilty of such, by the International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg regarding their activity in Ireland. The physical erasure of British torture is self-evident in their colonial history worldwide, right up to the present day and therefore needs only brief comment.

In secret British courts, with identity blacked out on their transcripts, judges will not countenance torture complaints, deeming this complaint conduct unacceptable and defendants will receive a final warning, oblivious to international law. In such courts they do not tolerate words, such as international law. The British are not concerned about international law and insist on it, by having internees like Marian Price, removed from the hearings, so that their secret services and military can consider classified evidence against her in secret.

If we accept the integrity of human rights law and its independence from any state sovereign, then it follows that there can never be
lawlessness such as there is in British Occupied Ireland, only gross violations of human rights law. Britain's current habeas-corpus-stripping provisions, are a core breach of human rights law. The many liberty concerns with regard to the Geneva Conventions and current British attempts at unilateral re-interpretation of sections of international law, have no constitutional basis whatsoever.

British Occupied Ireland with the treatment of political internees such as Marian Price, Martin Corey and many others, has become a human-rights-free zone.The quarantine of many Irish political prisoners is a familiar concealment. When placed in a human rights context. British Occupied Ireland is often described in terms of the British government‘s denial of rights to political prisoners but equally important the denial of their Irish humanity.

British Occupied Ireland has been a laboratory, of their systematic dehumanization, while they use their corporate right-wing media, such as the BBC world service, to refer to prisoners of conscience, as terrorists, to ostracize them from what it means to be human and allow the British continue the physical and mental maltreatment of Irish political prisoners, abhorrent to humanbeings.Thus they accomplish through cultural erasure, through the creation of the terrorist narrative; legal erasure and physical erasure through torture.

While the dimensions of dehumanization are distinct, they are interrelated. All are connected by law and specifically by humanrights.The British have created the preconditions for state power activity, so brutal, as to deprive Irish political prisoners of the ability to be human or have any human rights. Irish political internees stand exposed to the violence of the British state, unmediated, unprotected by any human rights, reducing political internees to a state of bare life without humanity. The evolving normalization, is the Irish have no right, to have rights, a vacuum enabling extreme British state violence, placing the internment of internees such as Marian Price, at the center of a struggle not just for rights, but for humanity that includes you and me.

Through resistance, political space will open up but the mere resistance, the assertion of self against state violence, is in itself life-affirming. Resistance is a way of staying human. This, then, is the work that human rights do, when pushed to the brink of annihilation, they provide us with a rudimentary and perhaps inadequate tool to maintain our humanity. Thus by paying particular attention to the value of human rights and arguing the importance of rights, it becomes a mode of peaceful resistance, to British state violence. British internment is a military act of war on a defenceless civilian population, even their own beloved wartime Churchill called it and odious act of war in wartime.

It has been used in every decade in Ireland in the last century with political concentration camps with impunity, because the British ruling class regard and portray the Irish as subhuman. Indeed Irish political prisoners of conscience, currently live in subhuman conditions in British Occupied Ireland. Irish political prisoners pushed to the the edge of annihilation of their identity, have a long track record of participating in direct forms of resistance in many forms, including dirt strikes and hunger strikes, as a form of prisoner resistance, along with lawyer rights-based litigation and the hunger strikes, sharing an understanding of the relationship between rights, violence, and humanity.

While sometimes the resistance of lawyers and of prisoners may not be enough to win the prisoners‘ freedom as in the instance of dozens of Irish political prisoners who have died on hunger strike, it is still essential when British state violence is so extreme, as to attempt to extinguish our humanity and carry out this act of war on a defenceless civilian population that we explore every peaceful mode of resistance, besides fighting fire with fire. We have a moral obligation to consider all other alternatives first, that we fight fire with water and deny the British, with their barbaric acts of war on ordinary people, any basis for their inhumanity with their terrorist narrative.

Ordinary people too, who are genuinely interested in real peace in Ireland, have a responsibility to work for justice in Ireland, which is the only basis for a real lasting peace. Careerist politicians making millions off the backs of the long suffering Irish people make superficial careerist calls for peace, knowing full well is is hypocritical nonsense in an island of a divided Ireland, in more senses than one, planted firmly in social and political injustice of the extreme.

