The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Max Parry Archive
Debunking Myths of ‘Red-Brown’ Alliances
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Recently, a certain political concept has been resurrected that warrants interrogation. The notion of a ‘red-brown’ alliance has been thrown around so ubiquitously as a form of political slander that any substantive meaning to the term has been evacuated. Rather than accurately designating any associations that may exist between the left and far right, the idea of a ‘red-brown’ coalition, or ‘querfront’ (cross-front in German), is a generic abstraction cited to mischaracterize a perceived convergence of political opposites. In many respects, it is a stand-in for a similar hypothesis used by liberals — that of ‘horseshoe theory’, or the impression that the far left and far right intersect at both ends of the ideological spectrum — so as to be permitted diction for self-identified leftists. The application of the ‘red-brown’ smear produces the same result in that it situates politics from a centrist vantage point and likens the actual left to fascism. It disappears the anti-fascism of the left and anti-communism of the right while leaving the moderate center at a comfortable distance from the right-wing of which it is the more frequent collaborator.

The ‘red-brown’ character assassinations make analogies about the present day based on a counterfeit history of World War II. No analysis of the mythos would be complete without the inclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, one of the most misunderstood and historically falsified events of the war. During the 1930s, the USSR tried to maintain its autonomy during a period of rapid industrialization that accomplished in a decade what the British needed a century to achieve. In self defense, Moscow was forced to exploit the contradictions between the ‘democratic’ imperial nations and the authoritarian Axis powers when it came under dual threat. If war could not be avoided, the USSR certainly did not wish to take on the Wehrmacht alone. Stalin made diplomatic attempts in the lead up to the war at aligning with Britain and France, who were as keen on the idea of putting an end to the Soviet Union as Germany, which were rebuffed. In reply, the British and the French did everything within their power to try to push the Hitlerites into a war with the Soviets by signing the Munich Agreement with Germany and Italy in 1938.

More than an appeasement, the Munich Betrayal essentially handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler as a deposit to try to persuade Germany to begin his ‘Master Plan for the East’ where the West would be in a position to play peacemaker. Meanwhile, Poland, Turkey and the Baltic states all signed treaties with Hitler as well, but for obvious reasons history only chooses to remember the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression agreement which followed a year later. Stalin knew Germany would eventually ‘drive to the East’ but needed time if the USSR was to withstand a Wehrmacht invasion and the agreement thwarted the West’s plans of using Hitler to weaken Moscow. After the treaty was signed in 1939, The New York Times declared that “Hitler is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism” and to this day the cult followers of Trotsky are repeating this lie.

If it isn’t the distortion of the Hitler-Stalin pact, the infamous 1934 Night of the Long Knives in Germany is adduced to illustrate the historical instance of a supposed red-brown coalescence and its inevitable results, when the so-called ‘left wing’ of the Nazi Party led by Gregor Strasser and his supporters were murdered in Hitler’s Röhm purge. While the Strasserites may have self-identified as ‘socialists’, they were just as steeped in anti-semitism and were anything but left — much less ‘red.’ Strasser made his brand of pseudo-socialism discernibly anti-Marxist when he distinguished it as free of a “soulless Jewish-materialist outlook” while addressing the Reichstag in 1925. Once Hitler was finished using the Strasserites in his cynical and cunning scheme, they were liquidated in order to appease his real backers in big business and the German ruling class. Hitler did the bidding of monopoly capital while directing the machinery of government to repress any of his supporters who had been credulous enough to anticipate anti-capitalist policies from the Third Reich. No, the Nazis were not socialist despite their unabbreviated name, nor does chocolate milk come from brown cows.

History has been tampered with to blame the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) for the rise of the Nazis and those weaponizing the red-brown mythology are perpetuating this falsehood. Germany’s economic depression destabilized the country while various political tendencies vied for power against the Weimar government and while the Nazis ultimately emerged on top, there was no ‘collaboration’ between what were mortal enemies. Furthermore, it is assumed that if not for the KPD’s policy towards the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as ‘social fascists’, things would have turned out different. To the contrary, in 1932 it was the Social Democrats who rebuffed Ernst Thälmann and the KPD’s repeated pleas to form a coalition once the German Reich’s other conservative parties joined forces with Hitler and his seizure of power appeared imminent. To be sure, the Nazis benefited from the left’s infighting due to this repudiation. After the SPD refused to form a popular front or organize a general strike, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany and the rest was history. It was the rejections of the appeals for a united front by the anti-revolutionary Social Democrats, not the KPD, which ensured the power grab. There is a reason it was the communists who became the most heavily persecuted political group following the consolidation of power after the Nazi-engineered Reichstag fire ‘false flag’ operation was blamed on them.

The Third Reich was a reaction of the ruling class to the rising militancy of German workers and their increasing revolutionary readiness amidst the Weimar Republic’s collapse, not any strategic failure on the part of the heroes who were murdered by the Hitlerite regime. To propagate this fable is to spit on the graves of those who perished. Nazi authoritarianism became the weapon of choice once the duplicitous arm of Social Democracy became ineffective in deflecting workers away from revolution, as it had done following the end of WWI to put down the Spartacist uprising. The KPD had no choice but to regard the Social Democrats as ‘fascism’s twin brother’ considering the SPD leadership had sided with Kaiser Wilhelm, who killed as many Namibians as Hitler killed Jews in the Herero genocide, against the revolutionaries. Ten years later during the 1929 May Day demonstrations, Social Democratic Interior Minister Carl Severing oversaw the Blutmai massacre where many workers and communists were gunned down by Berlin police. Nothing had changed between the failed 1919 German Revolution put down by the Freikorps which took the life of Rosa Luxemburg and the Bloody May Day in 1929.

Underlying the ‘red-brown’ concept is essentially a false equivalency between the Soviet Union and fascism. One of the other primary sources of this big lie pertains to the doctored history of the Spanish Civil War, a conflict that ended exactly 80 years ago last month. Like Hitler in Germany, General Francisco Franco became the Caudillo of Spain while there was a schism on its political left and since history is written by the winners, decades of anti-Soviet propaganda have placed the blame on those who tried to save the Spanish Republic in 1939 for his rise to power. In reality, the loyalists were defeated not just because of extrinsic reinforcement by Germany and Italy but the debilitation of the Republican forces by the Trotskyite POUM who have since been championed as heroes by those suffering from ultra-left misapprehensions.

During the 1930s while fascism was ascendant, Spain was in a deep political crisis with a monarchist right-wing government. In reaction, the Spanish left mobilized and formed a Popular Front coalition of communists, anarchists and socialists in 1936 to win the Spanish elections. When Franco and his alliance began their insurrection and military coup, the Republican government was refused assistance by the Western imperial nations and the Soviet Union stepped in to provide the anti-fascist resistance political and military aid. They also received reinforcements from Mexico as well as militias from the International Brigades which included the Abraham Lincoln Battalion consisting of American volunteers, the inspiration for Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls. Meanwhile, Franco became the recipient of external support from the strongest military power in the world at the time in Nazi Germany.

The Luftwaffe began its intervention with the aerial bombardment of the Republican-held Basque town of Guernica, inspiring one of Pablo Picasso’s most famous paintings. Seeing as this was no time for games with the very real danger of ultra-nationalism taking power, the Spanish communists mustered together a resistance army that was repeatedly sabotaged by the POUM’s lack of discipline and intrigue. As a result, their unworldly tactics and opposition to any practical alliance with a broader left ultimately led to their expulsion from the Republican government and the Popular Front. Following their banishment, the POUM quislings continued their factionalist disruption and along with the CNT anarchists attempted to overthrow the Republican government, on the basis that a ‘Stalinist regime’ was as undesirable an outcome as fascism. Although the putsch failed, ultimately Franco benefited from this strife which weakened the Comintern-backed forces and the military strongman would advance to become dictator of Spain for the next four decades following the Republican defeat.

Much of the disinformation pulled from this period stems from George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, which is unfortunately the sole account most people will ever read of the Spanish Civil War. It’s reliability is even doubted by Western historians in its demonization of the loyalist cause and Orwell himself admitted its many inaccuracies while regretting the passages that appeared to actually welcome a Franco victory over the Republicans. The avowed “democratic socialist” based the work on his own experiences as a volunteer for the Republican cause fighting alongside the POUM before fleeing the country in 1937. Like his other writings, Homage to Catalonia became weaponized during the Cold War by the political establishment in order to push the anti-communist Western left toward liberal democracy and away from Soviet sympathies. The great Michael Parenti wrote of Orwell and his descendants in Blackshirts and Reds:

“A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous.” Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.”

Parenti isn’t exaggerating in his representation. Although little known by his casual admirers, one year before his death in 1950 at the dawn of the Cold War, Orwell secretly provided the British Foreign Office’s anti-Soviet propaganda branch known as the Information Research Department a list of people he believed to be “crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists” for MI6’s information warfare. Orwell’s role as an informant for the British secret services and the existence of the list, which included everyone from Charlie Chaplin to foreign correspondents for major newspapers, was not revealed until 1996 and only became public in 2002. He based the list on a longer, unofficial version contained in a personal notebook which even slandered legendary black actor, singer and activist Paul Robeson as a “very anti-white Henry Wallace supporter.” Unlike Hollywood filmmaker Elia Kazan’s shameful testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1952, Orwell’s blacklist was provided voluntarily to the assistant of anti-Soviet historian Robert Conquest, then working for the UK Foreign Office, after she asked him to lend a hand picking out communist sympathizers.

Orwell’s disillusion with the Spanish communists backed by the Comintern and allegiance to the POUM and CNT anarchists was solidified during the 1937 Barcelona May Days where the opposing factions clashed and the Republican government ultimately regained control. In Homage to Catalonia, Orwell heavily criticized a journalist working under the pen name Frank Pitcairn of The Daily Worker, official newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and now known as The Morning Star, and challenged his coverage of the events. It turns out that ‘Frank Pitcairn’ was the pseudonym of none other than Claud Cockburn, father of legendary journalist Alexander Cockburn who co-founded Counterpunch newsletter in the mid-90s. The younger Cockburn ruthlessly denounced Orwell when “St. George’s List” became public knowledge, no doubt feeling vindication for the defamation of his father’s work by the English essayist.

For many years, the formerly prestigious Counterpunch edited by Alexander Cockburn until his death in 2012 was a sanctuary of high quality left-wing journalism and commentary. Under his successors, however, the website has gradually declined in its caliber, especially after it became mired in controversy following the 2016 U.S. presidential election when it was included in an investigation in The Washington Post for having publishing articles of a pseudonymous writer working under the false name ‘Alice Donovan’ supposedly on behalf of the Russian government that was tracked by the FBI. The website was then listed among a host of other anti-war pages as promoting a ‘pro-Russian and anti-Clinton’ agenda to influence the outcome of the election on the neo-McCarthyist PropOrNot blacklist. Evidently, Cockburn’s substitutes were too embarrassed to speculate as to whether or not Donovan’s stories could have been submitted by the FBI itself as a pretext for the subsequent widespread censorship of alternative media by big tech giants under the phony banner of stopping the spread of “fake news.” It was only after an in-house investigation by the editors themselves that Donovan was also discovered to be a serial plagiarist, a significant detail that went unnoticed in The Washington Post story. What if the mystery literary thief was a g-man?

Rather than digging in their heels and standing by what they published, Counterpunch has since embarked on an embarrassing quest for bourgeois respectability with the purging of popular contributors while smearing them as part of an imaginary “Sputnik left.” Shortly after the Alice Donovan affair, several of the remaining core authors for Counterpunch published hit pieces condemning progressive journalist Caitlin Johnstone for advocating a ‘cross ideological collaboration’ in the name of an essential policy based anti-war movement transcending the left-right paradigm. While Johnstone’s suggestion gave an admittedly poor and naive example in far right social media personality Mike Cernovich for cooperation — hardly the type of conservative to be taken seriously compared to committed anti-militarist libertarians — her recommendation was well-intentioned and harmless. Nevertheless, they seized the opportunity and pounced on her, but not for the stated reason of stopping an attempt to forge a ‘red-brown fascist alliance.’ Johnstone’s real crime was possessing the rare ability to disseminate subversive ideas to a wide range of people, a serious threat to the livelihood of the professional gatekeepers at Counterpunch.

Yet Johnstone’s opinions were hardly inconsistent with the newsletter’s own history as a longtime host of far-reaching anti-establishment views, nor with Alexander Cockburn himself. In a 2000 article entitled “25 Years After Vietnam: Beyond Left and Right“, Cockburn wrote of exactly such a scenario after receiving criticism for speaking at an anti-war conference that included conservatives Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan:

“I got an invitation to speak a couple of months ago from an outfit called antiwar.com, which is run by a young fellow called Justin Raimundo. “Antiwar.com is having its second annual national conference March 24 & 25, and we’d like you to be the luncheon speaker,” Raimundo wrote. “The conference will be held at the Villa Hotel, in San Mateo (near the airport). The theme of the conference is ‘Beyond Left & Right: The New Face of the Antiwar Movement.’ We have invited a number of speakers spanning the political spectrum. Confirmed so far: Patrick J. Buchanan, Tom Fleming (of Chronicles magazine), Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com), Kathy Kelly (Iraq Aid), Alan Bock (Orange County Register), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), representatives of the Serbian Unity Congress, and a host of others.”

Raimundo seasoned his invite with a burnt offering, in the form of flattery, always pleasing to the nostrils: “All of us here at Antiwar.com are big fans of your writing: we met, once, at a meeting during the Kosovo war where you bravely took up the fight for the united front left-right alliance against imperialist war. We can promise you a small honorarium, a lunch, free admission to all conference events — and a good time.” As a seasoned analyst of such communications, my eye of course fell sadly upon the words “small honorarium” ? a phrase that in my case usually means somewhere between $150 and $350. I’d already noted that even though our task was to transcend the tired categories of left and right, I was the only leftist mentioned, with the possible exception of Kathy Kelly, from that splendid organization, Voices in the Wilderness, which campaigns to lift the UN sanctions on Iraq.

Being a libertarian Justin had boldly added the prospect of a “good time”. Leftist invitations rarely admit this possibility in formal political communications, even in the distant days when the left supposedly had a lock on drugs and sex. I said I’d be happy to join in such an enterprise, and in due course got some angry e-mails from lefties who seem to feel that any contiguity with Buchanan is a crime, even if the subject was gardening and Dutch tulipomania in the seventeenth century.”

Cockburn received similar flack in the mid-90s for commending a right-wing Patriot rally opposing gun control in Michigan in a column for The Nation similarly titled “Who’s Left? Who’s Right?” So it’s one thing for the inner circle at CP to attack others with the red-brown libel, but entirely another to rewrite history and speak on behalf of the deceased Cockburn to claim their sectarian attacks on leftist colleagues are in spirit with his vision. Worst of all, the Counterpunch contingent has maligned the recently kidnapped Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as a ‘crypto-fascist’ while continuing to use his endorsement of the magazine in advertising to raise money for its annual fund drive as he languishes in prison.

Most of those targeted like Johnstone are anti-war leftists willing to defend Russia and Syria beyond merely protesting U.S. military aggression but challenging the propaganda narratives villainizing such countries used to justify it. The war in Syria has even been compared to the Spanish Civil War where the chasm between those defending the Syrian government against Western-backed jihadists is seen as a repeat of the discord in the 1930s, with presumably the ‘libertarian socialist’ Kurds playing the role of the POUM. It is actually not such a bad analogy, considering the YPG are as objectively a U.S. proxy army as the POUM were Franco’s fifth columnists.

Russophobes on the left use a different line of reasoning to push the same agenda as the Washington war duopoly while Moscow is in the gun-sights of U.S. imperialism. The ‘brown’ component is said to be the reactionary philosopher Alexander Dugin whose alleged Svengali-like influence on the Kremlin is inflated, as is the prevalent misconception that he is the founder of Putin’s ‘Eurasianism.’ As a matter of fact, the initial author of a Eurasian union was the anti-Soviet liberal human rights dissident Andrei Sakharov back in the 1980s during perestroika who was beloved in the Western sphere. Meanwhile, the actual threat of right-wing extremism in Russia emanating from the U.S.-backed opposition figure Alexei Navalny, who seeks the secession of the Caucasus while comparing its Muslim inhabitants to cockroaches and insects, is of little concern to those making Putin out to be the enemy. In fact, it is the instigator against Moscow in NATO that has for decades incubated fascism, from Operation Gladio’s stay-behind networks of right-wing paramilitaries carrying out ‘false flag’ operations in NATO member states to Ukraine’s 2014 Banderite junta. Furthermore, the anti-Russia hysteria is a successful diversion from the actual source of foreign influence nurturing the current tide of nationalism that is traceable to Jerusalem, not the Kremlin.

The red-brown aspersion isn’t relegated to the periphery of leftist newsletters or historical debates about WWII but has even manifested in more mainstream discourse, from the smear campaign against journalist Angela Nagle for her brilliant “The Left Case Against Open Borders” article exploring the complexities of the immigration issue to Bernie Sanders’ willingness to do a town hall hosted by Fox News. Journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Michael Tracey, and Nagle herself have all been denigrated as ‘red-brown collaborators’ for their willingness to make appearances on Tucker Carlson’s weeknight talk show. There is even an incomprehensible multi-axis political compass making the rounds on social media said to visually represent the red-brown or neo-“Strasserite” phenomena.

Carlson, like Ann Coulter, is a right-wing media figure who made his name as a neo-con during the Bush years that has successfully rebranded himself in the Trump era as an ‘anti-establishment’ conservative, even espousing anti-interventionism on occasion. Of course, the entire point of engaging the millions of viewers who watch such a cartoon propaganda outlet is missed by those who insist that to do so is to legitimate the channel or Carlson’s views. Would not solely attending the likes of so-called ‘respectable’ media like CNN or MSNBC, which sell U.S. wars every bit as much as Rupert Murdoch’s network, be an endorsement of their self-proclamations to be arbiters of truth?

Angela Nagle on Tucker Carlson questioning the Left’s love for open borders – YouTube
In a recent article in the conservative journal American Affairs, Angela Nagle, an Irish academic and the author of Kill All Normies, a book about the rise o…

Last month, the International Socialist Organization (ISO)in the U.S. voted to dissolve itself after a period of a factionalism and infighting. The ISO was the American branch of the UK-based Socialist Workers Party (SWP) founded by Tony Cliff, which once included Orwell admirer and Trot-turned-neocon author Christopher Hitchens in its ranks during his youth. This was welcome news to anyone rightly disgusted by such an objectively pro-interventionist group that was one of the biggest mudslingers against those who have defended Russia and Syria from imperialism as ‘red-brown fascists’ during the past decade. Unsurprisingly, it was revealed that the ISO received a significant amount of its subsidies from the Soros-funded Tides Foundation and other Democratic Party-affiliated philanthropies. Hopefully its dissolution is a sign that the tide is turning against such groups that smuggle pro-imperial positions to be planted into a left that should unconditionally oppose them.

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, and more. Max may be reached at [email protected]

 
Hide 393 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tane says:

    Okay article, though reading it I was surprised to find that the author is a mostly unreconstructed Stalinist. Didn’t get that from the previous works of this guy on here,. Oh well, that Cockburn transition from the historical first half to the contemporary second half was very nice.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @joe2.5
  2. utu says:

    It was not easy for Germans to accept the wisdom of Führer to sign the pact with the the mass murderer and genocider Stalin. In 1939 Germany had a pristine record. Führer had no blood on his hands in 1939. Germany’s incarceration rate (including concentration camps) was 2-3 lower than that of the US in the 21st century. Economy was doing great and people were enjoying exceptional increase in standards of living and unprecedented social benefits for workers. It was a great moral blunder of Hitler to lower himself to the level of Stalin.

  3. FB says: • Website

    Excellent article…could hardly believe I was reading a non-fantastical, non-Nazi revisionist interpretation of WW2 era politics on UNZ…imagine that…

    Great to see another left writer deeply disgusted with the post-Cockburn sack of shit known as counterpunch…

    • Agree: Miggle, MarkU
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Deschutes
  4. Samizdat says:

    i stopped reading after seeing the word “hitlerites.” yawn

  5. OMG, here we go again, the standard Victor Davis Hanson view flavored with Howard Zinn. This article belongs on The Nation, not UNZ. Mr. Barry would greatly benefit by reading Mark Weber’s Why Hitler Attacked the Soviet Union, previously posted. Without diving into the mass of misinformation n misinterpretations, I’ll just point out that Stalin’s turn against the “social-fascists” occurred in 1928 not 1932. The latter date was the beginning of his frustrated reversal. And to point out that Franco did not receive “support from the greatest military power in the world, Germany”. Rather, the Soviet Union was the world’s greatest military power at the time, while Germany struggled to catch up, but never could as events proved. I recommend reading Adam Ulam’s An Ideology In Power, n also the various works of Eugene Lyons. I suspect he has already read Trotsky n I.F. Stone.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
    , @Deschutes
  6. How many are as many?

    “The KPD had no choice but to regard the Social Democrats as ‘fascism’s twin brother’ considering the SPD leadership had sided with Kaiser Wilhelm, who killed as many Namibians as Hitler killed Jews in the Herero genocide, against the revolutionaries.”

    • Replies: @the grand wazoo
  7. dafdoy says:

    If anybody ever addresses the strategic and tactical situation on the eve of WWII please include references to the following facts:

    Soviet ideology was expansionist. We enjoy all the variants of Marxisms because they still grapple with the fact that world communism has not come to be, but SHOULD.

    What about the facts that Viktor Suvorov presented. Further: Why should Stalin NOT have attacked first?

    If the Strasserists were not left, why did it please the businessmen in Germany that Hitler had them killed?

    All in all, a clearly ideological article which rehashes decades old tropes and remains mired in a worldview long gone.

    • Replies: @Gunnar
  8. Cyrano says:

    Watch out for all the retards coming out of the woodwork on this one. Spinning tales how Hitler was the good guy because he hated communism. Right. And he called his brand of fascism – national Socialism.

    One of those S’s in USSR actually stood for – Socialism. There never was “Communism”. So Hitler attacking the USSR because they were socialists is like Spain attacking Italy because they are Catholics. Doesn’t make any sense, morons. You know who you are.

  9. PeterMX says:

    Hitler and Germany did a lot more appeasing than the allies, which really had no business involving themselves in Czechoslovakia or Poland, unless you think Germany should have intervened on India’s side when the British were smashing heads there, intervened in Algeria to help them against the French or in the Philippines or other places where Americans smashed heads in their “possessions” (colonies). By contrast, the “Czechoslovakians”, a country and word invented in 1919, all had representatives from whatever language group they came from representing themselves in the Austro-Hungarian Reichstag before the allies dissolved the country. When the allies stole Bohemia and Moravia and the beautiful city of Prague from Austria, they should have known this would not stand, unfortunately the Germans didn’t have the power to stop the thieves then or in 1945. Czechoslovakia was a bastardized state which few of its citizens wanted, neither the millions of German speaking Austrians, the Slovaks and at least some Czechs too. But the allies desire was to break up and weaken Germany and Austria because the Germans were so far ahead of everyone else in everything, the only thing holding them back was having no natural resources.


    At a mass meeting in Prague, 200,000 Czechs pledge loyalty to their homeland and to the German Reich. Czech Minister Emanuel Moravec addresses the large rally on July 3, 1942, on Wenceslas Square, near the historic statute of St. Wenceslas. He concludes with an expression of confidence in a better future for the Czech people, and of support for the “new Europe,” the “National Socialist revolution,” “our leader, Adolf Hitler,” and “our state president, Dr. Hacha.”

    This video is censored in Europe, where the allied lies are upheld by the law

    Germany had a reputation for being a good colonizer, although they only had a colonies for about 40 years and their “empire” was small compared to what other countries had, but like the once beautiful cites the English, Dutch and others created in South Africa, they created the nice city Windhoek in Southwest Africa (now called Namiba). Other than that, Namibia is still little more than a desert. The so called Herero genocide is a new invention we only heard about in the last few years, probably given impetus with the help of those that told the world for 40 years or more that Germany had industrial processes making Jewish fat into soap and Jewish skin into lampshades. There is as much evidence for the lie of the “Herero genocide”. The discredited author of “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”, Daniel Goldhagen, seems to have helped create the “Herero genocide” fable. The most infamous colonizers of the 20th century were the Belgians and the Belgian Congo. Most people heard the term the “Belgian Congo” growing up, even if many probably didn’t know what it referred to. The “Herero Genocide” is a brand new term, like when the word “Holocaust” that had its meaning changed around 1970 to refer to Jews.

    Like the author, I have also noticed the attempts by some (I think from those on the right, not the left) to assert the National Socialists and Communists were “allies”. This is a lie as big as any. Germany was the only country that condemned the mass murder of millions by the Bolsheviks, and they condemned the regime continuously in speeches, while the media in the USA, Great Britain and elsewhere was ignoring and denying the mass murder being committed. The New York Times covered it up because the paper was (has always been) owned by Jews, and Germany referred to the USSR as Judeo-Bolshevik. Much of eastern Europe knew this too. So when the Baltic States signed a treaty with “Hitler” it may have been because they feared the USSR, which occupied them without a fight in 1940. When the Germans arrived in 1941 the Estonians and Latvians formed their own legions which fought alongside Germany’s Waffen SS against the communists. Turkey was also an ally of Germany in WW I and was a traditionally friendly with Germany (which seems to bother the author. Poland proposed to France three times during the 1930’s that they invade Germany. France wisely said “no”. But I would think the only people that would not want Poland and Germany to have a treaty would be those that wanted the war, people like the author of this article, the British, the FDR regime and the Jews, which were intertwined closely with both.

    They did their best to sabotage the peace negotiations between Germany and Poland, which were ongoing right up to the moment Hitler finally gave up because the Poles more or less spat in his face and said all the land and Germans Poland now ruled over would remain Polish. If the negotiations had succeeded (and probably would have if not for the British) there most likely never would have been a WW II, including any war between Germany and the USSR.

    But while the Judeo-Bolsheviks were murdering millions, Germany had very little violence. In fact, the most infamous case of violence in Germany, Kristallnacht (in which 84 Jews died), was caused when a Polish Jews family that had immigrated to Germany during or after WW I was deported back to Poland. So, they were not fleeing “Hitler”, but wanted to stay in Germany. So their son murdered a young German diplomat in France (a “NAZI” to you guys) which then caused Kritallnacht. But while Germany was at peace (probably with less violence than the USA’s Chicago), many Jews (not all) were being stripped of their rights and were encouraged to leave the country and because of this the Jews created a lie as big as the lie that Putin and Trump were drinking buddies that stole the US election and that Putin awarded Trump with beautiful Russian prostitutes and “golden showers”. The dumbed down British and Americans were bombarded with horror stories about a holocaust before the war even began and it supposedly actually happened (although that is now on shakier ground than ever). The Polish ambassador to the US wrote several letters back to Warsaw on the atrocity propaganda Jews were promoting in the US, saying Jews own or run nearly all the media.

    For an introduction to how and why the war began from a German revisionist historian, I recommend listening to this fascinating speech by this German author on his relatively new book. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is uncovered and discussed, including a juicy detail of American involvement. They were privy to the details of what was going on by an American diplomat stationed on Moscow.

    Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof ‘s The War That Had Many Fathers
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gerd+schultze-rhonhof+english

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  10. @utu

    Actually, Hitler DID have blood on his hands: the elimination of the SA leadership during the “Night of the Long Knives” in 1934. As for Stalin being a mass murder and “genocider” as you call him, I should like to observe that ALL state-level politicians of great powers everywhere and always end up being murderers. Stalin was a killer, and so was Hitler. Churchill was (talk about a mass murderer!) and so was FDR. Truman, Eisenhower, etc, down to the imposter Obomba (may God punish the bugger) and even Trump, all of them politicians AND murderers, though each one’s tally is different.

    Killing ought to be interpreted in the widest possible sense, comprising all violent deaths both domestically, and abroad by armed personnel under the command of the politician, including judicial murders, wanton police kilings, elimination of rivals and potential troublemakers (Clintons!), etc. etc.

    This being so, I wonder if it is ethical to classify these murderers by the (estimated) numbers of their victims. If we do that, who ought to know the exact figures, which we never do.

    We may, however, establish rough comparisons by categories. For instance, truly major butchers with victims numbering hundreds of thousands or millions, such as Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Bush II, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Nicolas II, Kaiser Wilhelm; lesser ones (victims in the high hundreds or thousands) such as De Gaulle, Bush I, Obomba, Thatcher, Videla, Pinochet, Juan Vicente Gómez, Papa Doc; and the minor killers (victims numbering dozens or somewhere in the low hundreds), who would comprise relatively decent figures such as Jimmy Carter.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  11. @utu

    Yes, that was before 1939, but after …

    See : Wikipedia , Nazi crimes against the Polish nation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation

    from which this quote :

    On 15 March 1940 SS chief Heinrich Himmler stated: “All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation consider the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task.”

    and this picture :


    I am sure now our diligent re-re-re-revisionists will hasten to “prove” that all that didn’t happen, that it was all lies by Jews and Allies, that all documents and photos were falsified and that confessions were only obtained by torture. Thus they think the reputation of Holy Hitler and his Noble Nazis are saved. Well, perhaps for their little sect of Hitler-cultists, but not for the rest of humanity.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Carpenter W
    , @utu
  12. And neither is there a blue/white-green alliance, in the meaning of green being Islam/Muslims and blue/white being Judaism/”Israel”. It’s all a theater to keep alive the myths of the “barbaric ‘Nazis” and the “evil Hitler”, hence him being a stooge and National Socialism a stage for international Judaism, just as the “barbarism of Islam” and the Hitler-like characters of Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and the “terrorism” by groups like Hizbollah, Hamas and IRGC. Germany during Hitler and the NSDAP defeated Judaism and Judaism has not yet defeated Islam. Connecting the dots?

    PS. One could argue some basic errors in the essay but that’s not the point with my post. Thanks.

  13. Miggle says:
    @utu

    That’s not the impression of pre-1939 Germany I gained from Bernt Engelmann’s In Hitler’s Germany. The workers were working 10-hour days on near-starvation wages and their employers were given unlimited power over them, were their Führers. Dissenters were arrested “for their own protection” and soon after died “trying to escape”. Even an SS officer kept hidden that his child was retarded because otherwise she would have to die. And the Röhm Putsch in which all the Brownshirts were exterminated by the Blackshirts for the reason the author mentions, to appease the giant capitalists, was in 1934. That reason is the same reason Trump must destroy Venezuela and put the workers there on 10-hour days at starvation wages: to appease the giant capitalists. Your dear Adolf was very modern. Perhaps by then he did not have an ocean of blood on his hands, but already he had several deep lakes of it by 1939. As for your “lower himself to the level of Stalin,” clean up all the propaganda you drooled before you slip. You can say Hitler was an angel relative to any recent US president, but relative to Stalin, no.

    • Replies: @Gunnar
    , @Aldene
    , @utu
  14. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    “following the consolidation of power after the Nazi-engineered Reichstag fire ‘false flag’ operation was blamed on them.”

    1.http://www.heretical.com/miscella/reichstg.html
    Sefton Delmer: The Reichstag Fire
    I saw the Reichstag fire not only from the outside, but the inside – in all senses of the word. And as a result I formed a view of its origin very different from the legend accepted by historians.

    2. http://www.historicalblindness.com/blogandpodcast//firebrand-in-the-reichstag
    Furthermore, he reveals the true mind behind the Brown Book and the London counter-trial to be none other than Wilhelm Münzenberg, the head of Agitprop, or the Communist Agitation and Propaganda Department, in Paris. Indeed, Tobias goes through every charge in the Brown Book, showing it to be an outrageous tissue of lies and forgeries invented not only to indict Nazis for starting the fire but also to further the Communist cause.

  15. @utu

    It was a great moral blunder of Hitler to lower himself to the level of Stalin.
    ———————————————————————————-
    Well, the Germans lowered themselves even more by making an agreement with the Zionists – “The Transfer Agreement.”

  16. Art says:

    The notion of a ‘red-brown’ alliance has been thrown around so ubiquitously as a form of political slander that any substantive meaning to the term has been evacuated.

    In the West, Jews control the right and the left. There is no political “Red-Brown” fight.

    The only battle is Jew vs. anti-Jew!

    Anti-Jews are just starting to fight.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  17. Karel says:
    @utu

    Yes, it was great a real paradise running on debts. Hjelmar Schacht by issuing his “Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft” promisory notes made this possible

  18. Excellent article that plainly shows the truth. Not only USSR signed non aggression pact with Germany. But because USSR was supposed to be sacrificial lamb that pact immediately was turned into what it was not . Alliance. By western powers who actively were helping and abetting nazis. Munich as example. Unz review full of crappy pro Nazi articles by crappy authors except Giraldi, Martyanov, shamir, partly Saker and Sailer. This one is a breath of fresh air. Now various loons are going to pile on with their crappy comments.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @G
  19. PeterMX says:

    That is Germany’s Foreign Minister Ribbentrop standing directly behind the USSR’s Foreign Minister Molotov. Stalin is standing next to Ribbentrop.

  20. Dargan says:

    I didn’t realize Cockburn died. Shame. I used to like reading Counterpunch many years ago as a teenager. Anyway, I returned there recently for the first time in probably a decade. How it has changed! There was some clown there seriously defending Christina Ford’s proven slander against Brett Kavanaugh, and even spreading the lie that he used to raped women. Now I’m no fan of that cuckservative Kavanaugh, but lying about something that obvious is a real low for Counterpunch.

  21. Ron Unz says:
    @Tane

    Okay article, though reading it I was surprised to find that the author is a mostly unreconstructed Stalinist.

    This reminds me of an amusing story that the late Alex Cockburn used to tell…

    Back almost twenty years ago, he’d been invited as a speaker on one of the annual NATION fund-raising cruises, along with Eric Alterman, a young neo-leftist whom he couldn’t stand.

    At one point, Alterman ferociously attacked him for refusing to denounce Stalin, “the evilest man whom ever lived.”

    Big mistake. Stalin had been the lifelong hero of most of the elderly NATION donors listening to the talk, who looked around at each other with puzzled expressions. “But the Red Army saved Europe” one of them said…

    http://www.unz.com/acockburn/selling-out/

    Poor Alex. If he were still alive, I’m sure he would have been recently purged from COUNTERPUNCH. Here’s what one of the leading current Counterpunchers wrote about him a decade ago:

    https://louisproyect.org/2009/08/15/alexander-cockburn-fetus-fetishist/

  22. Mulegino1 says:

    Underlying the ‘red-brown’ concept is essentially a false equivalency between the Soviet Union and fascism.

    Any crimes realistically imputed to the Third Reich and Fascist Italy are dwarfed by orders of magnitude by what was done in the Soviet Union.

    The western Allies were worthy competitors with the Soviets in the art of mass murder, although most of the killing of the latter was carried out from a high altitude, so there was less of an objective encounter with the victims.

    The so called “Allies” owned mass murder as standard operating procedure. The so called “Hitlerites” and Fascists were virtually benign by comparison, if one is to judge by objective historical analysis and statistics, and not by the kosher comic book narrative of the war years.

    The Luftwaffe began its intervention with the aerial bombardment of the Republican-held Basque town of Guernica, inspiring one of Pablo Picasso’s most famous paintings.

    Guernica, as the location of a Loyalist military headquarters, was a legitimate tactical target, and the Luftwaffe did not deliberately target civilians. It was the British and their RAF, not the Luftwaffe, which initiated the deliberate terror bombing of civilian targets.

    The bombing of Guernica did not inspire Picasso’s ugly painting. It was originally intended to depict a bullfight. Ever the artistic fraudster, pro-communist Picasso simply changed the name of the work to “Guernica” and the leftist world of modern art, centered in kosher New York, ate the fraud up as if it had been bagels and cream cheese.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @EugeneGur
  23. “Like Hitler in Germany, General Francisco Franco became the Caudillo of Spain while there was a schism on its political left and since history is written by the winners, decades of anti-Soviet propaganda have placed the blame on those who tried to save the Spanish Republic in 1939 for his rise to power.”

    Parry, apparently, hasn’t read much Spanish civil war history. In fact,much, if not most of it, has been written and promulgated by the left (e.g. Paul Preston).

    “George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, which is unfortunately the sole account most people will ever read of the Spanish Civil War. It’s reliability is even doubted by Western historians in its demonization of the loyalist cause.”

    This is blatant nonsense. Orwell’s account exposed Stalin’s duplicity and megalomania as he extended his party purges into Spain, framing and murdering anti-Stalinist leftists (e.g. Andreu). Stalin was more deadly for the Spanish left, the loyalists cause, than Franco. Some very good historians (e.g. Stanley Payne, Burnett Bolloten) have confirmed this.

    http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2015/05/santiago-carrillo-last-stalinist_51.html

  24. refl says:

    – To propagate this fable is to spit on the graves of those who perished –

    Please, this is not how you get a view on history or on the world around you in any way.
    As I have come to understand, Comunism in the USSR was brought about by the entities of what this author calls Monopol Capitalism, the same which helped Hitler come to power, and who let then crush each other. This was about crushing two empires at the price of one.

    As I further understand, these same entities underestimated the capacity of Russia to survive.
    It is obvious that these entities want to do with Russia now the same which they have done with Germany a century ago.
    And this is certainly not to absolve the Nazis. These people were useful idiots and thus, well – idiots.

    Excuses for generalising so much and thanks to the host of this site for the numerous enlightening articles and for allowing a level of debate which most of us would else not find in a lifetime.

  25. G says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Where to even begin with this article and your comment? It seems rather pointless to argue against a mountain of continuation of allied war propaganda – not intended as a “smear”, but simply a category, then at best half-truths and Stalinist apologism which even goes to great lengths as to portray one of the most murderous regimes in world history as a innocently, invaded victim that totally did not intend to invade Western Europe. “Überfall auf die Sowjetunion” Similar to Chomsky and many others trying to portray the Soviet Union as acting out of pure self-defense in the Cold War and its experience with aggressions from Hitler and Napoleon.

    I grew increasingly skeptical in the past when hearing the phrase “THE truth about X” and similarly when reading a sentence like yours “Excellent article that plainly shows the truth” I feel the same way. Because it is usually the opposite. Absolute claims demand absolute evidence. And it is also not helpful, because in the present Germany and Russia are partners and the inclusion of Russia is very important to both countries and the weaponization of our past against both of us only serves a third, external group. Let’s call them the USA and leave it at that.

    But just to be a “revisionist” on this article and one of the actual revisionist points the author made: the communist revolution in Bavaria, around Kurt Eisner and Rosa Luxemburg and the other Jewish leaders, or ‘Spartacist uprising’ and the Räterepublik that followed it was not and organic outgrowth of the German working class, the same working class that had sided with Hitler and thus contributed to the rise of the theories of the Frankfurt School in the first place. Let alone a major revolutionary, anti-monarchical and anti-traditional sentiment among the majority of them. In fact that revolution wasn’t German at all and had great similarities to the Bolshevik revolution. And indeed SPD Ernst Thälmann would today be called a “fascist, reactionäry” and most importantly “völkisch” by the far left plague that is today infesting my country. They indeed do it to similar figures.

    Hitler as a vulgar ‘puppet’ or “ordinäre Blechfigur” of Western capitalists and the bourgeoisie is really very old Marxist nonsense. It has already been “debunked” not by David Irving, or anyone you would call “a Nazi lover”, but by the mosts respected mainstream Historian who wrote the standard work on the time, Joachim Fest. Who was an enemy of the Nazis and had zero sympathies for the regime. And who I would recommend you to read instead, for it was also him that coined the term ‘Hitlerism’ in the first place to characterize the system. And I agree with Fest that not much has come out after him to add to the objective picture from his time when history was still regarded as a science and was independent of political influence.

    Weaponizing the past to justify your political agenda in the present or ‘holier than thou’ image of your country, or the demonization of your rival, is usually a bad strategy. For it leaves history distorted, because you are willing to bend the facts to fit your faith, and your actions tainted. Unfortunately it is also the most common practice. Among all sides of the political spectrum. I am interested in a peaceful, cooperative future with Russia which the USA has been undermining for the last 15 years. And let’s leave it at that.

  26. Gunnar says:
    @dafdoy

    you say:
    “Soviet ideology was expansionist. ”

    I don’t care for the rest. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about! google “socialism in one country”. The fact, that Stalin was against any expansion was one of the great disputes with Trotsky and his ilk.

    It is always the same with anti-marxists and anti-socialists. I NEVER met one who actually read Marx or any other philosopher/politician he criticizes and they never know the history right.

    Please read something substantial – the writings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin are easily available. If you are able to digest that……and don’t be like Jordan Peterson, if you start, read the 6 pages of the manifest and think you know anything…..READ!

  27. Tulip says:

    Ridiculous. Communist movements (Trotsky excepted) were Stalinist fronts, and then Soviet fronts, pushing Soviet geopolitical interests. Brown/Fascist/Nazi movements were Nazi fronts, pushing German/Axis geopolitical interests. Red and Brown converged in the late 30’s because there was an alignment of Soviet and Nazi geopolitical interests to keep America out of Hitler’s war.

    No Soviet Union = No reds.

    No Third Reich = No browns.