There is rally today, Saturday the 3rd of November in Dublin, starting at the Garden of Remembrance at 2.00 p.m, which goes to the historic GPO. That is a good start for anyone genuinely interested interested in Peace in Ireland and remove the basis of political violence. It would do well for those politicians engaged in state violence and acts of war against the Irish people of no property, to open their minds to this suggestion, rather than mouth vacuous, hypocritical condemnations for strictly political profit.



Related Link:

Freedom of Yes/No to Poppy

McClean criticised for not wearing poppy

Published Sunday, 11 November 2012
Toggle font size

Derry-born footballer James McClean has come under fire for his decision not to wear a poppy while playing for his club Sunderland.

McClean criticised for not wearing poppy
James McClean opted not to wear a shirt with a poppy on during Saturday's match. (© Getty)
Members of the team wore special shirts with the remembrance emblem on them for their clash against Everton on Saturday, but the 23-year-old opted to wear his usual kit.
McClean played against his Republic of Ireland teammate Seamus Coleman who sported a poppy during the match on the eve of Remembrance Sunday.
Sunderland manager Martin O'Neill, who was born in the village of Kilrea, chose to wear a poppy on his suit after the match, but did not display one on his training kit during it.
McClean has been criticised on social media sites for not wearing a poppy but a club spokesman said it was the player's personal choice not to wear the shirt on Saturday.
A Sunderland statement said: "As a club, SAFC wholeheartedly supports the Remembrance commemorations. It was James' personal choice not to wear a shirt on this occasion."
The right of people not to feel intimidated into wearing a poppy must be recognised. That includes professional footballers. James McClean’s personal choice in this regard should be respected.
Raymond McCartney
Raymond McCartney, Sinn Féin MLA for Foyle, said no disrespect should be read into McClean's decision.
"No person, in any walk of life, should be forced to wear any symbol," he said.
"It appears that James McClean is now the subject of a witch hunt on social media for his choice not to wear a poppy on his shirt when playing for Sunderland."
McClean has been a controversial tweeter, deleting his account in September following a tirade about being left on the bench by Republic manager Giovanni Trapattoni against Kazakhstan.
He also received death threats on the social media site after he was called up to the Republic of Ireland Euro 2012 squad. The Derry man's decision to play for the Republic despite being capped seven times for Northern Ireland at Under-21s level, caused anger among NI fans.
The winger was urged to stay off Twitter by Sunderland chiefs but despite deleting controversial tweets, and at times his account, he remains on the social networking site.
© UTV News

Comments Comments

norman.d in bangor wrote (6 hours ago):
why do people critisize this man for not wearing a poppy people should have the right to not wear a poppy if they do not agree with these wars there are people in the media forced to wear the poppy or lose their jobs this is a free country and i wear my poppy because i want to remember those that died in these wars not because some people point the finger how many attended church on sunday for the service of rememberance

Martin in London wrote (6 hours ago):
Why should he wear one? It's a personal choice. Sticking 10p in a box and wearing a poppy is hardly a supreme act of remembrance for the war dead is it? and lets be honest the guy is from NI where it is a political statement to wear a poppy i.e., prods do and taigs don't - who even noticed this?

OldSod in Fermanagh wrote (7 hours ago):
Wearing a poppy is a persons personal choice. If someone does not want to wear one then fair enough, each to their own. Just because a bunch of trolls on social media consider it a big deal, does not mean it is news or a true reflection of public feeling. All articles like this do is feed the fires of ignorance and prejudice. I consider myself an Irishman and I happily wear my poppy, equally I respect that some friends won't wear one for their own reasons,... fine,... it does not diminish either of us. What really gets me annoyed is the pathetically obvious attempts by some republicans and some loyalists to politicise the poppy for their own sinister reasons.

Michael in Beal feirste wrote (18 hours ago):
Well done James. At last we are beginning to reject the glorification of warmongering.

Murray in Londonderry wrote (19 hours ago):
I come from the Unionist community and would like to thank James Mc Clean for showing what a great job our Armed Forces have done over the years, James has proven that he has the freedom to make his own choice, if he lived somewhere else, like Afghanistan or Iraq he maybe wouldn,t have that freedom to choose. Stop slagging the lad off, our Armed Forces have fought and died for people like him. Regardless of his views.