    Today, geopolitics is dominated by a 500 lb. gorilla, Pax Americanus, and the enemies of Pax Americanus, call them the Leper’s club, namely Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba to name a few. Some of these nations claim to be socialist. China calls itself socialist but by its actions appears to be the new brown. Iran is an Islamic Republic, whatever that is. Russia and Syria are vaguely nationalist, perhaps brown, but neither is an ethnostate (like Israel) and neither claims to want to be a ethnostate. In fact, government appeals to territorial nationalism seem more like an attempt to unify a polyglot than some kind of exclusionary, ethnonationalism.

    Political activism either supports the American Imperium or seeks to check the American Imperium. If you are geopolitically against the American Empire, then you serve the interests of the Lepers clubs, who want to remain in existence. If you are not in your heart opposed to the American Empire, but you want it to change course, then for purposes of this exercise, you are as good as a geopolitical enemy from the standpoint of the establishments.

    If people are on the same side geopolitically, then they are potential allies. Most of the ideological differences between so-called Left and Right are about domestic administration, but the most important function of the state is its geopolitical orientation (external friends and enemies), because external threats pose the greatest existential threat. Someone seeking a change in direction on foreign policy is the same as someone else seeking a change in direction, whether person one wants an ethnostate and person two wants a command economy.

    Today, you have the antifa Larpers and Nazi Larpers, and they fight, but neither group can be said to be self-conscious of the rest of the world in which they fight. They have a political orientation, an enemy, but they are not much different from the Crips and the Bloods, ultimately apolitical, as if America underwent a complete (non-totalitarian) political revolution, you would still have battles of Larpers trying to recreate the 1930’s, just as you would have drug trafficking gangs fighting for territory. Obviously, if things went totalitarian, then the party would either shoot or co-opt the rivalry.

    If you embrace Pax Americanus, then you support the extension of globalization, Americanization, and hyper-capitalism by force on the entire face of the planet. It does not make you Left or Right, you are just carrying on the reboot of British Imperialism. If you question Pax Americanus or the benefits of globalization, hyper-capitalism or Americanization, that places you on the other side, and it doesn’t make you Left or Right either.

    Communism is dead. Nazism is dead. The “real” Left is dead. The “real” Right is dead. There are no real Reds, and there are no real Browns, and pretending like 2019 is 1934, or that the political and geopolitical struggles of the present have any similarity to the struggles of the 30’s is blind and stupid. WWII + Cold War was the battle for world supremacy, and America won. History ended. In the 30’s, and even in the 80’s, the verdict of history was still open, but now it is closed. Now is the time for the resurrection of history, but revisiting an old question that is settled, call it taking an appeal, is a different political process from attempting to persuade history to render a favorable verdict in the first place.

    It is interesting that a certain aspect of the Left equates Leftism with opposition to Antisemitism, which is obviously, a possible choice, but if you look at the relative power of the Jewish people in the 1930’s and their power in 2019, at time at which they possess a relatively successful, if fragile, Jewish ethnostate with a geopolitical agenda, well, the point is anti-antisemitism translates into a very different political agenda. Defending the rights of a small minority in diaspora is different from defending the geopolitical agenda of an expansionist and militaristic ethnostate.

  28. Gunnar says:
    @Miggle

    Thanks for this comment. Just thanks for truth and reason! 🙂

  29. @PeterMX

    It is now known Stalin was massing troops on its border with Germany. It is also know Stalin wanted to wait until Germany was weakened by war with England and France to invade Germany, which never happened. Hitler knew that if Russia entered the war on the side of the Allies it would be curtains for Germany. He knew he could never win a two front war. The Soviets had actually initiated secret talks with Britain, Poland, and France … before signing the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact … to coordinate an attack on Hitler. The talks broke down because Poland (for obvious and very understandable reasons) refused to grant the Soviets right of way through their territory, which scuppered the whole idea.

    Hitler knew his only chance for victory was a massive surprise attack on Russia. Hitler had also underestimated the Soviets military power. All things considered, Hitler came closer to victory than historians will ever admit.

    Thanks PeterMX for setting the record straight.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  30. Tulip says:

    If want to be a Stalinist, be a Stalinist, but be a real Stalinist.

    Stalin didn’t oppose National Socialism or Fascism out of some philosophical commitment. He was happy to ally with Hitler when it served his interests, and the Soviets were happy to work with plenty of fashy Arab Nationalist regimes when it served their geopolitical interests.

    Stalin opposed National Socialism and Fascism because they were rival ideological movements he couldn’t control. Stalin would never LARP in fake street battles against fascists. He would focus on a way to gain entry to power, and then work on consolidating his power, absolutely. In this respect, comparison to Hitler is appropriate. Communism was the available means in Russia, National Socialism was the available means in Germany.

    Modern “Leftism” from protests to street battles is about performative narcissistic exhibitionism, mostly apolitical.

  31. If anyone wants to know who put hitler and the bolsheviks in power, read wall street and the rise of hitler and wall street and the bolshevik revolution by Anthony Sutton, both can be had on amazon.

    It was the zionist bankers!

    • Replies: @Art
  32. @Tulip

    Correct, internationally the present struggle is between Globalism and Nationalism, not between “Left” or “Right”. Globalism is a combination of International Capitalism and Cultural Marxism, Nationalism can be a combination of anything, as long as it is nationalistic.

    BTW, it is pax americana, not pax americanus.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Tulip
  33. @Hans Vogel

    We are always no more than one step away from democide.

  34. Parfois1 says:

    Very courageous of both, Max Parry and Ron Unz, for writing and publishing this article here – a veritable swamp of unreconstructed Hitler-worshippers and illiberal racialists who parrot-like repeat endlessly the USSR-Germany Non-Aggression Treaty as an alliance between Socialism and Fascism. Nothing was further from historical truth than such mischaracterization propagated by the Western Neo-Fascism in its anti-soviet narrative. In fact, while the Red Army was still suffering untold costs in lives to defeat German Fascism, the inheritors of Hitler’s mantle – Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman – were already planning the destruction of the Soviet Union: Operation Unthinkable, Pincher, Broiler, Sizzler, etc.
    Unlike the Hitler apologists here who assert that Barbarrosa was a pre-emptive strike against “soviet aggression”, the UK/US leaders – then, as now against Russia – did not bother to cloth their genocidal war plans against the USSR on the grounds of “soviet aggression” ; it was merely naked and cruel intent on incinerating dozens of soviet cities for no other reason than killing many tens of millions of people because they were building “socialism in one country” (Stalin’s policy) and that was unforgivable.
    No wonder the soviets, belatedly, started work on their Manhattan Project, five years after USA’s, and after NATO set up the Iron Curtain.

    • LOL: JMcG
    • Replies: @Carpenter W
    , @L.K
  35. There are wider considerations to any analysis of the Spanish Civil War. Spain was adjacent to British-held Gibraltar, which was the key to naval access to the Mediterranean. When the Royal Navy’s attack on the new central European powers came, it would have to pass through this bottleneck. And come it would, for imperialist England was the natural enemy of the new nationalist states, whose success the British took as an existential challenge to their continental power-sharing arrangements in western Europe. It was vital for German and Italian national defense that Spain be in friendly hands for the coming clash of ideologies. Interestingly, after the war began the treacherous Franco would refuse to allow German troops to pass through Spain for the ground assault on Gibraltar.

    Meanwhile Stalin, who already had the blood of innocent millions on his hands, gave speech after speech in the Politburo arguing that communism could not survive if Russia stood alone against the wrath of the capitalist powers. Long before the Third Reich came into being, Stalin began modernizing the Red Army into a powerful army of invasion, for he also acknowledged that Europe would never willingly submit to communism. He held that total war would be the only means to accomplish his goal. Stalin’s support of the Republican faction in Spain was the first phase of his larger plan of European domination. To this end Stalin would later supply food and weapons to Germany itself for the war that England and France did indeed eventually contrive to declare against her, in hopes that when all three powers had exhausted their resources fighting one another, his powerful intact forces would roll in and take all of Europe and Britain.

  36. “Nazi-engineered Reichstag fire ‘false flag’ operation was blamed on them.”

    Socialists like Max Parry can’t stop lying. He also calls the murderous communist attempted takeover in 1919 a “German Revolution”. Here’s the truth about the Reichstag fire:

    The fire was started by Dutch, Jhewish euro-communist Victor van der Lubbe. He was found by the police on the scene and proudly confessed. He was half-naked, as he was deranged and had used his own clothes to start the fire.

    His co-conspirators were also arrested and all confessed. During the trial all of them confessed again. They were proud of what they did. It was meant as a signal for a communist uprising.

    Victor van der Lubbe had obviously not walked through the city half-naked. So we have physical evidence, repeated confessions of all involved, and the perpetrator found on the scene. This is as much evidence as you can possibly get, short of being there and see Victor van der Lubbe strike the matches.

    But the Left always lies. The British communists held “an alternative trial” where they simply declared that it was the NSDAP that had started the fire through secret tunnels under the parliament. The anti-German media owners picked this up and ran with it. Fond of sham trials, like their idol Stalin.

    Wikipedia’s leftist editors cite as “proof” a link to a Der Spiegel article which simply states the communist claim as fact. With no evidence. Anyone who told the truth in Germany would be fired from the media.

    A little background:

    Communists in Germany were constantly waging terror against the people. They were fomenting riots where they smashed bank windows and store windows, looted the stores, beat up the store owners and their families when they tried to protect their homes. They attacked the Conservative and nationalist party gatherings.

    This terrorism is the standard communist method when preparing to take over a nation. They did the same in Russia, and when they took St. Petersburg they let out all the murderers and rapists from the prisons, and raped and murdered women and girls from non-worker families. They used the same terror in Hungary when Bela Kun took that country.

    They used the same street terror in Spain, and later in Chile. Socialist Allende only won the election because the conservative majority split their votes between two candidates, and there was no second round at that time. He illegally let out the communist criminals from jails and prisons as soon as they got there. The communists attacked the middle-class men and women who protested as Allende destroyed the economy by illegally taking businesses. The communists had Cuban advisors, Cuban arms and explosives, and they trained in Cuba for taking over Chile – with the aid of the highest echelons of the government, possibly Allende himself.

    Back to Germany. With the communist riots and terrorism all over Europe – with Tsars and officials having been murdered in Russia by communists long before they took power there – there was every reason to clamp down on the terror after the burning of the parliament. Later the Gestapo was formed, as a very small outfit despite what Hollywood bosses and media owners write about it. In a city the size of Frankfurt they had only fifteen people. They relied entirely on tips from the public to root out the communists and end the terror.

    Of course, someone like Max will not tell the truth about any of this. And so will repeat the lie about the parliament burning, ignoring all the evidence.

  37. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Aww, socialist Franklin finds a quote! That proves his point, surely!

    Completely ignoring the Polish plans to invade Germany – three times asking France to join in an invasion. The Germans found out the second time. This was a clear act of war.

    The Polish dictator Pilsudski thought he could beat Germany because Poland had beaten communist Hungary. His foreign minister told the German ambassador that Germany was bluffing: They had new divisions but no veterans to fill them with. And Pilsudski got assurances from Britain that they would swiftly come to Poland’s aid and beat Germany for them if Pilsudski could provoke a war.

    So Pilsudski started attacking the occupied Germans. They were beaten in the streets by the police, they were thrown out of their homes. Danzig rightly belonged to Germany, as even Churchill acknowledged. And all Germany asked for was guarantees for the safety of the Germans, and a land corridor to the German exclave in the east. They also wanted referendums in German-Polish areas where both Germans and Poles would vote on which country to belong to.

    But Pilsudski refused and prepared for war, asking France to do the same. Pilsudski dreamed of a Little Entente of north Slavs – a very exclusive club not allowing for example Estonians and Latvians, or Hungarians. The club would take land from the Soviet Union and Germany alike with British backing. Yes, he was that stupid. Pilsudski’s constant provocations deliberately started a war, as he had hoped.

    So, gee, think a German politician might have a reason to say something negative about the Poles, who conspired with Britain against them, and tried to bring in France for an invasion?

  38. @Parfois1

    “Unlike the Hitler apologists here who assert that Barbarrosa was a pre-emptive strike against “soviet aggression””

    Maybe read up a little on history. Stalin was amassing his forced on the German border. It is a fact that he wanted to invade Europe, after the West Europeans had been weakened, which was why he agreed to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Then started gathering the conscripts.

    Maybe try to think of how Germany could so easily destroy so much of the Soviet air force right away. That is because the planes were placed by the border, along with the soldiers, far away from their usual fortified positions. The soldiers were in front of rivers, not behind them, etc. These positions were for an attack, not for defense.

    A German who had traveled through the Soviet Union by train saw state functionaries hand out anti-German propaganda to all passengers by the train stations. Reading this, it was clear the Soviets would never want a lasting peace. As we now know they didn’t – they invaded all of Eastern Europe, Austria, and eastern Germany, and forced them to become part of the communist Soviet empire. Funny how you forget that little fact.

    Only the Austrians got away as they were allowed to hold a referendum, which the dumb commissars thought they could control, but nearly everyone voted for freedom from communism. The referendum scheduled in East Germany and other occupied nations two weeks or so later was immediately cancelled.

    And of course you will never mention history’s greatest mass rape, perpetrated by the communists. They raped and tortured millions of women in Eastern Europe. The communists interned in the concentration camps gang raped women and cut off their breasts, their limbs, slaughtered them. They attacked the German cities while the Western occupiers ignored their crimes. The Soviet army raped and murdered especially German and Austrian women, but also Baltic women, Polish women, Hungarian women, Czech women, Slovakian women, Romanian women, Bulgarian women, and more. The communists raped more women than had been raped in all other European wars combined.

    But keep making excuses for them! Surely they were peace-loving idealists!

    Meanwhile the American invaders raped thousands of French women and looted their homes, and allowed the communists to commit mass murder all across France, until Charles de Gaulle organized a “fascist” Patriot militia to stop them. This little detail is forgotten when the media write about de Gaulle’s hostility toward the Americans. By contrast, German soldiers did not rape. Those who did so were executed. The German army committed far fewer rapes than any other army in the war. They committed even fewer rapes than the U.S. army committed on U.S. soil.

    But keep carrying water for your beloved communists. Just like I’m sure you excuse the invaders and rapists in Western lands in our time.

  39. Which actions by the CNT (independently, or with POUM) constitute the crimes to which you allude?

    I would like a list, preferably with dates and places.

  40. Outstanding article full of facts. But it is coming from nowhere, going nowhere, and there is no will to prove anything.

  41. @Carpenter W

    Thank you for this great post. Unfortunately this info never reaches the average person…

  42. Wally says:
    @Mulegino1

    author Max Parry said:
    “The Luftwaffe began its intervention with the aerial bombardment of the Republican-held Basque town of Guernica, inspiring one of Pablo Picasso’s most famous paintings.”

    Indeed, Mulegino, what we’re told by Parry is pure propaganda. Guernica was a military target, plain & simple

    Guernica, by someone who has actually researched the event, with confirmation.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Gu … index.html

    [MORE]

    ON APRIL 26, 1937 a handful of planes of the “Condor Legion” carried out sporadic air attacks on the Basque town of Guernica, to deny an important river crossing to the retreating Republican (Communist) forces of the Spanish government. Ninety-eight people died.

    The Condor Legion was a squadron of airforce “volunteers” provided by Hitler’s Luftwaffe to the insurgents fighting under General Francisco Franco.

    The air raid on Guernica became a centerpiece of communist and Left-wing propaganda against Hitler and Mussolini. True, reporters later found the town center devastated, but by whom? By the bombs, or after the raid by withdrawing Communists armed with dynamite by the regions’ miners?

    Reporting on a visit to Guernica, The Times Military Correspondent stated on May 5, 1937:

    ,“That Guernica after a week’s bombardment by aircraft and artillery should not have shown signs of fire supports the Nationalist contention that aircraft were not responsible for the burning of this town, which was bombed intermittently for a period of two hours. In Guernica few fragments of bombs have been recovered, the façades of buildings still standing are unmarked, and the few craters I inspected were larger than anything hitherto made by a bomb in Spain. From their position it is a fair inference that these craters were caused by exploding mines which were unscientifically laid to cut roads.”

    A further unidentified source echoed this: “What actually happened was that industrial Basques, miners from Asturias, experts in explosives, fired and dynamited the town to a prearranged plan. Two French artillery officers, veterans of World War One inspected the town when Franco’s troops entered. What they saw was, they said, largely the result of arson and incendiarism. Petrol had been largely used, plus dynamite. Each alleged ‘bomb’ crater coincided with a sewer-manhole on the street, and where there had been no sewers there had been no ‘bombs.’”

    And Sir Arnold Wilson, Conservative Member of Parliament for Hitchin, Hertfordshire, wrote to The Observer after a visit to Guernica, on October 3, 1937: There was no evidence of damage from aerial bombardment, he said, but “most if not all of the damage was caused by wilful incendiarism and such is the verdict of the inhabitants.” Sir Arnold was convinced that Guernica was a “put-up job,” a Red atrocity-story calculated to recoil on Franco and the Germans.

    Thousands were said to have been killed by the bombs.[See e.g., Storia Illustrata, Italy, Oct 1966: “1,654 died, 889 injured”]. This version of history – no surprises here – has been uncritically adopted ever since by conformist historians who carried out no original research. The Spanish artist Pablo Picasso, a Communist multi-millionaire, commemorated the raid in a famous propaganda painting titled “Guernica”. It is on display in the United Nations building, and the original and sketches are displayed in a gallery in Madrid.

    Closer examination reveals the Picasso painting to be a surrealist depiction of a bullfight; his first sketches for it are found in notebooks dating back over one year before the raid.

    THE conformists’ narrative of events is open to question, as British historian David Irving found when he visited the town thirty years after the raid, researching for his book Guernica to Vietnam; he spoke with survivors and city officials, and checked local newspaper files [April 27] [27 again] [28] [29] and cemetery records [right] [register page 1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

    In 1987 he wrote a letter to The Daily Telegraph briefly reporting what he had found.

    In brief, the local registry of births and deaths lists fewer than one hundred deaths from the air raid (most of them killed in one incident in a shelter in a local asylum, the Hospital-Asilo Calzada); bad enough. It will serve to put things in perspective if we show that the local Communist newspaper Euzkadi Roja, publishing a report on the raid on April 28, 1937, included a list of names of those few injured in the attack.

    We would not have expected such a list to appear in the press after the later raids on London, Tokyo, or Dresden; in the two-week Israeli offensive in Gaza in January 2008, 40,000 Palestinians were injured and 1,300 killed.

    A READER writes, Friday, January 30, 2009:

    Mr. Irving, I recall this was discussed by Luis Bolin in his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, Spain: the Vital Years. He was the pilot who flew General Franco to Spain at the start of the war. His account supports the position you are defending.

  43. Aldene says:
    @Miggle

    Except for government workers most American workers, especially “managers and professionals” exempt from overtime; work 10 hours a day 50 or 60 hours a week

    Sometimes workers work on weekends and st night at home, but it’s still work.

  44. Wally says:
    @FB

    So tell us what is wrong with what you call ‘fantastical, Nazi revisionist interpretation of WW2 era politics ‘. Specifics please.

    Heretofore you have certainly not attempted to refute the demolition of, say, the fake “holocaust” that has been posted here. I suggest that is because you cannot.

    But hey, you do faithfully believe

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  45. @Johnny Walker Read

    I beg to differ. Stalin never wanted war with Germany, But Stalin seeing animosity of France and Britain toward Germany, wanted back what Trotsky treacherously given to Germany, in Brest-Litovsk peace agreement.
    Stalin’s approach was opportunistic. (Unfortunately little premature, and that infuriated Hitler.)

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @FB
    , @Fox
  46. Tulip says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    I think that depends upon the direction from which you look at it. . .

  47. Alden says:
    @Wally

    According to British spies on the ground in the town of Guernica, the destruction was done by communists setting explosives in the town to blow it up for propaganda purposes.

    The propaganda worked all too well.

    Franco and his forces were heroes who saved Spain from a communist take over. The Russian communists murdered the Spanish socialists early on and quickly took over. Franco defeated them although all good thinkers all over the world supported the Russian and other communists.

    One good thing the Russians did. They put the brainwashed liberal American communist zombies of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the front lines against Franco and many were killed in combat. The dead American communists, being dead couldn’t return to America, spread communism and spawn the Red Diaper Babies who did so much damage to America

    Excellent!!!!!

    5 words is all anyone needs to know.
    Communists and liberals always bad.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @JMcG
    , @Republic
  48. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:

    Every time I read a dizzying piece such as this I am eternally grateful
    to be born American, where the founding fathers were educated English
    Subjects charting a new course. You comparing Marx to Jefferson?

    • Replies: @Alden
  49. Cyrano says:

    Actually Germany attacking the Soviet Union first was a terrible mistake. They should have waited for the Soviet Union to attack first as was the “original plan”. Hitler thought that he outfoxed the Russians, but he didn’t.