CPIR Statement on the Meaning of the British Legion Poppy

category international | anti-war | press release author Tuesday November 06, 2012 13:21author by CPIR - Páirtí Cummanach na Poblachtaauthor email cpir32 at yahoo dot ie Report this post to the editors
What is the meaning or significance of the British Legion Poppy? A harmless mark of belonging? A badge of British nationalism? Or a neutral remembrance of long past wars? The CPIR offers a different reading.
Once again, we have come to that time of year when we see our TV screens saturated with the blood red Poppy of the British Legion. Programmes aimed at young people, such as The X-Factor, are particularly targeted. Contestants, regardless of their origin, are forced to wear the symbol of the British Legion. And, because of the abject dependence of RTÉ on programming of British origin, Irish youths are just as subjected to this symbol as are their British contemporaries. And every year, we see, in the streets of Ireland, the results of this media saturation of young minds. More and more young Irish people think it is “cool” to wear a British Legion Poppy.

So, what is the British Legion? What is it’s poppy symbol? Is it a harmless fashion statement? A benign badge of belonging to the dominant tribe, a harmless mark of British nationalism? Is it a harmless remembrance of soldiers, fallen in long past wars? Unfortunately, it is none of these. The motto of the British Legion is: “Standing with those who serve.” The work of the British Legion is not remembrance of the past, but the facilitating of the present. In particular, the facilitating of current British imperial adventures in lands far and near.

As the website of the British Legion proclaims, “We help serving members of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force.” This help consists of help with housing, the provision of loans, along with medical attention for those who have felt the resistance of native peoples all over the world. Needless to say, this work takes a huge financial pressure off the British government, and, in effect, prevents the British state from feeling the full financial effects of making war. To isolate those who make war from the effects of the wars they make, is to actually encourage and facilitate war.

The British Legion runs a dedicated media center, which glorifies the British military and their operations in countries such as Iraq. We see the smiling faces of British service personal in the sunshine. What we do not see is the aftermath of the activities of these smiling faces. We do not hear of the particular infamy the British Army has earned for it’s massive crimes against humanity - particularly directed against children - in Basra and Fallujah. Through the massive use of depleted uranium, against the civilian population of Fallujah, there are now more children, per head of population, being born with devastating birth defects than were being born after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Young women in Fallujah are now literally afraid to bear children. We remind people that Article 2(d) of the Genocide Convention defines "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group," as an act of Genocide. We also remind people that depleted uranium - radioactive waste from nuclear power plants - is still 60% as radioactive as uranium, and has a half-life of 700 million years. When an invading army poisons a native civilian population with depleted uranium, the intent is clearly to prevent that population from reproducing itself in a healthy manner. It is, in effect, war on children. The British military has earned itself an almost equally despicable reputation in Afghanistan. It’s role in Libya has been to help to destroy the infrastructure of one of the only developed nations in Africa, to kill thousands of civilians from the sky, and to unleash a Holocaust against people of Black skin. We have every reason to believe that the British armed forces are deeply involved in terrorist atrocities against civilians in Syria. This is the reality of what the British Legion stands shoulder to shoulder with.

Recently, the Security and Emergency Services Ireland Forum (SESIF), on behalf of the Southern state, in the guise of raising money for a children's charity, held a day of tribute to the perpetrators of these massive crimes against humanity, at the notorious K-Club. In a time of terrible hardship and privation for decent Irish people, the "Irish Guards," British Army band, privately entertained many of those who brought this terrible suffering on the good people of Ireland, through their criminal speculations and psychotic greed. This is the Irish comprador class, which has, since the founding of the free state in 1922, regarded the Irish people as a cash cow to be squeezed and drained of life. This is the comprador class that has built nothing of lasting value, but has destroyed and destroyed again, the lives and hopes of the Irish people. Above all, this is the comprador class, whose ultimate guarantee in Ireland is not the armed forces of the southern state (who they have never really trusted) but the British armed forces stationed in Ireland. 5,000 of them now. This is the comprador class who, in January 1976, sent Jack Lynch and Garrett Fitzgerald to County Cork, to beg British Foreign Secretary, Jim Callaghan, at his holiday accommodation, not to withdraw the British Army from Ireland. To beg him not to leave the vile and corrupt Irish comprador class to face the righteous anger of the Irish people.

For the past number of years, the Irish comprador class has been aggressively pushing a Normalization agenda in the 26 counties, doing their utmost to make the British armed forces seem acceptable to the people of Ireland and to maintain the partitionist status quo. Hence, the massive campaign by RTÉ television to promote the "heroic" image of the British Army in Ireland, and to make the British Army seem like a valid career option for unemployed Irish youth. Even the National Museum has been called to do it's bit. Indeed, we have already seen the results of this vile campaign - body bags being returned to Irish mothers from far off lands. Once more, the poor of Ireland, those youths of no property, who might just get uppedy, are to be safely liquidated - the cannon fodder of British imperialist adventures.

Some Irish people, who wear a British Legion Poppy, will claim that they are only remembering Irish men who died decades ago. In reality, such innocence does not exist. The British Legion, on behalf of the British ruling class, demands hegemony over the memory of past wars. WW1 is not to be remembered for what it was, i.e. a vicious imperialist land grab, in which the British empire had been a principal cause. It is, instead, to be remembered as a fight for freedom. Whose freedom, or the freedom to do what, we dare not ask. The millions who died senselessly in the trenches are not to be remembered as victims of imperialism, but as some kind of "freedom fighters." None of this is remembrance. It is, in fact, the fabrication of false memory. And, the end result of all this fakery is that if you believe a fraud of such magnitude, it will be easy enough to induce you to believe that the British military bomb Brown skinned people today for their own good - to give them "democracy" - that their oil and other natural resources have nothing to do with it.

When you put your coins in the box, to get your British Legion Poppy, you are helping to fund the British imperial wars of today – and not only in financial terms. You are helping to give moral cover to murderous campaigns against Brown skinned people all over the world – particularly in those regions that are rich in mineral resources. To wear a British Legion Poppy is an act of the most base racism. It is to claim that the lives of some people are less valuable than the lives of those who look and sound like you do. It is to claim that those native peoples, who stand in the way of your enjoyment of their resources, deserve to be slaughtered. It is to agree that nations who do not fully submit to the rule of Anglo-American corporations, or as RTÉ would put it, those who do not accept “democracy,” should be bombed into submission.

Make no mistake, the red of the British Legion Poppy is not the ancient dust of WW1 or even WW2, but the blood flowing wounds of today’s Wretched of the Earth.

Communist Party of the Irish Republic
6th November 2012
Statement Ends
Related Link:

Comments (8 of 8)

Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
author by An Draighneán Donnpublication date Tue Nov 06, 2012 15:26Report this post to the editors
I think this image sums it up pretty well:

author by serfpublication date Tue Nov 06, 2012 17:42Report this post to the editors
Good post. We've had other good poppy day threads here discussing some of these issues.

for example, check out:
author by newsmediapublication date Wed Nov 07, 2012 00:41Report this post to the editors
"WW1 is not to be remembered for what it was, i.e. a vicious imperialist land grab, in which the British empire had been a principal cause."

Regardless of their other comments, would the CPIR have preferred Germany's war machine to have trundled across Europe and occupied countries across Europe and perhaps farther afield?
author by An Drighneán Donn - Páirtí Cummanach na Poblachtapublication date Wed Nov 07, 2012 00:53Report this post to the editors
newsmedia's comment seems to imply that, in 1914, the German ruling class was somehow worse than the other ruling classes of Europe. This is not in any way correct. Particularly if compared with its rivals in the British empire. Neeedless to say, the Belgians were one of the most criminal régimes the world has ever seen. The utter destruction of the Belgians would have been a great relief to the people of the Congo. The criminality of the French in their colonies is well documented. Germany actually had one of the most progressive régimes in Europe in 1914.

Europe is now being united under German hegemony. Was their any need to suffer two World Wars, just to reach the same destination?
author by wasted livespublication date Wed Nov 07, 2012 03:52Report this post to the editors
"Europe is now being united under German hegemony. Was their any need to suffer two World Wars, just to reach the same destination?"