    You see, I think that the fighting abilities of the Russians were overrated. As the events in Germany in 1945 proved, the Russians were lovers, not fighters. They much preferred to make love to German women than to fight.

    So if Germany allowed the Soviet Union to attack first, the German frauieins could have kept the Russians busy, and the Germans could have caught the Russians with their pants down literally.

    F**k you all, Nazi moron sympathizers. Don’t look for answers by rewriting history, try to figure out how they are writing a phony history right now in front of your stupid eyes.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  50. @G

    Where to even begin with this article…

    Exactly.

    What a load of equine excrement; and not even of use as compost.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager, L.K
  51. @Carpenter W

    Marshall Pilsudski died in 1935. It seems you are confusing him with Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck and Marshal Edward Rydz-Smigly (Pilsudski’s successor), who conspired with France, Great Britain and the US in 1938-39 to entice Hitler to declare war on Poland.

    • Replies: @Fox
  52. fnn says:

    The true story on Guernica:
    https://theworthyhouse.com/2019/04/16/on-francisco-franco/

    In any mention of the Civil War, another standard candle, the 1937 bombing of the Basque town of Guernica by the German Condor Legion, always comes up. This is not because it was the only, or the most damaging, aerial bombing of the war, but because the Left chose it as the focus of a propaganda campaign. Aerial bombing was then highly inaccurate (my grandmother’s house in Debrecen, Hungary, during World War II, was partially destroyed as the result of American bombs missing the railway station). Payne notes that far from the “planned terror-bombing” of leftist fever dreams, the bombing of Guernica was a routine strike on a military target (and as Payne notes, “indiscriminate attacks on cities, almost always small in scope, were in fact more commonly conducted by the Republican air force,” giving the example of the bombing of Cabra, which killed more than a hundred civilians, but of which you have never heard). (Preston, of course, ignores these facts, and accepts at face value high-end, propagandistic claims for the number of dead.) The inept and mendacious Nationalist response, including the suggestion that the Republicans had burned Guernica themselves to deny it to the Nationalists (it was a largely wooden town), made things worse for the Nationalists. But it was propaganda gold for the Left, who inflated the casualty figure, Payne says, “approximately one thousand percent” (the real figure was around 200, maybe somewhat more or less, and only that high because an air-raid shelter took a direct hit).

  53. @Wally

    Totally agree on Guernica. I wrote a better-sourced account of it, which appears in the book “The Artist Within the Warlord: An Adolf Hitler You’ve Never Known”, on pages 80-83, which can be purchased through Amazon. Find it on my website http://carolynyeager.net

  54. Well, the author is trying to undermine an important lie of neocons and “liberals”, posing as “left” or “right”. This positioning is pure tactics: all neocons, antifas, and other scum, regardless of their mimicry, serve the same masters: globalists, who want to rob the whole globe, not just an individual country. Soros is the most notorious example. Fortunately, Soros will die soon (he looks like he had already died a few weeks ago). Unfortunately, he is not the only one, and it won’t be easy to get rid of the rest of globalist mega-thieves.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  55. L.K says:
    @Parfois1

    Very courageous of both, Max Parry and Ron Unz, for writing and publishing this article here BLAH, BLAH

    LOL.
    If you think Ron Unz agrees with this laughable piece by M. Parry, you are obviously very unfamiliar with Unz’s writings!

    By Ron Unz:

    American Pravda: When Stalin Almost Conquered Europe
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/

  56. POUM and CNT opposed the Stalinists in Barcelona at some point of the civil war, but to call them Quislings is slanderous, as where is the evidence that they were collaborating with Franco? They were after all in a United Front against Franco. The author is just repeating the official Stalinist and republican propaganda of the time. It is the same accusation used against Trotsky and his followers in the USSR who were labelled “fascists” or agents of Hitler and the Nazis by Stalin’s regime in the show trials. It was basically an internal dispute amongst communist revolutionaries and had nothing to do with either Franco or Hitler, respectively.

    I also think that it is an exaggeration to call Orwell an “informant”. I don’t think he provided anything on that list that the British secret services didn’t already know, and I doubt that the names on that list included those who really counted, MI6’s very own Soviet moles. It was more likely that Orwell compiled a list of the Stalinists he resented as revenge for the torture and murder of his comrades in Barcelona during the suppression of the POUM and CNT. He obviously bore a grudge against the Stalinist communists because of that to his dying day.
    .

  57. @Carpenter W

    His co-conspirators were also arrested and all confessed.

    In Stalin’s show trials in the late 1930-s all accused also confessed. Is he a lamb, then, and those who confessed were all guilty? If you believe what you write, I have a mountain to sell you.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  58. utu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Yes, that was before 1939” – I wrote what was before signing Molotov-Ribentrop pact.

    Since you are that concerned about Polish nation and Poles, just one year before in 1937-1938 Polish Operation of the NKVD was conducted in USSR when over 100k Poles (and some argue that closer to 200k) were executed on orders of Stalin. Just for being Polish and often just for having a Polish sounding name. It was happening when there was no plan of attacking Poland and 2-3 year before Himmler made his speech. At that time Poland still was toying with a possibility of accepting German offers. Actually until March 1939 when Poland finally rejected them after obtaining British guarantees. It was right after it that Hitler set the plan for invasion of Poland in motion. My comment was to not white was Hitler though in fact in 1939 that was not that much to whitewash yet but to point out that there was Stalin the true ubermurder of all times before Hitler .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

  59. EugeneGur says:
    @Mulegino1

    Any crimes realistically imputed to the Third Reich and Fascist Italy are dwarfed by orders of magnitude by what was done in the Soviet Union.

    This only shows that you have a wild imagination. There is nothing “imputed” about the crimes committed by the the Third Reich – they are quite real, and no less real just because you unrepentant Nazis don’t want to recognize them.

    I particularly admire the hypocrisy of the West in their tender concern for the Soviet victims of Stalin when the West never had the slightest trouble killing the Russians or helping others to do so. For example, the Western countries actively participated in the Russian civil war of 1917-1921 making it significantly more devastating than it otherwise might’ve been, which to a large extent set the stage for the subsequent excesses of the Stalin regime.

    However, whatever the Soviet regime of 1917-1941 was, it had nothing at all to do with the actions of the German Nazis, their war against the Soviet Union and their actions on the Soviet land. Nothing al all.

    The reason your Westerners dislike Stalin so much is not because you feel such overwhelming compassion for the Russian he unjustly imprisoned or executed but because he outwitted your and kicked your ass.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Mulegino1
    , @Wally
  60. Che Guava says:

    Max,

    I can see that your article has ‘triggered’ many here.

    My agreement is only partial, but thank you for raising many good points, esp. re. the foolishness or cynicism of Eric Blair.

    Your Trotskyites as cultists line is very good.

    I visited a few Trot households in my time overseas, that they were much like cult religionists was my feeling.

    One of the worst things one can do in life is to accept an invitation to a Trotskyite party’s party.

    I did once. It was a nightmare. They are like robots, or perhaps, parrots.

  61. Art says:
    @DESERT FOX

    If anyone wants to know who put hitler and the bolsheviks in power, read wall street and the rise of hitler and wall street and the bolshevik revolution by Anthony Sutton, both can be had on amazon.

    It was the zionist bankers!

    DESERT FOX,

    Hear Hear!

    Here is list of the ruling mostly Jew banker families. Jew debt and interest strangles humanity.

    http://theglobalelite.org/globalists/

    There is only one fight on our planet – clearly – it is Jew money vs. the world.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  62. Marcali says:

    ‘The Soviet offer – made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov – would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.
    But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.”
    Offer of 15 August, 1939.
    Source: The Telegraph, 18 Oct. 2008

    Who was aggressing on whom?

  63. It was said that people who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Hitler and Stalin apologists have one thing in common: they consider WWII as one and only event. Yet it was part of the recurring pattern.

    Napoleon was the first to unify Europe, make war on Russia, and get beaten to pulp. Hitler did exact same thing more than a century later, with exact same result. Now NATO is getting ready to step on the same garden rake for the third time: it unified Europe and its propaganda is preparing sheeple for the war with Russia. It was a different Russia every time (Russian Empire, USSR, Russian Federation), so it is crystal clear that nothing about Russia, except its existence, matters.

    Hegel was right, we learn from history that we do not learn from history.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  64. Exactly. Excellent piece.

    It’s a classic anti-semitic canard to claim that the Judeobolsheviks engaged in some sort of “imperialism” or “aggressive wars of expansion” during the 1920s – 40s. It was all simple self-defense. Every truly woke person understands this.

    The Soviets were forced to invade:

    -Poland (twice) — failing with Trotzky’s attempt, then annexing more than half of its territory on their second try, and later installing a puppet government for the remaining territory.

    -Mongolia and the Chinese province of Sinkiang — using chemical weapons (mustard gas) in the process.

    -The Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia)

    -Finland

    -Iran (neutral country at the time)

    -All of Eastern Europe — occupying it for decades, and annexing Carpathian Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia in 1945, and Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania.

    -Manchukuo

    -South Sakhalin and the Kurils (annexed, but solely out of a noble sense of solidarity with the Japanese proletariat– not out of any sort of imperialistic expansionism, of course)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact
    “When pressed by the Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, Molotov confirmed that the treaty did remain in force until April 1946.”

    All “self-defense,” of course. I mean… it’s obvious!

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  65. @Art

    The zionist bankers own the FED and since 1913 they have given we Americans debt and wars and destruction, the zionist bankers are satanic destroyers and have left us with unpayable debt owed to these satanists!

    A good site that reveals a lot about these zio/satanists is henrymakow.com.

  66. Cyrano says:

    Whenever the old whore capitalism wants to look prettier for the great unwashed – it applies a make-up called socialism. The Nazi Germany did it, and they are doing it now – except the socialist make-up these days is called “multiculturalism”.

    It turns out, with the make-up, the old hag looks even uglier. Then they want to blame the new abhorrent appearance on the make-up.

    It’s not socialism that’s ugly, it’s the old hag that cannot be made prettier no matter what. Or the problem could be that the make-up that they are applying is not socialism at all. It’s just another trick from the bag of tricks that the old prostitute has.

    If socialism was such a repulsive system, why does capitalism want to make it-self prettier by smearing its ugly face with phony versions of socialism?

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  67. @Carpenter W

    Socialists like Max Parry can’t stop lying. He also calls the murderous communist attempted takeover in 1919 a “German Revolution”. Here’s the truth about the Reichstag fire:

    The fire was started by Dutch, Jhewish euro-communist Victor van der Lubbe. He was found by the police on the scene and proudly confessed. He was half-naked, as he was deranged and had used his own clothes to start the fire.

    Exactly. See the description from Goebbel’s diary, which fits with Sefton Delmer’s account (he was present at the scene shortly after the fire broke out, and spoke with many of the NSDAP officials and others present).

    Who was Sefton Delmer? The guy in charge of anti-German black propaganda for the British during WW2. Clearly an ebil not-see — or at least a fellow traveler.
    Uh huh.

    As a side note:
    There’s an element of projection at work here. Note that the current (((media)))-promoted narrative is that any claim that a particular event was a “false flag” automatically constitutes a so-called “conspiracy theory” and must be instantaneously, reflexively rejected by all right-thinking persons who wish to continue as officially-recognized good goyim…
    Except if that claim involves da ebil not-sees — in which case it simply must be unquestioningly accepted… just as quickly.

    Kind of odd when you think about it; but few do.

    “False flags” are not uncommon — but one particular group seems to be responsible for a disproportionate share of them. If you really think about it, there’s a particular group that has mastered the art of portraying themselves as the supremely innocent victim in the media-promoted narrative of any incident, regardless of the reality.
    Hint — it’s not the group that is consistently portrayed as demons, as synonymous with the very essence of evil, in the founding myth of current year Western society…

    http://gtr5.com/

    https://infogalactic.com/info/King_David_Hotel_bombing

    Disguised as Arabs,[15] the Irgun planted a bomb…”

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Lavon_Affair

    “The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954.[vague] As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned civilian targets, cinemas, libraries and American educational centers. The bombs were timed to detonate several hours after closing time. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, “unspecified malcontents” or “local nationalists” with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone.

    Etc.
    http://americanfreepress.net/web-exclusive-israels-use-of-false-flags-in-global-terrorism/

    Or we could just take a look at recent stories on uns.com for a smaller-scale example of this technique:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-arent-hate-hoaxes-considered-hate-crimes/
    “An anti-Semitic attack originally called “the most brazen” the city had seen was staged by the owners of the restaurant that reported it, Winnipeg police say.”

    See also the notorious “Big Lie” trope.

    Everyone “knows” from the teevee or other “reliable” media source that Hitler advocated telling the “Big Lie” to fool the public… right?

    But what happens if someone puts that statement in a little too much context? Boom! Instant outrage and kvetching from the “jewish community” about muh so-called “anti-semitic canards.”

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201903291073644338-mein-kampf-us-congress/

    Wait — saying bad things about Hitler is “anti-semitic?” Huh? What’s going on here?

    Hitler wasn’t actually advocating the use of this technique — he was claiming that it was a commonly-employed semitic one. Whether that was an accurate observation is another question, but clearly it can’t be both.

    Was he taking credit for it? Or accusing the jews of it? Was it an officially-endorsed ebil not-see technique? Or an “anti-semitic trope?”

    When it comes to The Narrative, both are fine, it would appear — just depends on which is more useful in a given context. Basic logic/ internal consistency are not required when you own the megaphone…

  68. @Carpenter W

    Yes, one could say that the Polish leadership of that time had its own (foolish) Lebensraum ambition, but does that excuse Hitler’s Lebensraum Project? Hitler’s so-called modest demands (Danzig, a corridor to East Prussia, guarantees of safety for Germans and a referndum in German-Polish areas) were only a bait for the ultimate annexation of Poland, which happened with horrendous crimes. See, Wikipedia : Nazi crimes against the Polish nation. In the case of Czecho-Slovakia Hitler also made a “modest” claim on only the Sudeten part of that country, but once it lost its major defense line, he occupied the whole of it. Why would the Poles trust Hitler this time?

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Fox
    , @JP
    , @Wally
  69. @AnonFromTN

    Yes, the historical pattern is there. This will only end when (united) Europe sees Russia as a partner and not as an enemy of Europe. Peace of Russia with Europe (and by extension with the US) would be a blessing for all concerned.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  70. @AnonFromTN

    In Stalin’s show trials in the late 1930-s all accused also confessed. Is he a lamb, then, and those who confessed were all guilty?

    Ion Timofeevich Nikitchenko was one of the main judges at the Moscow trials of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite traitors, that the ignorant refer to as the “Moscow Show Trials.”

    As every educated person knows, Nikitchenko was also the head Soviet judge at the Nuremberg “war crimes” trials after WW2. Of course, those ebil not-sees were just as guilty as the wreckers and counterrevolutionaries were met their much-deserved fate at the Moscow trials, but try explaining that to these fools.

    They believe that Nikitchenko was a “evil godless Communist” in the late 30s who persecuted the innocent for no reason — but then suddenly became a true believer in Truth, Justice and The American Way just a few years later.

    Morons.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  71. @James Forrestal

    And Hitler’s plan for expansion of his Reich up to the Urals was also “only for self-defense” of course !

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  72. @Wally

    David Irving makes a lot of mistakes, but his devoted fans don’t seem to care. Here he says the painting Guernica is on display in the United Nations building.

    As I state in my brief article previously mentioned, the painting hangs in Spain’s National Museum of 20th Century Art in Madrid. A tapestry of the painting was commissioned by Nelson Rockefeller in 1955 to hang in the United Nations bldg. in New York.

    It is not a depiction of a bullfight, just because it contains a single bull image. It was commissioned by the Spanish Republican govt. to be used as PROPAGANDA they could display at the 1937 International Exposition in Paris. Not denying Picasso had previous sketches he drew on to create the piece, as he hurriedly completed it by June 1937! The bombing raid had taken place in April 1937.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @refl
  73. @Ron Unz

    And where did their rivals, the Trots, end up?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207196/trotskycons-stephen-schwartz

    Starts with:

    “On June 7, the National Post, a Canadian daily, published a rather amusing article by Jeet Heer, titled “Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House.” The aim of the author was to illuminate two issues occasionally argued in political media: first, the scurrilous claim by a group of “neofascists” that the neoconservatives are all ex-Trotskyists…

    Ends with:

    To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the “neofascists,” and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will.”

    “Scurrilous”

    I see.

    • Replies: @Tane
  74. Alden says:
    @Anon

    Well, Jefferson owned slaves and had children with at least one of them. Marx and his wife owned a serf names Lenchen and he had Frederick with her.

    Difference is that Jefferson supported all his children. Marx didn’t support his son by Lenchen. The Marxs, 3 kids, parents and the serf Lenchen lived in 3 rooms so there wasn’t much housework The Marxs graciously allowed to do day work for other families to earn money for the foster mother she placed Frederick with.

    Marx never acknowledged his son. Son went to a poly tech and became an engineer.

    Communists and liberals are bad. That’s all you need to know.

  75. Mulegino1 says:
    @Cyrano

    Revisionism is not “rewriting history” but correcting establishment court history with real facts. This is no more evident than revisionism with respect to the Manichean and Orwellian official narrative of the Second World War.

    It should be evident to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and critical thinking skills that the Allied victory spelled the decline and death of European Christendom. Had the Germans prevailed, Europe would not promote bearded transexuals as its official mascot or be subject to a tsunami of third world scoria overruning it.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    , @Cyrano
  76. Tane says:
    @James Forrestal

    Well, William F. Buckley was a neocon and not a Trot. Same with the second-generation neocons that were the ACTUAL heaviest Iraq boosters (and who brought “neoconservative” into public consciousness as a word.) Same with some of the older neocons who came in later, like Kagan Senior.

    Do we have any Trotskyists or ex-Trotskyists at Unz? Godfree Roberts is a former Maoist who reformed right alongside the CCP during the 70s and 80s and now loves Xi Jinping Thought.

  77. Mulegino1 says:
    @EugeneGur

    This only shows that you have a wild imagination. There is nothing “imputed” about the crimes committed by the the Third Reich – they are quite real, and no less real just because you unrepentant Nazis don’t want to recognize them.

    You unrepentant liberals and kosher cucks cannot point to a single real German atrocity which approaches anywhere near the scale of the slaughter of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Tokyo, or Nagasaki, inter alia.

    The Auschwitz scam has been falsified, along with the rest of the Holohoax and exposed as an extortion racket and pseudo-religion for the brainwashed goyim.

    The Soviets, not the Germans, were responsible for the plight of the wretched Soviet p.o.w.’s since they categorically refused reciprocity of treatment, Red Cross access and prisoner swaps with the Germans.

    Did the Germans carry out executions of partisans and hostages on the Eastern Front? Yes. These were not illegal according to the international rules governing land warfare at the time. Were these executions lied about by the Allies? Undoubtedly, by many orders of magnitude.

  78. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Peace of Russia with Europe (and by extension with the US) would be a blessing for all concerned.

    I’d say “would have been”. There are powerful forces that won’t let this blessing come to pass. Until these forces are destroyed, it is impossible.

  79. Well, William F. Buckley was a neocon and not a Trot

    lol

    “B-b-but Not All Neo-Trotskyites Are Like That! See, I can find one exception!!!”

    A classic neo-Trotskyite canard.

    Should I even mention that Cuckley was not one of the OG neo-Trotskyites, as you erroneously claim?

    Naw, that would be cruel…

    “I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not one single bitter memory”
    –Irving Kristol,”Neoconservatism” (1995)

    (Billy Kristol’s father — the “godfather of neoconservatism” — literally wrote the book on it)

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  80. Mulegino1 says:
    @EugeneGur

    The reason your Westerners dislike Stalin so much is not because you feel such overwhelming compassion for the Russian he unjustly imprisoned or executed but because he outwitted your and kicked your ass.

    Stalin was a providential figure, insofar as he set the stage for the preemptive action of Operation Barbarossa, by overtly manifesting his aggressive intentions by some of the largest offensive deployments in history on the western frontier of the Reich. The strike, which Hitler knew was a desperate gamble, ultimately failed, but bought Europe a little breathing space and made possible the survival of relatively independent nation states such as De Gaulle’s France.

    Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians were not going to fight for anything so abstract as world revolution or socialism in one giant state, so he made the giant conflict about Russia, reopened the Orthodox churches, restored the Patriarchate and commissioned the composition of the Hymn of the Soviet Union, in the old chorale traditions of Russian Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, he did not go far enough in his purges of the “rootless cosmopolitans” and that probably cost him his life. He was, after all, too philosemitic to deal with them with the necessary thoroughness.

    Stalin took a kosher enterprise and was not able, in the end, to “dekosher” it sufficiently.

  81. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Your complete, pathetic failure to make even the feeblest, most nonsensical attempt at a refutation of even a single one of the instances of so-called “Judeobolshevik self-defense” that I cited… is duly noted.

    As is your complete inability to support your claim that the Communists “accidentally” invaded Europe that, once there, they occupied it only because they “just couldn’t manage to find their way home again.”

    You’re not seriously attempting to claim that da ebil not-sees somehow forced the Bolsheviks to invade Mongolia and the Chinese province of Sinkiang, and forced them to use mustard gas against the innocent victims of their unprovoked aggression, are you?

    If so, what actual evidence can you produce to support this odd delusion? Other than your feelz — and your seemingly-irrestible impulse to reflexively regurgitate whatever narrative your teevee chooses to feed you — that is…

    See also:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

    And should I even mention your ignorant, hate-filled Icebreaker denialism?

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  82. @James Forrestal

    The zio/cons were the driving force behind 911, traitors one and all, and someday it is going to dawn on Americans what a bunch of murdering bastards they are!

    They said we needed another Pearl Harbor and they gave it to us in 911!

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  83. @Mulegino1

    Revisionism is not “rewriting history” but correcting establishment court history with real facts. This is no more evident than revisionism with respect to the Manichean and Orwellian official narrative of the Second World War.

    Compare to the history of atrocity propaganda after WW1, where many of the over-the-top Allied claims were debunked during the years after the war. Even the “making soap from human bodies” canard was used in WW1 propaganda:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_propaganda_during_World_War_I#The_Corpse_Conversion_Factory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses#World_War_I

    This is to be expected, of course. Portraying the enemy as demons in human skin is good for morale, gets soldiers motivated to fight, and others to support the war on the home front. Once the war is over, propaganda claims are examined a little more dispassionately.

    Yet what do we see with WW2? During the postwar period, the Allies doubled down on atrocity propaganda claims. The brightest minds and wildest imaginations of the Ministry of Information
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Information_(United_Kingdom)

    and the Psychological Warfare Division
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Warfare_Division

    were completely incapable of generating atrocity propaganda that was anywhere near as vile as the crimes that da ebil not-sees actually committed — or so the story goes.

    Odd.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  84. @Mulegino1

    Maybe he can point to Guernica. Hahahahah.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  85. @DESERT FOX

    Also the zio/cons used 911 to invade and bomb and destroy the middle east for Israel at the cost of millions of lives and some 7 trillion and counting , all of their master the zionist satanic NWO!

  86. Cyrano says:
    @Mulegino1

    Who are you calling not intelligent, you dumb ass? Are you that dumb that you can’t see where the problem comes from? The problem is not that Germany wasn’t “allowed” to win, the problem came from the ones that occupy it since WW2.

    When USSR left DDR in 1989 – they left them in mint condition – ethnic composition wise. If and when the current occupiers of Germany leave, that country will look more like a rap song than any kind of composition.

  87. @Mulegino1

    Unfortunately, he did not go far enough in his purges of the “rootless cosmopolitans” and that probably cost him his life.

    It’s not unusual for a 74 year old man to die of a massive hemorrhagic stroke — due to hypertension or other vascular problems.

    It is unusual for that brain bleed to be accompanied by simultaneous major gastrointestinal bleeding — starts to sound like a bleeding/ coagulation problem rather than a blood vessel problem.

    Warfarin is tasteless and colorless:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin

    Pretty tough to prove at this point, though.

  88. utu says:
    @Miggle

    Hitler was an angel relative to any recent US president, but relative to Stalin, no

    Another Stalin fanboy.

  89. @Mulegino1

    So, there was 19 million partisans ? Freaking moron.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  90. @James Forrestal

    I was talking about Hitler’s plans, not Stalin’s plans. I don’t refute Stalin’s wickedness, but I want to stress that Hitler and his Nazis were evil too. Most people who stress the wickedness of the Allies think that that alone somehow exculpates the Nazis from any blame. That is typical black-and-white-thinking, which seems to be widely spread, even among intellectuals. This kind of thinking sees any conflict as a struggle between “good guys” and “bad guys”. Thus the received opinion about WW II is that it was a struggle between the “good” Allies and the “bad” Axis (with the Jews as “innocent” victims).
    Historical Revisionism teaches that the Allies were bad too, but then it is assumed that if the Allies were the “bad guys” that THEREFORE the Nazis must have been the “good guys”, which is typical black-and-white thinking, but now with the roles reversed. When all the propaganda lies about the Nazis are removed, there remains a solid base of their criminal behavior, which deserves moral condemnation too. WWII was not a struggle between “good” and “bad”, all parties were bad, though in different ways and degrees. Compare it with gang wars between different Mafias. There are no “good” Mafias.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @James Forrestal
  91. Republic says:
    @Alden

    Franco and his forces were heroes who saved Spain from a communist take over

    So was Pinochet who saved Chile from a communist takeover and now as a result Chile is the richest country in Latin America.

  92. @Gunnar

    If I understand you correctly, the USSR did not expand into Poland, Finland, and Romania, prior to WWII, which began when France declared war on and subsequently invaded Germany in September 1939. Additionally, the Internationale was a harmless think tank in Moscow that had played no part in fomenting violent overthrows of European nations.
    Another of your posts refers to the Munich appeasement. Part of that appeasement was the appeasement of Poland, which had invaded Czechoslovakia before Germany.
    The problem I find with the article is that the author starts from a false premise, that being that socialism requires the state to own the means of production. It doesn’t. It may choose to own assets or resources that are vital to the country, and often does.
    What the NSDAP did wasn’t always for the businesses. In fact business was often opposed to a number of the initiatives. Here is one person’s view: https://www.garethjones.org/german_articles/welshman_looks_at_europe_8.htm
    What the author completely ignores is the number of communists that went on to join the NSDAP. Why, because the government mandated Worker Councils (with teeth) gave the workers what they were looking for – direct access to the bosses.

    I spent over 30 years of my work life interacting with governments and politicians. I have long maintained that those who seek the highest office, from local to national, are flawed and ruthless. They have to be to survive. I’m not going to say Hitler was perfect any more than I would say everything Stalin did was bad, and vice versa. We are, and have been, faced with “fake news” for a century or more. Those who own the media have an agenda, and inconvenient truths will be ignored, as is context.

    Here’s a contemporary view of NS Germany that doesn’t fit the agenda:
    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/indefence/idg00.html

    • Replies: @Gunnar
  93. @Alden

    Well, Jefferson owned slaves and had children with at least one of them

    That is still in dispute. https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

  94. utu says:

    (0) Victory parade of Red Army and Wehrmacht in Poland 1939

    (1) NKVD Gestapo cooperation in occupied Poland

    Gestapo–NKVD conferences
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo–NKVD_conferences

    “This one is the best known, and took place in Zakopane,[11] starting on 20 February 1940[4] in the villa “Pan Tadeusz”, located at the Droga do Białego street close to the Dolina Białego valley. The German side was represented by Adolf Eichmann and an official by the name of Zimmermann, who later became chief of the Radom District of the General Government territory. The Soviet delegation was headed by Grigoriy Litvinov with—among others—Rita Zimmerman, director of a Kolyma gold mine.”

    (2) Suppression of anti-German resistance by communists and collaboration with German occupiers

    Between the Junes: The French Communists from the Collapse of France to the Invasion of Russia
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/260642?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    There were cases that communists would denounce members of London inspired resistance to Gestapo before June 22, 1941.

    (3) Communists in America supporting America First Committee to keep America isolationist until June 22, 1941 when they switched 180° on orders from Moscow.

    The case of Pete Seeger illustrates it well:

    https://usefulstooges.com/2017/05/15/seeger-1/
    Songs for John Doe, an Almanacs album on which Seeger played and sang, faithfully reflected the anti-FDR and anti-war (and, indeed, Hitler-friendly) Soviet line of the period following the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and Russia. When, shortly thereafter, Hitler violated the pact by invading the USSR, Moscow instantly reversed its position and ordered its American lackeys to do the same.

    Accordingly, Seeger and his pals removed Songs for John Doe from the market and destroyed all the copies they could get their hands on. They then put out an album entitled Dear Mr. President, which was essentially a love letter to FDR and an enthusiastic call for all-out war to defeat the Nazis. It was right out of Orwell: we have always been allies with Eurasia; we have always been at war with Eastasia. Such was the mentality to which Seeger subscribed – this man long celebrated as a hero of the people, of liberty, and of free expression.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Seeger
    Seeger’s critics, however, continued to bring up the Almanacs’ repudiated Songs for John Doe. In 1942, a year after the John Doe album’s brief appearance (and disappearance), the FBI decided that the now-pro-war Almanacs were still endangering the war effort by subverting recruitment. According to the New York World Telegram (February 14, 1942), Carl Friedrich’s 1941 article “The Poison in Our System” was printed up as a pamphlet and distributed by the Council for Democracy (an organization that Friedrich and Henry Luce’s right-hand man, C. D. Jackson, Vice President of Time magazine, had founded “…to combat all the nazi, fascist, communist, pacifist …” antiwar groups in the United States).

  95. Gunnar says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Thanks for the links, I will answer after I read them.

  96. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    19 million? Why not just claim 100,000,000? Propaganda is propaganda.

    The lack of physical evidence indicates that there were no mass slaughters of “peaceful Soviet citizens” by the Einsatzgruppen at all. There were, on the other hand, executions of partisans and hostages. But sill stories like Babi Yar have all but been put to rest.

    The Germans had neither the time nor the inclination to slaughter such a number in cold blood- they were fighting the largest army in the history of the world, and, for the most part, the Red Army’s generals were hardly what you could call solicitous for the lives of their men.

    The terrible and inhumane policy of Stalin with respect to those members of his armies who did not die in battle or advance is well known. That is why the Soviets used blocking units and had punitive batallions. All Soviet personnel taken prisoner were placed under sentence of death. I don’t believe that all, or most of them were actually executed but still- a bit harsh, no?

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    , @Wally
  97. Mulegino1 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Indeed.

    For these true believers, every action by the Wehrmacht, however small in scale, was motivated by diabolical bloodthirstiness, while every one committed by the Allies, whether Soviet or Anglo-American, however murderous, was a selfless act of liberation. Thus, they make a big deal about Guernica and try to smooth over Dresden; they make a huge deal about the execution of violent partisans, and justify the mass rapes, murder and looting as “boys will be boys.” Duplicity, mendacity and hypocrisy are the order of the day for them.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  98. @Mulegino1

    Bring the proof that there was indeed bombing of German cities. Where is those evidence? It is total propaganda.

  99. Mulegino1 says:
    @James Forrestal

    They believe that Nikitchenko was a “evil godless Communist” in the late 30s who persecuted the innocent for no reason — but then suddenly became a true believer in Truth, Justice and The American Way just a few years later.

    The Nuremberg tribunals amounted to very bad jokes played upon jurisprudence and the administration of justice.. Charging German officers with the Katyn massacres alone is enough to sully those kangaroo courts/show trials forever, since all of the victorious powers knew with certainty that the murders were committed by the NKVD. The prosecutors knowingly- and with malice aforethought- allowed the charges to be made, so little was their interest in truth and evidence. They probably would have had the innocent Germans found guilty and executed if the truth about Katyn had not by that time become common knowledge.

    • Agree: James Forrestal
  100. Wally says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thanks, Carolyn.

    Have you informed Irving of your corrections?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  101. It makes about as much sense for Orwell to turn individuals over to the thought police as for so-called leftists to support wage-undercutting open borders. The left is supposed to be pro-labor, albeit progressives have shifted priorities in recent years, putting race & gender issues above everything.

    When the contemporary left focuses on economic issues at all, it is only to propose one more layer of monthly welfare for single moms, working part time to stay under the earned-income limits for welfare programs that cover every monthly bill from their rent, to their food, to their electricity, plus monthly cash assistance and child tax credit cash up to $6,431.

    This drives wages down in female-dominated fields, every bit as much as welfare-buttressed mass immigration drives wages down in male-dominated fields. But as race & gender trump wages with today’s Democrats, womb-productivity-based welfare likewise overrides wage issues.

    Mass-scale immigration has been a huge factor in forty years of stagnant wages. Most of the immigrants are welfare-eligible due to their US-born kids, making it easy for them to accept rock-bottom pay. Who needs enough pay to cover household bills when most are covered by Uncle Sam, with the added benefit of a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431, which likewise increases with every US-born kid produced.

    Immigrants only get that big tax-time cash infusion for womb productivity when they pay taxes, rather than working under-the-table, like so many do. The left is all for taxes, but overlooks this issue. The immigration and wage policies of the left are so contradictory that the cognitive dissonance finally caused a big branch of their loyal voter tree to fall off in 2016.

  102. Wally says:
    @EugeneGur

    said:
    “There is nothing “imputed” about the crimes committed by the the Third Reich – they are quite real, and no less real just because you unrepentant Nazis don’t want to recognize them.”

    – So are so “real” that you’re afraid to mention them here knowing you will be slapped silly.

    – This is your chance to refute Revisionists, but what do you do?

    You childishly whine & kvetch ‘yes they did’ while not telling the readers here anything about your supposedly “real crimes committed by the Third Reich”. What’s wrong with you anyway?

    So much for that.

    http://www.codoh.com

  103. Wally says:
    @Mulegino1

    said: “But still stories like Babi Yar have all but been put to rest.”

    Indeed, lies about Babi Yar are a big one for the Usual Enemies of Free Speech.

    Excavation Result: No Enormous Human Remains as Alleged at Babi Yar … of course: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11314
    also see:
    ‘What Happened at Babi Yar? Fact vs. Myth’. Using air photos and wartime newspapers, Ukrainian writer MICHAEL NIKIFORUK attacks a few myths about a wartime atrocity.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/BabiYar/Nikiforuk.html
    ‘ Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments’: http://codoh.com/library/document/920/?lang=en
    Bodies at Babi Yar, John Gibbons Reporting: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7302
    ‘Babi Yar ‘massacre’ debunked’: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41
    former Einsatzgruppen Members Reject Bizarre Claims of Mass Shootings / Babi Yar, etc.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11396

    aerial of Babi Yar at exact time of the absurdly alleged shooting of 34,000 Jews:

    Nothing happening that would necessarily be happening IF the story was factual.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  104. Good article. Good to hear both sides, the truth is always somewhere in the middle. Its sad that its so hard to find the truth about our own history, I try to look at current events to figure out the truth of the past.

    Pretty clear that capitalism is a failed system for the majority of folks. Its not only destroying and impoverishing America, but is destroying and impoverishing most other countries all over the world for the benefit of a few greedy assholes, while everyone else lives in poverty.

    Gotta love America. Some poor country, Venezuela for example, borrows money and gives gold as collateral. Country annoys America by trying to be nice to its people rather than fucking them for their entire lives, dares to use their natural resources to benefit the people of said country, what a fucking concept! All of your treasure belong to us! America smears them as socialists and commies for treating their citizens like humans. America puts sanctions on the country to prevent it from paying back the loans. Starving and depriving citizens of food and medicines killing many. Country defaults and one of America’s corrupt banks seizes the gold for fun and profit. Then poor brainwashed American goyim invade the country, kill, torture, rape its poor citizens, enslave them and steal all of their resources, cause freedum and democracy.

    Rinse and repeat, ain’t capitalism grand. Caitlin Johnstone is pretty good to read.

    Socialism is government by the productive members of society, the working-class. If the working-class doesn’t hold state power, there is no socialism. Period!

    • Agree: FB, Digital Samizdat
  105. Bukowski says:

    The Reichstag fire was not a false flag by the Nazis. This is a lie that has been repeated ad nauseum not just by communists and other leftists but by conservatives as well. Some of the communist defendants such as Georgi Dimitrov were put on trial but acquitted. They received a fair trial as did Marinus van der Lubbe. He admitted to the court information that only someone who lit the fire would know and which was not released to the public – exactly where it started, what flammable materials were used to spread the fire etc.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=11254

  106. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Bring the proof that there was indeed bombing of German cities. Where is those evidence? It is total propaganda.

    Well, for one, there is the declaration by the Permanent Undersecretary of the Air Ministry, Spaight, that it was the British, not the Germans, who initiated the deliberate bombing of civilian targets strictly to maximize civilian casualties, in “Bombing Vindicated.” He actually bragged about it and all of the relevant British officials- Churchill, Spaight, “Bomber Harris”, etc. all acknowledged it.

    There are countless Allied newsreels documenting – and celebrating- Operation Gomorrah, i.e., the incendiary bombing of Dresden.

    There is the celebratory statement by General Curtis Lemay of the USAAF that the incendiary raid on Tokyo burned more human beings to death than any other method of warfare in history.

    And who can forget the statements by President Harry Truman with respect to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- that he would do exactly the same thing again if given the choice? And what about the commander of the Enola Gay, Paul Tibbets, being proud of the fact that the aircraft he commanded dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

    Yet, we are supposed to believe that the stories about the Einsatzgruppens’ alleged atrocities- most elicited under torture and/or threats- are totally believable, and yet dismiss the open admissions of the victors’ to using the most barbarous and hideous methods of warfare imaginable.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  107. @Mulegino1

    It should always be emphasized that, as bad as Stalin was, Trotsky would have been far worse. There was indeed a real sense in which Stalin saved Russian civilization (although he also put it greatly at risk with his aggressive actions, he should have known better), and it’s probably not surprising that many Russians view him favorably (not to excuse their stupidity in equating the USSR with Russia the nation).

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  108. @Mulegino1

    Beautifully said. Thank you.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  109. Agent76 says:

    April 19, 2019 By Not Investigating the U.S. For War Crimes, the International Criminal Court Shows Colonialism Still Thrives in International Law

    On April 5, the United States revoked the visa of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, for her attempts to open an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by the U.S. in Afghanistan.

    https://theconversation.com/by-not-investigating-the-u-s-for-war-crimes-the-international-criminal-court-shows-colonialism-still-thrives-in-international-law-115269

    Sep 11, 2013 9/11 – Echoes of Darkness [Mini-documentary]

    The powers that be shredded the constitution and took you into a series of wars that have left countless civilians dead based on this event. You owe it to your children and grand children to take another look at it.

  110. @Wally

    Nah. It’s a small thing, actually and I don’t think he would give a darn. He has bigger problems. Even though he has bent over backwards and done damage to the truth to show he is not a ‘holocaust denier,’ he is still called the most famous holocaust denier in the world! It’s not working for him.

  111. Mulegino1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    You are completely correct, BM!

    Stalin was brutal within a system which was intrinsically brutal.

    Had he not gotten greedy in a territorial sense and had he made common cause with National Socialist Germany, the world would have been an immeasurably better place to live in in 2019.

  112. Mulegino1 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you, Carolyn.

    Your website and your podcasts are an invaluable resource and much appreciated!

  113. @Johnny Walker Read

    I did quickly run through it. Good article. It would be nice to publish all those agreements in full.
    I did run into some items that were doubtful to me. As far as I know Russians did start to move the armament industries behind Ural only after Germans did invade. On top of it Russian army did not have a tanks. They did have a problem of casting the turret. That was solved only after the factory established itself behind Ural mountains, so Russian army had only katyushas and cannons.
    Concerning Greece it was Italian affair. Germans did send help to Italians only couple of regiments,
    Concerning article if somebody did decide to go to such an extent it should be more segmented chronologically with more facts mentioned and more explanations. But still good.
    I do have a certain doubts of any Russian army movements in South. But movements of Russian army did occur in north.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  114. @Sin City Milla

    Correction: Adam Ulam’s The Bolsheviks. Bertram Wolfe’s Ideology in Power.

  115. @Gunnar

    “Soviet ideology was expansionist. ”

    I don’t care for the rest. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about! google “socialism in one country”. The fact, that Stalin was against any expansion was one of the great disputes with Trotsky and his ilk.

    Stalin attacked and/or occupied Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East Poland, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Iran (twice), Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Mongolia, n he bombed Sweden, n demanded military bases in Denmark n the Dardanelles. That was before WW2. During WW2, Stalin occupied the rest of Poland, East Germany, Hungary, East Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Manchuria, Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, Korea, Yugoslavia, n he waged clandestine war on Greece, tried to occupy Japan’s Hokkaido, n he openly invaded South Korea. SIOC was Communist propaganda meant to deceive useful idiots in the West, people like you.

    It is always the same with anti-marxists and anti-socialists. I NEVER met one who actually read Marx or any other philosopher/politician he criticizes and they never know the history right. Please read something substantial – the writings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin

    These are works of fiction. They are well known to every researcher. You’ll never learn anything reading them. They are merely the holy texts used to justify the Soviet Union’s military expansion n to manipulate naive leftists in the West into supporting Stalin’s global ambitions.

    • Replies: @Gunnar
  116. @Mulegino1

    No, it is all propaganda. What Hirosima? Are you kidding? This is what you call evidence. You see, nothing can be evidece with such attitudes. German crimes against Soviet civilians and POWs are well documented. Better than those you are highlighting. But being nazi symlatiser it is against your beliefs. This whole discussion is fruitless.

    • Disagree: DESERT FOX
  117. joe2.5 says:
    @Tane

    My. What a surprise. An Unreconstructed Stalinist can think. Who knows if perhaps also the revised, updated etc. ones can do that… What is sure is that this article has smoked out a lot of crawlers from under their stones.

  118. There is gross oversimplification of the beginning of WW2 (particularly with this commentator sin city mila with outright lies). The truth is that Hitler achieving power immediately put all industry on war footing with huge resources dedicated to build up navy, and also its ground forces.
    ……………………………………………
    And the WW2 actually started with Anshluss of Austria.
    …………………………………………………………………………….
    But it does not matter, just keep on trucking manure and have fun.

  119. @Sergey Krieger

    Any discussion with you is fruitless.

    • Agree: L.K
  120. EugeneGur says:
    @Mulegino1

    You unrepentant liberals and kosher cucks cannot point to a single real German atrocity which approaches anywhere near the scale of the slaughter of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Tokyo, or Nagasaki, inter alia.

    The whole damn war was a German atrocity and it was quite real, I assure you. It cost millions of dead, and half the country destroyed. Not to mention deliberate targeting of civilians, of which the Leningrad blockade is not the only example. You have to be a schizophrenic to think this is not an atrocity, and the fact that someone else bombed Hiroshima somehow excuses all that.

    Did the Germans carry out executions of partisans and hostages on the Eastern Front? Yes. These were not illegal according to the international rules governing land warfare at the time.

    Oh, really? Someone brakes into you home, robs you, rapes you, tortures you, and when you resist has the right according to some “law” to execute you? Well, I guess killing everyone in a village from babies to 90 years-olds is fine under the pretext of fighting the partisans.

    To truly believe that, you have to be either a psychopath or, and this is not mutually exclusive, a closeted Nazi who deep down considers all people Untermenschen. Indeed, how dare they stand in a way of the Wehrmacht’s victorious march?

    Then why are you complaining about Dresden or Hamburg? That was a war, and in a war killing hostages – and everyone could be a hostage – is OK, lawful even.

    • Agree: FB
  121. Deschutes says:
    @FB

    Couldn’t have said it better FB! CounterPunch of 2019 is a steaming pile of shite….Joshua Frank doing his best to drive out all the contribs who used to make it worth visiting. Too bad.

    On the other hand, this article by Max Parry is excellent! 🙂

  122. Deschutes says:
    @Sin City Milla

    You obviously can’t handle views different from your own narrow minded myopic outlook. Max Parry is excellent; you on the other hand kinda suck dude.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  123. Gunnar says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Yes and Stalin personally occupied Hawai, the Fidschis, Australia and Great Britain too 🙂 Check your medication!

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  124. kelly says:

    Hats off to Unz for posting this excellent article, which debunks a few common anti-Communist false narratives about the USSR, Trotsky and Orwell – false narratives many “leftists” subscribe to, some of whom have even forged careers.

    I notice greanvillpost.com, which is supposed to be a leftist website, removed it. This is probably because the article upset its’ Trotsky and Orwell base – the core of greanvillepost.com readership.

    Clearly, when it comes to anti-Communism what passes for the left is in complete agreement with the right. This was as true in the days of Hitler and his alliance with the German Social Democrats as it is today.

    The Internet has many articles which debunk the mainstream narrative about the USSR and Stalin if one cares to look. But none are so blind as those who do not wish to see.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Max Parry
  125. Mulegino1 says:
    @EugeneGur

    The whole damn war was a German atrocity and it was quite real, I assure you. It cost millions of dead, and half the country destroyed. Not to mention deliberate targeting of civilians, of which the Leningrad blockade is not the only example. You have to be a schizophrenic to think this is not an atrocity, and the fact that someone else bombed Hiroshima somehow excuses all that.

    Please explain how the “whole war” was a German atrocity. It will not do to just engage in the same hackneyed regurgitation of the Manichean comic book history that has served as the official narrative of the Second World War for seventy four years. The real history of the conflict indicates that Germany does not bear the preponderance of guilt for its commencement. On the contrary, there is no evidence that Hitler wanted war with anyone, and the idea that the German attack on Poland occurred in a geopolitical vacuum is utter nonsense and sheer propaganda.

    There are some points to consider:

    The rise of Hitler and National Socialism would not likely have occurred if it were not for the manifestly unjust provisions of the Versailles peace regime. It was Hitler’s intention to put right the territorial theft which was imposed upon the Central Powers by the victors.

    Hitler’s government initiated a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934, which was abrogated by the Poles when they accepted Britain’s offer of alliance should that country become involved in a war with Germany.

    One must also take into consideration the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which guaranteed the Royal a 3/1 advantage in warship tonnage- again, abrogated by the British when they made their cynical pledge to come to Poland’s defense (which they knew they could not honor).

    Hitler’s policies with respect to Danzig and the Corridor were initially more conciliatory than those of his Weimar predecessors. Hitler’s last offer to the Poles (in late August of 1939), which involved a transportation corridor between East Prussia and the rest of Germany, the return of Danzig to the Reich (where Poland would still retain rights to usage of the port) and a plebiscite in the Corridor, was so reasonable that the British government (now dead set on war) censored its publication in the newspapers. The Polish regime categorically refused to negotiate.

    The British and the FDR administration were aware of the Secret Protocol within the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact regarding the partition of Poland in the event of war. Yet, they refused to inform the Polish government of this. It was obvious that Britain and the US administration wanted war.

    It ought to be remembered that the USSR attacked Poland within a few weeks of the German invasion. The USSR’s record for aggression in this period of 1939-1941 was unmatched by any other belligerent: Khalkin Gol, the invasion of Poland, Finland, Iran, the Baltic nations, the annexation of Bessarabia, etc.

    Day by day it becomes ever more manifest that Operation Barbarossa, far from being the comic book “madman attacks USSR for lebensraum and blood lust” was a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces deploying in offensive formations deep within the vulnerable Lvov and Bialystock salients. What was the 9th Rifle Army doing deploying along the Romanian border within easy striking distance of the Romanian oil fields? Had the USSR seized the oil fields, Germany would would have been limited to a two week reserve supply of oil and the rest of Europe would have been defenseless against a massive Soviet tsunami.

    Oh, really? Someone brakes into you home, robs you, rapes you, tortures you, and when you resist has the right according to some “law” to execute you? Well, I guess killing everyone in a village from babies to 90 years-olds is fine under the pretext of fighting the partisans.

    To truly believe that, you have to be either a psychopath or, and this is not mutually exclusive, a closeted Nazi

    As a supporter of the so called “Liberators” I would not mention rape, since they all raped on a massive scale- the worst mass rape in recorded history was committed by the rear echelons of the Red Army. The western allies were little better in this regard and were also guilty of mass rape- such as that carried out by the Moroccan “Free French” troops upon the women in the villages around Monte Cassino.

    The execution of partisans, it is true, sometimes involved the young, who were some of the most vicious of them all- but hardly “babies.” The execution of partisans and reprisal shootings of those who harbored them was an unfortunate consequence of the brutal and lawless way that the Soviets waged their war of destruction.

    What will you claim next, that the Germans bayoneted babies like the Japanese are alleged to have done at Nanking?

    Answer me this- did Hitler order an escape corridor for the civilians in Leningrad before the siege? I believe he did. I wonder who it could be who forbade the civilians-under penalty of death- from using it.

    It is a matter of historical record that it was the British who began the genocidal practice of terror bombing. Hitler was against the deliberate targeting of civilian areas. This is not even controversial anymore.

    • Replies: @L.K
  126. refl says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The painting was on display at the UN until after Francos death, as I recall. Picasso had forbidden the painting to be brought to Spain until after the end of the dictatorship.
    I suppose that at the UN they have installed a copy lateron and the original painting received a heros welcome in Madrid.

    As I further recall, it is partly based on scetches where Picasso deals with bull fighting. I adored it in the long gone days when I was an art student.

    Picasso had been commisioned to do the artwork for the Spanish pavillon and had started his first scetches, when the news broke about the destruction of Guernica. He changed his theme from bull fighting to the Guernica bombing in the middle of his work, making Guernica the possibly best documented creative process in the history of painting.
    Whole high school courses are based on Picasso’s Guernica, and you really can learn from it, how an artists mind works!!

    And to imagine now that the bombing was a false flag, supplying Picasso with a propaganda theme deliberately – that adds a completely new layer of rottenness to the whole story. They have taken him for a ride.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  127. L.K says:
    @Mulegino1

    Good post, sir.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  128. FB says: • Website
    @kelly

    Excellent comment…am sorry to hear that about Greanville…oh well…glad to see it here on UNZ…

  129. @refl

    I don’t believe the painting was ever on display at the UN. For one thing, art experts probably wouldn’t trust the security or care in handling at that location. Only the tapestry was/is at the UN bldg. and it is done in shades of brown and taupe, not in black. white and gray. I think this paragraph is essentially correct as to it’s history:

    Guernica was exhibited in the Spanish Pavilion at the Paris International Exposition and in 1939 was sent to New York on a tour for the benefit of the Spanish Refugee Committee. When World War II broke out later that year, Picasso requested that Guernica and a number of his other works be held at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) on extended loan. After the war, most of these works were returned to Europe, but Picasso asked that Guernica and its preliminary studies be kept by MoMA until the “reestablishment of public liberties” in Spain. The painting was occasionally lent to European museums at the request of Picasso.

    The painting did not go to Spain until 1981, and it has been there ever since. I first saw it around 1963 when it was installed for an exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago where I was a student. We were all very excited and to be able to see it in person was like the second coming of Christ. I was that brainwashed. I went into that exhibition hall many times to look at it, wanting to take every advantage while it was there. Now, it’s just another Picasso to me and he has made thousands of them. It has a flat finish, so looking at a reproduction is as good as looking at the original. I’m not a fan of this atrocity propaganda. I prefer what I can relate to.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  130. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    said:
    “but I want to stress that Hitler and his Nazis were evil too.”

    Except that when you are challenged to produce proof of this “evil” you have failed miserably all over this site.

    Go ahead, try again, and the readers here can watch as you’re made a fool of again. Do it, big talker.

    http://www.codoh.com

  131. Wally says:
    @EugeneGur

    you said:
    – “The whole damn war was a German atrocity”

    LOL. Quite the opposite:
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Dutch/Belgian “Neutrality” In 1939-40: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12153
    Why did Hitler invade so many “neutral”: European countries?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12421
    ‘Responsibility for WW2’ : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
    Who started bombing civilians first:Germany or Great Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    you said:
    – “To truly believe that, you have to be either a psychopath or, and this is not mutually exclusive, a closeted Nazi who deep down considers all people Untermenschen. ”

    Except they did not consider all people as such. You’re wrong as usual. NS Germany’s policies were no different than other countries and in many cases more mild in regards to “minorities”. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

    you said:
    – “Oh, really? Someone brakes into you home, robs you, rapes you, tortures you, and when you resist has the right according to some “law” to execute you? Well, I guess killing everyone in a village from babies to 90 years-olds is fine under the pretext of fighting the partisans.”

    Hilarious. Please present you proof for such laughable propaganda. We await.

    Debunking the indoctrinated such as yourself is quite simple, all one has to do is ask for proof of the juvenile nonsense they claim.

    http://www.codoh.com

  132. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    you said:
    “German crimes against Soviet civilians and POWs are well documented.”

    Yawn. Please present such “documents”.
    This will be good.

    Tell us:
    – Who was supposedly murdered?
    – How?
    – Where?
    – Show us the claimed immense human remains that are said to exist in known locations.

    You are in way over your head, junior.

    http://www.codoh.com

  133. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Pilsudski did indeed ask France for a two-front war against Germany in 1933.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  134. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckaert:
    And how do you know that Hitler was not sincere? The Poles took a good part of Eastern Germany after the First War already, they had their Westmark Society clamoring for the expansion of Poland to reaching even into Bavaria, almost to Kiel (i.e., about half of what is now still inhabited by Germans), the border with Poland was in constant turmoil because of the Polish border violations, more than a million Germans left between 1921 and 1939 because of Polish intransigence and anti-German measures, in spring and during the summer of 1939 they fled Poland, with more than 70000 Germans in refugee camps in August of 1939.
    I.e.: You are not putting any blame on Polish irrationality or the outside forces mingling in the German-Polish conflict, you are blaming the one party -Germany- making constructive suggestions to come to a livable solution.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  135. @Carolyn Yeager

    I never did understand the picture. I was thinking that man in white shirt was standing in front of execution unit.

  136. The article was never taken off Greanville, you are mistaken

  137. @Fox

    That’s not what I was referring to. That was the only thing that W said that made sense. Otherwise, he was talking about 1938 and 39 and saying it was Pilsudski’s actions. No, it was Beck then.
    So what is your point? I know that Pilsudski and Hitler got along pretty well. But the Poles don’t trust anybody. Except the USA, of course.

  138. @Wally

    Wally,

    You’re always reposting that same photo.

    Can you please provide:

    – date and location of that photo
    – date and location of alleged massacre
    – specific location on that photo where the Soviets claimed that the bodies were buried.

  139. JP says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes, one could say that the Polish leadership of that time had its own (foolish) Lebensraum ambition, but does that excuse Hitler’s Lebensraum Project?

    Yes. Yes it does.
    There’s a little thing called self defense. Who initiated the aggressive action? Clearly it wasn’t Hitler, he was still bar-hopping in Munich when Poland was trying to seize Silesia through ethnic cleansing.

  140. Great comment there, sir!

    I would like to emphasize this,

    It was obvious that Britain and the US administration wanted war.

    by noting the fact that FDR had long been itching to start a fight with Germany as far back as his time as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Woody the 1919 “Peace” Prize Warmonger Wilson’s admin. And Woody himself noted that WW1 was as described here*:

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

    as quoted in “Addresses of President Wilson, p41

    *For some reason this speech is difficult to find on the net. A few years ago it was very easy. Also, I’m surprised that he didn’t die within hours of making those statements.

    This comment made without benefit of the ability to preview or edit.

    • Agree: Mulegino1, Iris
  141. Can anyone tell me why John Wear’s excellent article published here at UR is no longer accessible?

    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe
    We Elected Their Nemesis … But He Was Ours
    JOHN WEAR • JANUARY 26, 2019
    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/#new_comments

    “The site reports the link is not valid”

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  142. @jacques sheete

    I still see the article and comments available through the main site.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  143. Sparkon says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    As far as I know Russians did start to move the armament industries behind Ural only after Germans did invade. On top of it Russian army did not have a tanks. They did have a problem of casting the turret. That was solved only after the factory established itself behind Ural mountains, so Russian army had only katyushas and cannons.

    As far as I know, none of that is correct.

    My understanding is that Soviet plans to relocate some industry and establish new industrial zones beyond the Urals began already almost as soon as the Bolsheviks consolidated power in 1922, but it did not begin in earnest until 1929 with the commencement of Stalin’s first Five Year Plan of rapid industrialization, which was almost totally devoted to production of military hardware rather than consumer goods, and which would cost the lives of millions of Soviet citizens by starvation after their grain was confiscated from peasants for export to help finance the industrialization, and to feed the factory workers.

    By many measures, Stalin’s ruthless plans paid off. By the time of the German invasion, the Red Army’s tank park was not only the largest in the world, but also held the world’s two most powerful tanks – the famous T-34 and the even heavier KV-1, both of which were nearly impervious to the main guns of the Wehrmacht’s own tanks and its anti-tank weapons, but it was mostly obsolete types like the T-26 that were formed up and deployed in the frontier along the USSR’s western border when the Germans struck.

    Stalin’s two Five Year Plans resulted in entirely new industrial zones at far flung locations like Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk, while in Chelyabinsk – “Chicago beyond the Urals” – a huge new armaments complex was completed:

    During the first Five-year plans of the 1930s, Chelyabinsk experienced rapid industrial growth. Several establishments, including the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant and the Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, were built at this time. …During World War II, it produced 18,000 tanks, and 48,500 tank diesel engines as well as over 17 million units of ammunition. In the press of the time Chelyabinsk was informally called Tankograd or Tank City.

    Before the war, the ultimate role of the tank was not fully understood or appreciated, but the Soviets came closest with the original T-34/76, which had sloped armor, good cross country performance (thanks its American-designed Christie suspension), and a powerful main gun capable of knocking out any German tank. Despite these attractive features, the effectiveness of the T-34 was limited by its small, cramped turret, overworked tank commander, poor optics, and lack of radios in most T-34s, all of which resulted in very poor situational awareness for the T-34s commander and crew. The Red Army deployed well over 50,000 T-34s, but lost around 45,000 of that number – not a very good performance for a tank widely considered to be the best fielded by any army during WWII.

    For their part, the Germans attacked in June 1941 without a main battle tank that was capable of knocking out either of the Soviet tanks. The Wehrmacht’s workhorse tank Panzer IV was equipped with a short-barrel 75mm gun incapable of defeating either Soviet tank. In 1942, the Pz 4s were upgunned with a longer-barrel, high velocity main gun that could at last knock out the Red Army’s T-34s and KVs, but only 8,500 of this type were produced by the Germans during WWII. Later German Panther and Tiger models were a match for any Soviet or Allied tank, but by then it was too little too late.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  144. @Carolyn Yeager

    @ Fox

    I should rather say that Poland looks for the strongest available nation to put itself under the protection of, as long as it’s not a next-door neighbor. Has little to do with trust. They went from France, to Britain, to the USA. Poland’s expansionist foreign policy desires to ‘take’ from their neighbors.

  145. @JP

    When Hitler was “bar hopping in Munich” he had already made up his mind about conquering Lebensraum in Eastern Europe (Poland, Ukraine and Russia) as described in his Mein Kampf. In his Table Talk he waxes lyrical about colonizing Slavic lands and reducing the local population to serfdom. But that all was only “self defence” of course !

    • Replies: @Fox
  146. @Carolyn Yeager

    The Poles trust the US now, Great Britain then. Truly clueless.

  147. @Ron Unz

    My 88-year-old father-in-law grew up in a house here in Philadelphia with a bachelor uncle who was a member of the Communist Party, so cell meetings were regularly held in his home. I haven’t been part of the family long enough (I’m with my wife around 17 years), but apparently another of my father-in-law’s uncles — this one who lost his job at the NYTimes during the McCarthy era — was still defending Stalin and calling Khrushchev a liar well into the 1970s. Propaganda really does its job.

    The same bachelor uncle, by the way, was a scholar of ancient languages, and because my father-in-law grew up during the Depression and would have poor even if he hadn’t, the uncle taught him to read Hebrew so he could be a bar mitzvah at 13 years old. Both he and his uncle were/are atheists, which should tell you that tradition can be as strong as propaganda.

  148. @JP

    Also, why does Franklin Ryckaert designate Poland’s Lebensraum ambition as only “foolish”, but designates Germany’s as totally evil and genocidal?

    Poland’s “foolishness” forced a conflict with Germany that G. tried hard to avoid, that was turned into WWII by the Allies, a war that “murdered” at least 50,000,000! How does that number compare with Germany’s “ambitions?” Poland’s real guilt in all this history is immense, which naturally they try to distract from. And “foolishness”can do as much damage as evil intent. Maybe foolish nations and people should not be raised to a place of equality with more judicious ones, as F. R. advises.

  149. @Fox

    “…And how do you know that Hitler was not sincere…?

    From his behavior toward Czecho-Slovakia. After he had liberated the Sudeten Germans, which was so-called his only demand, he occupied the rest of Czecho-Slovakia and reduced it to two vasal states. See how this “gentleman” behaved toward its president Hacha :

    In the evening of 14 March 1939, Hitler summoned President Hácha to the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.[1] Hitler deliberately kept him waiting for hours, while Hitler watched a film.[4] Finally, at 1:30 a.m., on 15 March 1939, Hitler saw the President. He told Hácha that as they were speaking, the German army was about to invade Czechoslovakia.[1] All of Czechoslovakia’s defences were now under German control following the Munich Agreement in September of the previous year. The country was virtually surrounded by Germany on three fronts.

    Hitler now gave the President two options: cooperate with Germany, in which case the “entry of German troops would take place in a tolerable manner” and “permit Czechoslovakia a generous life of her own, autonomy and a degree of national freedom…” or face a scenario in which “resistance would be broken by force of arms, using all means.” By four o’clock, after suffering a heart attack induced by Göring’s threat to bomb the capital, Hácha contacted Prague, effectively “signing Czechoslovakia away” to Germany.[5] French Ambassador Robert Coulondre reported that by half past four, Hácha was “in a state of total collapse, and kept going reported that by half past four, Hácha was “in a state of total collapse, and kept going only by means of injections.”[6]

    Hitler even threatened to deport the whole population of Czecho-Slovakia :

    After the death of Heydrich, the new Deputy Protector was Kurt Daluege. Hitler had originally planned to execute 10,000 Czechs in reprisal for the murder of Heydrich and warned Hácha that if another such incident occurred “we should have to consider deporting the whole Czech population”.[10] This threat was made at Heydrich’s funeral.

    Wikipedia, Emil Hacha.

    For Poland too Holy Hitler had only “reasonable” demands, but before the invasion he gave following orders :

    On 22 August 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language.”[10][11]

    Ethnic cleansing was to be conducted systematically against the Polish people. On 7 September 1939 Reinhard Heydrich stated that all Polish nobles, clergy, and Jews were to be killed.[12] On 12 September Wilhelm Keitel added Poland’s intelligentsia to the list. On 15 March 1940 SS chief Heinrich Himmler stated: “All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation consider the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task.”[13] At the end of 1940 Hitler confirmed the plan to liquidate “all leading elements in Poland”.[12]

    For further information about the noble deeds of the Nazis in Poland, “who only wanted to defend themselves”, read : Wikipedia, Nazi Crimes Against the Polish Nation.

    Hitler was not the “greatest criminal of modern history”, Mao and Stalin deserve the first and second place, but Hitler earned a good third place.

  150. @Alden

    Well, Jefferson owned slaves and had children with at least one of them.

    The first part is true, but the last part sounds like your average attempt at smearing the dude aka propaganda, and it’s BS until proven otherwise without a reasonable doubt.

    Please make an effort to substantiate, even modestly, claims such as that.

  151. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Thanks, Beefcake. I’ve been having a lot of trouble with this site for some time now. I’ve concluded that I must have some virus that I can’t detect.

  152. @Carolyn Yeager

    Maybe foolish nations and people should not be raised to a place of equality with more judicious ones, as F. R. advises.

    To a great degree there are only foolish people and nations. Worse, and perversely, the biggest fools tend to float at the top.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  153. @Carolyn Yeager

    Poland’s Lebensraum ambition was “foolish” because it didn’t have the military means to realize it. Hitler’s Lebensraum ambition was ultimately also foolish, but he did have the military means to cause enormous destruction trying to realize it.

    When all has been said and done, about the crimes of the Allies and their propaganda lies, fact remains that Hitler and his Nazis were criminals and don’t deserve our excuse, let alone our admiration.

    • Replies: @Wally
  154. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    LOL
    – Leave it to a Zionist to cite Zionist controlled Wikipedia about something that is in the interest of Jews to lie about. *
    – If there were such horrendous crimes in Poland by Germany, then where are the immense human remains that are claimed to exist in known locations?
    – Franklin Ryckaert ignores the fact the Czechoslovakia separated into to entities, The Czech Republic an Slovakia. The Czech Republic asked for germany’s protection, hence the ‘Protectorate o Bohemia & Moravia’ status.
    more: Why did Germany “annex” all of Czechoslovakia?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9569
    Franklin Ryckaert really needs to grow up acquire some real history.
    – Hitler’s non-existent “Lebensraum Project” that was never enacted? LOL
    – Previously Franklyn Ryckaert also tried to promote the fake “Generalplan Ost”, which also never existed. LOL
    see: http://www.unz.com/?s=generalplan+ost&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    * How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

  155. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hitler was not the “greatest criminal of modern history”, Mao and Stalin deserve the first and second place, but Hitler earned a good third place.

    And where would you rank FDR and the once-upon-a-time anti-Bolshie, Churchill, who were Stalin’s buddies, appeasing him to the max, and tools of the international banking Reds?

    The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race.

    – Winston S. Churchill, Zionism versus Bolshevism, A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

    It appears that Winnie the Sot supported both. Rationalize that.

  156. …fact remains that Hitler and his Nazis were criminals and don’t deserve our excuse, let alone our admiration.

    It’s not a fact, in fact. In fact, it’s a harebrained claim at best. Recycled war propaganda.

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    -Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Fox
  157. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckeart:
    You really love slogans. Lebensraum means just the same as co-prosperity sphere.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  158. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    said:
    “Poland’s Lebensraum ambition was “foolish” because it didn’t have the military means to realize it. Hitler’s Lebensraum ambition was ultimately also foolish, but he did have the military means to cause enormous destruction trying to realize it. ”

    – Poland obviously thought it had “military means”, as it threatened Lithuania with invasion if Lithuania refused it’s ultimatum. More laughably bad “history” from Franklin Ryckaert. Recommended:
    ‘Why Germany Invaded Poland’, by John Wear / ‘peaceful Poland’ debunked: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12331

    – “Hitler’s Lebensraum ambition”? “Ambitions“? LOL Another Ryckaert weasel word for the fact that there were no such lebensraum actions, policies.

    – Once again Franklyn Ryckaert only talks, but presents no proof of German criminality.

    Poor guy, sounds like a parrot.

    http://www.codoh.com

  159. @Franklin Ryckaert

    The occupation of the Czech rump state was an unfortunate necessity. Being a completely artificial construct of Versailles, this territory fell into (predictable) instability after Munich and presented a real security threat to Germany (the territory was literally a geographic dagger in the belly of the Reich). Western crocodile tears over Czechoslovakia are only slightly less nauseating than the ones shed over Poland.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  160. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    LOL. Again, Zionist controlled Wikipedia is the best that Franklyn Ryckaert can do. Pathetic and quite desperate.

    – I previously debunked all that he has posted, yet robot Franklin Ryckaert merely dodges like the good little Zionist that he is.
    see:
    http://www.unz.com/?s=hacha&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    – Then he laughably says:
    “Hitler was not the “greatest criminal of modern history”, Mao and Stalin deserve the first and second place, but Hitler earned a good third place.”

    – Yet he has not a shred of proof. But hey, he does have Zionist controlled Wikipedia.
    again:
    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  161. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    @161
    And where would you rank FDR and the once-upon-a-time anti-Bolshie, Churchill, who were Stalin’s buddies, appeasing him to the max, and tools of the international banking Reds?

    Read
    Roosevelt’s Road to Russia
    George N. Crocker

    A tale of colossal incompetence, monstrous misunderstanding, outrages of freedom…it should be read by everyone who wants to understand the world today. –The Chicago Tribune
    https://www.amazon.com/Roosevelts-Road-Russia-George-Crocker/dp/0895265877

    This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world’s literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

    https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Roosevelts%20Road%20to%20Russia_3.pdf

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  162. @Fox

    Japan’s so-called “co-prosperity sphere” was a colonial project.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  163. @Wally

    CODOH is the Wikipedia of the Neo-Nazis.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Jacques Sheete
  164. @jacques sheete

    Still I must insist that Poles are more foolish than most. Compare them to the Czechs, who understood the need to cooperate with their more powerful neighbor Hitler and survived WWII intact. The Poles are headstrong and entertain conquering myths about themselves that have never panned out in reality (only as in gaining some spoils from being aligned with the winning side in world wars, as do the Jews). They also falsify and rewrite history as much as Jews do. That’s probably why Franklin Ryckaert champions them as he does.

    If my words are considered slanderous – well, but they’re true. Poles are active on their Wikipedia pages (which F. R. uses exclusively) in the same manner Jews are. Ryckaert’s favorite page is “Nazi Crimes Against the Polish Nation” which is either unsourced invented statements or mainly Polish sources. Useless.

  165. Begemot says:
    @Sparkon

    Your discussion on the relative numbers of Soviet versus German tanks is, inadvertently I’m sure, a tad misleading. While the total wartime production of all models T-34 tanks was about 65,000 the number on hand when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 was about 960 out of 23,000 tanks available of which only 14,700 were combat-ready. The bulk of Soviet tanks were earlier and lighter models like the T-26 and BT-7, which the German tanks of 1941 were more than capable of defeating.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Ron Unz
  166. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    I can refute anything you throw at me from Wikipedia, which you are always too afraid to cite their alleged sources. Ah.

    So why can’t your refute what I post?

    BTW, the founder of CODOH was a world socialist whose first wife was a Jew. Oops!

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  167. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I am noticing that you are very logical person, so here is only my sub note.

    For better part of the latest history Czechs and Slovaks were part of Austro- Hungarian empire run from Vienna by Hapsburgs. After Hitler did annex Austria Hitler in a way assumed some kind of responsibility of A-H. of Czechs and Slovaks. In a way it did improve lives in these two nations.
    Only Czechs were a little bit upset by loosing Sudetenland.
    And also before in Czech lands was large German minority that kept demonstrating,
    So in a way for Hitler it was like forced on solution by circumstances.

  168. @Carolyn Yeager

    CY, thanks for your comments and insights. I agree to all; didn’t mean to quibble, only wanted to emphasize a point.

    I do not know much about Poland, but I understand that the Polish militarists were not lacking in arrogance or belligerence. My opinion is that they should have responded reasonably to Hitler’s very reasonable demands.

  169. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    And one more reminder.
    Prague was seat of German Kings for many centuries, the last German King was Zigmund.

  170. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Japan’s so-called “co-prosperity sphere” was a colonial project.

    Much less ambitious, I might add, than the long standing “Monroe Doctrine,” Marx’s “permanent worldwide revolution,” the bankster monopolists’ One World plans (such as the League of Nations or the UN), or the Talmudists’ aspirations of world control.

    So, your point is?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  171. @Franklin Ryckaert

    CODOH is the Wikipedia of the Neo-Nazis.

    Attempt to justify that opinion in a somewhat rational manner. Good luck.

    • Replies: @L.K
  172. @Anon

    Thanks for the tip and the link. The Mises site is superb in every possible way.

    A tale of colossal incompetence, monstrous misunderstanding, outrages of freedom…it should be read by everyone who wants to understand the world today. –The Chicago Tribune
    https://www.amazon.com/Roosevelts-Road-Russia-George-Crocker/dp/0895265877

    Whoever wrote that is probably covering for the skank; there was no misunderstanding, at least regarding his appetite for war, on that pathetic warmonger’s part.

  173. @Jacques Sheete

    Just like Hitler with his Lebensraum project in Eastern Europe and Mussolini with his attempt to “recreate a Roman Empire” in East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, Japan tried to create its “Co-prosperity Sphere” in East and South East Asia with armed colonial conquest, and not with political intrigue as with the other examples you gave.

    • Replies: @L.K
  174. Sparkon says:
    @Begemot

    Yes perhaps, and obviously the Wehrmacht had success in the early days of the war knocking out great numbers of these obsolete types that were deployed in vulnerable salients like sitting ducks for the German attack, but the T-34s and KVs were held back, and were not deployed in vulnerable positions alongside the obsolete junk by June 22, 1941.

    I’ve written before at UR about my conjecture that Stalin wanted the Germans to attack. He was in league with fellow traveler U.S. Pres. FD Roosevelt, and both had the same game plan to let the enemy strike the first blow so that the moral high ground could be seized by the Allies from the outset, and that’s exactly how it played out.

    Both Stalin and FDR received many warnings about the impending attacks before June 22 and December 7, but both leaders shrugged off these warnings because it was their game plan to play dumb and let the enemy attack have some success because blood spilled by an enemy attack is the magic elixir to spawn burning patriotism in every heaving breast in the nation.

    After the German invasion, Stalin was able to rally to his cause virtually the entire Soviet Union, including even the Ukrainians who’d hated Stalin with a passion before Barbarossa because of the Holodomor. In like fashion, the Japanese “sneak” attack on Pearl Harbor completely castrated the isolationists and America Firsters who’d opposed U.S. entry into WWII.

    Now closet red FDR had the power of a tyrant, and could start sending all that good stuff to the USSR via Lend Lease.

  175. @Wally

    Try to find refutations of the Wikipedia articles Operation Tannenberg and Intelligenzaktion (Nazi genocide of the Polish elite and of hospital patients) on your omniscient CODOH website. I couldn’t find any.

    • Replies: @Wally
  176. tango43 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    @Caroline Yeager

    Yeah really? How about this one:

    On January 22 Major General Friedrich Mieth, Chief of Staff ofthe First Army, had told his assembled officers about atrocities in Poland:‘The SS has carried out mass executions without proper trials. There have been disturbances.’ Mieth was dismissed. Soon after, the army’s Commanderin Chief East, General Johannes Blaskowitz, sent to Berlin a formal list of specific SS atrocities in Poland – including murder and looting: ‘The view that the Polish people can be intimidated and kept down by terrorism will definitely be proven wrong,’ he warned, and added: ‘ They are far too resilient a people for that.’ Blaskowitz added that the atrocities would provide the enemy with powerful ammunition throughout the world.Hitler does appear to have issued orders to Hans Frank for regular pro-phylactic massacres of the Polish intelligentsia. How else can Frank’s confidential remarks at the end of May 1940 to his police authorities in
    Poland be interpreted? ‘The Führer has said to me, “The problem of dealing with and safeguarding German interests in the Generalgouvernement is a matter for the men in charge of the Generalgouvernement and for themalone.” And he used these words: “The ruling class that we have already unearthed in Poland is to be exterminated. We must keep close watch on whatever grows up in its place, and dispose of that too after a suitable time has elapsed.”’ And Frank hastened to recommend to his minions: ‘There’s no need for us to cart off all these elements to concentration camps in the Reich first. That’ll just result in a lot of bother and unnecessary correspondence with next-of-kin. No we’ll liquidate this business here, on the spot.’

    Guess where that’s from if you dare. The Nazi crimes in Poland are so well documented that one has to be either pernicious or have a serious mental defect to deny them.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Wally
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  177. @Carolyn Yeager

    “… The Poles are headstrong and entertain conquering myths about themselves that have never panned out in reality…”

    The “foolishness” of the Poles was not entirely based on imagination. They once had an enormous state in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which stretched from the Baltic Sea to nearly the Black Sea : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_at_its_maximum_extent.svg

    Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – formally, the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and, after 1791, the Commonwealth of Poland – was a dual state, a bi-confederation of Poland and Lithuania ruled by a common monarch, who was both King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. It was one of the largest[4][5] and most populous countries of 16th– to 17th-century Europe. At its largest territorial extent, in the early 17th century, the Commonwealth covered almost 400,000 square miles (1,000,000 km2)[6] and sustained a multi-ethnic population of 11 million.[7]

    Wikipedia, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    But of course in 1939 they didn’t have the means to conquer such an enormous territory. Same could be said of Mussolini, the Japanese and even Hitler with his Lebensraum fantasy. All four parties suffered from the same defect : magalomania.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  178. Fox says:
    @tango43

    Where is it from? Would it be then legitimate to put everything in perspective and count the crimes against and murders of Germans by the Poles before the war broke out, and after it ended against that? And also, of course, the occupation and ethnic cleansing of one third of Germany, beginning with the occupation of Pomerellen, East Brandenburg, West Prussia and Upper Silesia directly after the First War.
    Somehow the Poles are assuming that they don’t have any need of good neighborship with the countries bordering on it; this in addition to their proven inability to maintain a stable long-term order.

  179. @Franklin Ryckaert

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_at_its_maximum_extent.svg

    Yeah, Yeah, same old Wikipedia, written by Poles. It was a “multi-ethnic population”. Just like after WWI, they got to rule over a territory bc they were the majority of many minorities. In Polish history, most of their kings were Germans, and those who weren’t married German women. They give them Polish names to hide that fact. And they lost that Commonwealth too, didn’t they? Through their own blunders. After their big kingdom, they went to zero nada, being absorbed into Russia.
    Your specialty, Franklin, is to give one detail and try to apply it to the whole picture.

    Same could be said of Mussolini, the Japanese and even Hitler with his Lebensraum fantasy. All four parties suffered from the same defect : magalomania.

    If they all suffer from the same megalomania, why is it only Hitler you go after?

    • Replies: @Anon
  180. Fox says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    The Sudeten areas were on the perimeter of Bohemia, the latter predominantly Czech, the former practically purely German. The Czechs occupied these areas in spring of 1919, long after they had declared to become part of Germany proper. -As did the Austrian Parliament , too, on occasion of the signing of the Armistice.
    In the event, the Czechs were given reign over the German Sudetenland, Austria was forbidden to join Germany as a province, just as Bavaria, Hesse, East Prussia or Saxonia, and others, were provinces of Germany.
    The Saar region had the special provision that after 15 years a plebiscite be held about its statal affiliation – it decided with overwhelming majority for Germany in 1935.
    In Czechslovakia, there were a bit more than 6 and a half millions of Czecchs, nearly four millions of Germans, about two millions of Slovaks, perhaps 500000 Hungarians and a smaller number of Ruthenisans and Poles.
    The Germans wanted to not remain in Czechsoslovakia, as the Czechs were making their lives miserable on every turn, refused also to negotiate about autonomy within Czechoslovakia.
    The Sudeten areas were split off by international treaty from a country that had existed for a mere 19 years in 1938, and which had no historical or democratic legitimation to occupy these provinces.
    The artificiality of the Czecho-Slovak construct became obvious to everyone when Slovakia declared its secession in March of 1939, and after the forced reunion in 1945 again in 1993. We may also recall that Yugoslavia, another crime committed at Versailles, dissolved in the 1990s, when its inhabitants could finally assert their will to self-rule.

    Likewise, Austria was not annexed, Austria had several times expressed its intent and will to become part of Germany (first time in November of 1918), even named itself German-Austria (in German, of course), but even that was forbidden by the perpetrators of the outrage at Versailles.
    Hence, a country that has expressed a certain intent repeatedly, in the event held a plebiscite to that intent in 1938 and overwhelmingly answered with “yes” is not subject to the violation of an annexation.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  181. Wally says:
    @tango43

    – LOL. Completely unsourced horse crap.

    – Where are real German documents to compare with this alleged English translation?

    said: “General Johannes Blaskowitz, sent to Berlin a formal list of specific SS atrocities in Poland – including murder and looting.”

    – LOL. So where is that claimed “list” to review?

    – Where are alleged mass graves for these alleged “massacres”?

    tango43 said:
    “The Nazi crimes in Poland are so well documented that one has to be either pernicious or have a serious mental defect to deny them.”

    – Except that:
    1. you have presented no such “documents” 2. you can show no physical evidence / human remains 3. you don’t even say where these “crimes” allegedly occurred 4. you don’t even say when these “crimes” allegedly occurred 5. tango3 is obviously used to preaching to his choir for it is he who has the serious mental defect of childishly lying

    tango43 in a real court of law:
    Your honor we have english translations of incriminating German documents that we submit to the court.
    judge:
    Where are the original German documents for comparison?
    tango43:
    I’m sorry your honor, we have no real German documents for comparison. You must trust us, we’re Zionists.
    audience howls in laughter

    tango43 in a real court of law part II:
    Your honor we know there were massive German massacres, huge shootings of Poles.
    judge:
    Where is your physical evidence / human remains that would necessarily exist if what you claim is true?
    tango43:
    I’m sorry your honor, there is no physical evidence / human remains to show the court. But we just know that these crime occurred. You must trust us, we’re Zionists.
    audience howls in laughter

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @tango43
  182. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    That’s because you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed. Try this:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=+Operation+Tannenberg

    Oops!

    Your absurd “Intelligenzaktion” was allegedly part of the “Operation Tannenberg”, see above, and part of your alleged “Generalplan Ost” which I demolished:
    again:
    see: http://www.unz.com/?s=generalplan+ost&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  183. L.K says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Attempting to reason with this Franklin Ryckaert is a total waste of time.

    The guy is such an obvious Troll.

  184. L.K says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    When even court historians such as Richard Overy are forced to make admissions such as:

    If Hitler was responsible for war in 1939, this still begs the larger question of what kind of war he wanted. Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest, in which Poland was a stepping stone to some distant German world empire. Indeed, recent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire in central and eastern Europe had to be improvised almost from scratch.
    Richard Overy, 1939: Countdown to War

    You should know when to quit with your propaganda slogan about “Lebensraum project” in Eastern Europe as a reason for WW2, since any reasonable person can see this is based on VERY SHAKY foundations to say the least.

  185. Begemot says:
    @Sparkon

    Yes perhaps???

    The Soviets lost a good many tanks in 1941 due to mechanical breakdowns, which was a result of poor training of tank crews and a lack of spare parts and/or the inability to deliver what parts were available to where they were needed. This is not exactly the condition an army should be in if it is preparing for offensive operations, an idea that seems to have some popularity these days.

    If Stalin was actually calculating that allowing a German attack on the Soviet Union would be advantageous because it would give him the moral high ground so that even disaffected minorities would rally to him to fight off the invaders, well, it was poorly conceived in that it resulted in a catastrophe of titanic proportions. Yes, the population of the Soviet Union rallied to the cause of repelling the Germans and their allied invaders, so if you are inclined to believe this was premeditated, then you will doubtless do so.

    Do you know who was the greatest recipient of US lend-Lease? In millions of dollars the total value of Lend-Lease is $48,395.4 million. The Soviet Union received $10,982.1 millions. Great Britain received $31,387.1 millions, which is 64.9% of the total. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease ) There are those who like to aver that the US Lend-lease contribution to the Soviet Union made all the difference in the Soviet Union’s survival. If true it looks as though a greater claim can be made for the British. But no one, as far as I know, claims that the British owe their survival of WW2 to the Americans (the US variety as opposed to the Latin variety).

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  186. @Carolyn Yeager

    Already used “agree” button, +1.

  187. @Sparkon

    Your “Soviet Pearl Harbor” thesis is definitely interesting and far superior to the official establishment account. I still think it presumes too high a degree of coordination between the Soviets and Anglo-Americans, and would have offered too little return given the risk for someone as cautious as Stalin. And as things played out, unlike the Americans they really screwed it up as it took them more than two years to recover and were nearly on the brink. The preemptive strike thesis still makes more sense.

  188. Mulegino1 says:
    @Begemot

    This is not exactly the condition an army should be in if it is preparing for offensive operations, an idea that seems to have some popularity these days.

    As the saying goes, you go to war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had.

    The position of the vast bulk of the Soviet forces on June 21, 1941 was not defensive in nature. They were deployed in vulnerable salients, which would make perfect sense if Stalin was preparing a vast offensive, and none if the Soviets were panicked at the prospect of an imminent German invasion. Practically the entire Soviet front line air force- deployed wingtip to wingtip on tarmacs in close proximity to the western frontier- was destroyed on the first day of Barbarossa.

    It was the position of the opposing armies, not hardware, that led to the spectacular German successes of the first weeks and months of the invasion. Had the Soviets struck first, it is likely that the Wehrmacht would have been crushed and Europe overrun.

  189. @Mulegino1

    Yes. Even if the Soviets had better stuff waiting, what they had was more than sufficient to put the Germans in an untenable position. At a minimum they could have easily seized the Romanian oil fields and put the Wehrmacht in a stranglehold. But it’s hard to believe Soviet objectives were limited to that.

  190. Max Parry says: • Website
    @kelly

    Kelly you are mistaken, Greanville did NOT take down the article. and the editor Patrice Greenville even wrote an article for Russia Insider defending Stalin once.

  191. Fox says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    I do not see how the agreement of August 1939 would have given back to Russia what “Trotsky treacherously has given to Germany in the Brest-Litovsk agreement”. The SU could have taken it anyway, and the actions taken, especially after Molotov’s visit to Berlin in 1940, show that the SU was on a confrontational course with Germany anyway.
    What the massive troop build-up in an offensive positioning of the Red Army at the line of demarcation was meant for, if not for an attack, shortly after June 22nd, is a question that remains unanswered if one assumes that Stalin was just minding his own business.

  192. @Fox

    Sudeten is a mountain range practically in one line and the peaks of mountain range was border between Czechs and Germans from ancient times.

    • Replies: @Fox
  193. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckaert:
    Contrary to your belief, Hacha asked to be seen by Hitler; Hitler did not summon him to Berlin. Furthermore, the disintegration of Czecho-Slovakia was not his doing. Rather, Slovakia seceded from Czecho-Slovakia. In the course of the disintegration, Hungary and Poland also occupied parts of the former Czecho-Slovakia, can’t remember presently where Ruthenia went.
    The outcome of Hacha’s visit to Berlin was the establishment of the Protectorate, a fact that did not concern Chamberlain for a few days, but after (apparent) intervention from Roosevelt he was suddenly talking about aggression against Prague.
    Perhaps it is to be re-called, especially for you, at this point, that Bohemia was for a thousand year part of Germany, kept its culture and language (compare that to how “minorities” were fairing in the democracies – they were forcefully discriminated against, as in Czechs-Slovakia, Poland, France, Denmark, Italy (I am referring here to the millions of Germans who were incorporated into foreign countries, and either driven away or their language and institutions eliminated).
    You seem to confuse a national politics with horsetrading. Even after the Sudeten germans had returned to Germany, as was their will, the troubles with Poland remained. Hitler wanted to have an accommodation with them to establish a good-neighborly relationship. I remind you of the fact that Hitler was only the heir to the troubles stemming from the insane proceedings at Versailles, he did not create them. Hence, v.Ribbentropp approached the Polish ambassador in October of 1938 in order to come to an understanding about these problems. Is that a demand?
    As to the statements you have copied from Wikipedia, perhaps your source is perhaps the jiffy solution for all people who want to not be bothered with details, accuracy and plausibility, all the while being right in the fold of force-established opinion wardens.
    It seems to be beyond your imagination that Poland was always a bad neighbor, even today they can’t get their Empire from Sea to Sea out of their hot heads.

  194. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Must have misunderstood what you were saying. In 1938 it was indeed Beck to ask France for a joint attack on Germany, and I meant to say that there was an earlier precedent involving Pilsudski.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  195. @Deschutes

    I’ve read the sources, handled them, dismantled them, n tossed them into the dustbin of history as they deserve. You however clearly are living in an echo chamber without having spent a single moment consulting the sources n questioning your prejudices. I have judged. You have pre-judged.

    Almost all right-wingers, which includes me, are former Marxists n liberals. We educated ourselves to our position over many years, like David Horowitz for example. People like you, tho, have drunk the koolaid of the standard public university approach n have never bothered to look beyond the indoctrination n therefore you still remain with the usual Marxist outlook of adolescence, which in the US is a kind of rite of passage for adolescents. It’s time to throw aside your adolescent indoctrination n grow up.

    • Replies: @Deschutes
  196. Begemot says:
    @Mulegino1

    “Had the Soviets struck first, it is likely that the Wehrmacht would have been crushed and Europe overrun.”

    Okay. You are not a serious military historian. And this is a preposterous hypothesis. The Wehrmacht was at its peak in 1941 and the Soviets were in no condition to launch an offensive against Germany. If they had tried they would have been defeated. The Wehrmacht had the doctrine, the training, the command and control, the confidence of victory and the experience to defeat the 1941 Soviet Army. Which they did until they stalled in front of Moscow. Additionally, the German logistics would not have been strained to the breaking point as it was in trying to keep up with German advances across Russia, instead it would have become easier to support German forces if they had been forced back towards their supports. Soviet logistics would not have been able to support an advance into Central Europe. As it was, one of the great contributions to the Soviets with lend-lease was the provision of trucks to help the Soviets sustain their drives against the Germans in the late war period.

    But, let us not let facts get in the way of fables. Fables are fun. The truth is often a spoil sport.

  197. tango43 says:
    @Wally

    This shows that you’ve read nothing about this period except of course CODOH. That excerpt was from David Irving’s Hitler’s War. All meticulously researched from original source documents. It’s all there in the bibliography. What a doofus.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @FB
    , @Wally
  198. Mulegino1 says:
    @Begemot

    You are not a serious military historian. >

    Neither are you.

    .

    And this is a preposterous hypothesis.

    No it is not. The position of the armies in June of 1941 is not a “hypothesis” at all, but an unalterable historical fact, which you cannot alter by claiming you know that the Soviets were not “ready” to face the Germans. The Soviets had already engaged in many campaigns of an offensive nature-Khalkin Gol, Poland, Finland, etc.

    The Wehrmacht was at its peak in 1941

    Germany did not begin full mobilization until 1942. The Wehrmacht was not at its peak and most of the German artillery was still horse drawn.

    But, let us not let facts get in the way of fables. Fables are fun. The truth is often a spoil
    sport.

    And let us not allow our regurgitation of superficial comic book history- or fables if you will- get in the way of actual historical facts. The truth is a spoil sport, and it tends to spoil false and hackneyed official narratives most of all.

  199. @Wally

    Your link does not lead to a CODOH refutation of the Wikipedia article “Operation Tannenberg” about Nazi genocide of the Polish elite and inmates of hospitals at all.
    I still can’t find any. Maybe because there doesn’t exist any? Maybe the Nazis did commit such crimes after all? Maybe Hitler and the Nazis were not innocent after all? But that would mean the end of your Hitler-cult! Perish the thought!

  200. @Begemot

    Speaking of fables, you exaggerate the extent to which Lend-Lease helped the Soviets (the lion’s share of aid went to Britain anyway).

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Begemot
  201. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    What do you know about that extent?
    Did you ever read the diary of Captain Jordan?

    And not forget the British deliveries to the Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  202. @tango43

    You’re trying to put one over on us, but it’s too obvious. You find an excerpt like this, that sounds bad to the ignorant or indoctrinated, but that really does not indicate “crimes” at all. Plus, you can’t assume that everything David Irving wrote was “meticulous.” You are required to describe the “original source document” in the bibliography since you have access to it. What is it?

    It’s well known that certain Wehrmacht officers disliked the SS, disagreed with Hitler on Poland, sympathized with the Poles too much. “Mieth was dismissed” and properly so. Hitler had ordered, in writing, that trials for every non-regular combatant captured could be done away with because of the time and resources they require (it’s very much like the U.S. laws granting trials for every individual crossing the U.S. border, which puts the American public at a distinct disadvantage).

    Hitler’s reasoning was based on the vicious nature of the enemy on the Eastern Front. He rightly declared this to be a different kind of war than in the West, with an enemy who did not observe the conventions of war. Hitler’s concern was the protection of the German people, not the protection of the Polish people. Poland had striven for a war with Germany, had been soundly defeated and was now occupied. Poles who continued to resist were subject to execution, period, because they hampered the entire German war effort. Those groups in which resistance fomented were dangerous, such as the priesthood and the intelligensia. All the Germans asked for was cooperation, and not to be shot at or conspired against. Other than that, they were helping to clear away the rubble of war, repair the essential services, and make Poland livable.

    David Irving is not God. He includes many false and misleading items in his books because he wants them to be best-sellers that people think they’re getting inside information from. Plus he doesn’t want to appear pro-German. He walks a fine line.

    Bottom line: Those paragraphs are not as damning as you want them to be seen, if one just analyzes what they contain in connection with the big picture.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  203. @Anon

    I know most of the aid came after Stalingrad, when it was likely the Germans were going to lose anyway. And Stalin’s main concern during this period was not over some trucks and such, but rather something the Anglo-Americans were hesitant to do: open a second front (which also argues against the feigning thesis, BTW).

  204. @Franklin Ryckaert

    It can be granted that the Germans employed terror and committed real crimes in Poland. The question is: so what? Do you think this argues against the reasonableness of pre-war German demands, or their willingness to resolve the issues with Poland peacefully, or the importance of Polish intransigence in instigating war? None of these follow.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wally
  205. @Beefcake the Mighty

    While I agree with your 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences, I cannot agree with your first one without a convincing example or two of the “real crimes” Germany committed. I sincerely don’t know what they are.

    I know terrible things were done, but when the war being waged against you is lawless, how can you be expected to bind yourself to laws that put you at a disadvantage?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  206. Fox says:
    @Begemot

    The Red Army was in its final stages of readiness on June 22, 1941, and from its order of battle, kind and amount of armament, location, extras (e.g. language guides for Russians in German, as a non-German-speaking Russian would pronounce a German sentence as nearly as possible when written German in Cyrillic), instructions to German mayors in the same manner, maps and road maps of Eastern Germany).
    Why a conclusion as to a soon-to-follow attack with these fndings of the advancing German & allied troops is ridiculous, I don’t know, perhaps you’ll clarify. A defensive army would not retreat in turmoil beginning with the first hour of engagement, such as the Red Army did. In addition, the Soviets were attacking Finland in 1939, occupying the Baltic states, Bessarabia and Bukovina, making demands on the Bosporus, were behind the government overthrow in Yugoslavia, not to forget the involvement in the Spanish Civil War (prior to Germany’s and Italy’s). Perhaps they should have not signaled in every way that they ready and willing to strike in the West if they were not planning for that?

  207. Sparkon says:
    @Begemot

    To clarify; you wrote:

    Your discussion on the relative numbers of Soviet versus German tanks is, inadvertently I’m sure, a tad misleading.

    I replied:

    Yes, perhaps.

    At any rate, we seem to be in general agreement on several points with respect to the general states of readiness of the German and Soviet armed forces on the eve of Barbarossa.

    Mulegino1 wrote:

    Had the Soviets struck first, it is likely that the Wehrmacht would have been crushed and Europe overrun.

    Yes, one can only imagine now those long armored columns of the Red Army’s kinda sorta formidable T-26s and BTs rolling across the frontier into the Third Reich much like a juggernaut of tin cans on a death ride, being shot to pieces by the Wehrmacht on its home ground. Even worse, the spotlight would shine brightly now on comrade Stalin.

    The army component of the Wehrmacht, the Heer, had already emphatically demonstrated its tactical superiority to the other European armies in 1939 and ’40. If not for Adolph Hitler’s unique talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the Wehrmacht might have crushed the BEF where it was trapped at Dunkirk, with no mercy shown, instead of letting it escape, and the Luftwaffe might have prosecuted its air campaign against Fighter Command ruthlessly until that force too was defeated. At that point, the outlook for Blighty might have been even worse than just blood, sweat and tears, staring defeat in the face as it were, but no doubt Churchill still would have had plenty of scotch down in his bomb shelter, and a microphone nearby to rally the chattering classes in their despair, even with the unopposed Luftwaffe flying overhead.

    Hitler held both of these potentially war-winning cards in his hand in 1940, and threw both away. Instead of applying the entire force of the Wehrmacht to knock England out of the war, Hitler decided instead to attack the Soviet Union.

    With terrible leadership like that, it doesn’t matter how good your army is.

    Germany simply did not have the resources to defeat the Soviet Union in any protracted conflict. Germany did have spies, double-agents, and traitors within the Third Reich such as Admiral Canaris, who did incalculable damage to the German war effort on several occasions, and of course one must wonder about Herr Hitler himself.

    For one futher example, Hitler’s decision to divide his Barbarossa attack force into three army groups with divergent objectives fatally diluted the striking power of the Wehrmacht, which had neither heavy tanks nor heavy bombers, so that none of the three army groups ever achieved its objectives. As it was by December 1941, with Kido Butai bearing down on Pearl Harbor, Army Gp center had reached the outskirts of Moscow, but only at terrible cost to itself, and Zhukov’s imminent counterattack would almost destroy it.

    One might wonder what would have happened had the Wehrmacht stayed out of Ukraine entirely, and instead drew Army Gp South tight up against Army Gp Center’s right flank, north of the Pripet marshes, thereby almost doubling the striking power of the main thrust against Moscow, and also reducing wear and tear on both of those formations. Instead of laying siege to Leningrad, Army Gp North might have merely screened the northern city, while serving as left flank guard for Army Gp Center’s main effort against the Soviet capital, while retaining the ability to reinforce Army Gp Center, contribute to the envelopment of Moscow, and seizure of its railheads.

    Crashing into Moscow in 1941 might not have won the war for the Germans, but it certainly would have changed its course.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Mulegino1
  208. Mulegino1 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You are completely correct.

    Also consider that after the Warsaw uprising, the members of the Polish Home Army were given prisoner of war status by their German captors. How does this square with the comic book notions of the “evil Nazis”?

    The photographs of the Polish prisoners of war in Dachau taken after the so called “liberation” show that these men were in relatively good shape and well fed.

    As you know, the Germans conducted the forensic examination of the mass graves at Katyn and even brought in neutral investigators as well as Allied prisoners of war as witnesses. Thus it was proven conclusively that the mass killings were carried out by the NKVD. Yet there have been no subsequent investigations into similar mass graves of alleged German victims. Why? If the Germans had committed massacres of Poles on a similar scale, Poland should be crawling with mass grave sites which could be excavated and examined and proven to have been victims of the Germans. Yet, all of the mass graves located so far (Poland, Ukraine, etc) have been of victims of the Soviets, not the Germans.

  209. Fox says:
    @jacques sheete

    Could you re-check the link to the Rothbard text? I can’t establish the link.
    Thank you!

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  210. @Carolyn Yeager

    I know terrible things were done

    I take that back as a mis-statement. I don’t know terrible things were done; I’ve been told that terrible things were done. Should I believe it? That Operation Tannenberg page at Wikipedia that F. R. relies on gives questionable (Polish) sources for it’s information. The claim of the mass killing of hospital patients comes from the internet site Holocaust Education and Research Project which is totally biased and unreliable, as well as from Holocaust pusher “historian” Peter Longerich. I wouldn’t take anything on those pages at face value.

    Because it’s so difficult and time-consuming to research every event that falls under the “Holocaust” and “WWII”, we probably accept way too much. I know for myself, when I have really looked into one of these so-called crimes and/or victim testimonies, I have always found there to be little to nothing underneath all the accusations. The numbers are always highly exaggerated too.

  211. FB says: • Website
    @tango43

    Nice one Tango…

    You realize of course that crushing a soft headed puff pastry like ‘Wally’ or a mental patient like ‘Carolyn Yeager’ doesn’t take much effort…LOL

  212. @Sparkon

    If not for Adolph (sic) Hitler’s unique talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the Wehrmacht might have crushed the BEF where it was trapped at Dunkirk, with no mercy shown, instead of letting it escape, and the Luftwaffe might have prosecuted its air campaign against Fighter Command ruthlessly until that force too was defeated.

    How many times have we heard this? If the Wehrmacht had massacred the BEF trapped at Dunkirk, Hitler would have ended the war right there. First, it wasn’t a sure thing he could capture all those troops, bc there were still French forces available, and then how would he feed them?, he asked. It wasn’t in him to kill them all, or to starve them. They were Englishmen, after all. Second, the weather turned heavily overcast for several days at the time, putting the Luftwaffe out of business. Third, and most important, Hitler never wanted to fight or occupy England at all, he wanted to be friends with England. He was still holding out that possibility at the time. (that arguably may have been his greatest blind spot)

    From the very beginning, Hitler saw Bolshevism as the enemy of Germany. He didn’t want to gain territory in Western Europe, but to wipe out Bolshevism in the East and occupy the lands that had given birth to it. This may have been unrealistic, but it was never a secret. The question should be, not why did Hitler make the decisions he did, but why were Churchill and Roosevelt so opposed to it? Why didn’t they help him, instead of helping Stalin? There is no answer to that and no excuse for it. Your comment ” one must wonder about Herr Hitler himself” implying treason, would better be applied to the Churchill-Roosevelt team.

  213. Wally says:
    @tango43

    Yawn. As usual you dodge.

    – So IOW, you cannot provide the real, original documents. LOL
    BTW, Irving does not provide the document either. He’s made a plenty of mistakes and that was one of them. It’s on you to back up what you allege, you obviously cannot

    – So IOW, you cannot provide the real, original “formal list of specific SS atrocities in Poland”. LOL

    – So IOW, you cannot show us the alleged immense human remains in allegedly know locations. LOL

    to summarize your silliness:

    1. you have presented no such “documents” 2. you can show no physical evidence / human remains 3. you don’t even say where these “crimes” allegedly occurred 4. you don’t even say when these “crimes” allegedly occurred 5. tango3 is obviously used to preaching to his choir for it is he who has the serious mental defect of childishly lying

    That was easy.

    http://www.codoh.com

  214. Begemot says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    See my comment #192 above. In that I stated:

    Do you know who was the greatest recipient of US lend-Lease? In millions of dollars the total value of Lend-Lease is $48,395.4 million. The Soviet Union received $10,982.1 millions. Great Britain received $31,387.1 millions, which is 64.9% of the total. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease ) There are those who like to aver that the US Lend-lease contribution to the Soviet Union made all the difference in the Soviet Union’s survival. If true it looks as though a greater claim can be made for the British. But no one, as far as I know, claims that the British owe their survival of WW2 to the Americans (the US variety as opposed to the Latin variety).

    I do not believe that Lend-Lease made the difference in the Soviet Union in surviving the German attack, but it did make the Soviet’s task easier and helped bring victory sooner than without it.

    Sometimes one should ID your target before putting one’s foot in one’s mouth.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  215. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    You are truly dim.

    From the link I gave:
    Gleiwitz: A False Flag, By Veronica Clark : https://codoh.com/library/document/6340/?lang=en
    exc.: “The Gleiwitz fiasco is best known to historians and the public as either Operation Himmler or Operation Tannenberg

    much more from CODOH on Gleiwitz:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=gleiwitz
    and:
    The Gleiwitz “False Flag” Incident is Pure Fiction, By Carolyn Yeager:
    https://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction
    The alleged Gleiwitz Incident has been utterly refuted, see: http://www.cwporter.com/gleiwitz.htm
    and:
    https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/alfred-naujocks-and-the-start-of-world-war-ii/
    and:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7282

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