Yeah, I think that's the show stopper!! ;-)

All those millions of wasted lives for nothing it seems. Only delaying German hegemony.
Maybe if we just let them win WWI, we'd have a proper rail system and health system in Ireland by now.
author by James Casement/Roger Connollypublication date Wed Nov 07, 2012 07:30Report this post to the editors
"Maybe if "we" just let them win WWI, we'd have a proper rail system and health system in Ireland by now."

"We" regarded the Central Powers as "our gallant allies". Presumably "we" therefore WANTED them to win.

Roger Casement and James Connolly regarded the Great War as a catastrophe, one which was deliberately brought about by Britain in order to sustain and increase its imperial world domination.

And, once the catastrophe was under way, Casement and Connolly made out a very strong case why German/Central Powers victory was in the best interests of humanity.

Even the Poppy crowd can hardly deny that the Great War and the European settlement inflicted on the defeated countries were a disaster for mankind.

Casement set out his case against War, and then against British/Allied victory in the War, in his book "The Crime Against Europe":

When it was clear that the European socialist movement had failed to avert the War ( - it actually made no serious attempt to avert the War), Connolly published his arguments for alliance with Germany, and for German victory, in articles in his newspaper Workers Republic:

Connolly seems to have been in agreement with the American Frederic C. Howe who wrote a book, "Socialized Germany"
about Germany in 1915 to explain why, contrary to Allied expectations, Germany would not be easily and quickly defeated. This was because of the quality of German society, which provided for and protected all its citizens. The traditional social elements of German society were re-asserted when the Hitler regime was defeated by Soviet Russia in 1945.

Frederic C.Howe was a U.S. Senator, government official, and aide to President Woodrow Wilson in the post-War "treaty" negotiations ( - the "treaties" which brought about the Central European mess which produced the Hitler movment and another World War, the "treaties" which produced the present Middle East mess, and lots more of the wonderful stuff that we are now only too familiar with).

Howe supported the Allied side in the Great War, and wrote his book in order to inject some sense of reality into the Allied war effort.

But Connolly saw no reason to support a British war of destruction against European civilization and European socialism.

Here is the Table of Contents of Frederic C. Howe's "Socialized Germany", published New York, September, 1915:



I. Introductory — The Dual Germany

II. The Background of Modern Germany

III. The Constitution of the Empire

IV. The Economic Foundations of Class Rule

V. Recent Economic Progress

VI. The Theory and Extent of State Socialism

VII. The State-Owned Railways

VIII. Canals, Waterways, and Free Ports

IX. Harbors and River Shipping

X. Mines, Forests, and Agricultural Lands

XI. The Attitude of Germany toward the Social Problem

XII. Caring for the Unemployed

XIII. Labor and Industrial Courts

XIV. Social Insurance and Social Democracy

XV. Higher Education — Providing the Expert

XVI. Elementary Education

XVII. Vocational Education — Preparing the Child for Life

XVIII. Sanitation and Health

XIX. The War upon Disease

XX. Governing Cities by Experts

XXI. Municipal Socialism

XXII. The Building of Cities

XXIII. Municipal Landownership and Housing Projects

XXIV. The German Conception of the State
author by newsmediapublication date Thu Nov 08, 2012 16:33Report this post to the editors
No matter the arguments above, surely the bottom line is that Germany's leaders initiated WW1 by ordering the military invasion of another nation beyond its borders.

Unlike in latter years where nations have been invaded by foreign military forces and NONE come to their assistance.
author by An Draighneán Donnpublication date Thu Nov 08, 2012 18:09Report this post to the editors
newsmedia, you are putting forward a very simplistic view of WWI. It's like saying the war in the Pacific began in 1941, with the attack on Pearl Harbour, when, in reality, it began at least twenty years before that, when the US Navy started to squeeze Japan's ability to import oil and other resources vital for industrialization - just as the US Navy is doing to China today.

Britain had been squeezing German economic and imperial expansion for years before 1914, and tried to undermine the German economy by provoking an arms race. Germany knew that once war was declared, to stand any chance against the combined might of the old empires of Russia, France and Britain, it had to knock France out of the equation, before Russia could fully mobilize. This was the Schlieffen Plan, and, it was generally a good plan, except that Germany's technological supremacy was not enough - unlike in 1940.

I recommend that you watch Robert Newman's History of Oil, it's highly entertaining and informative: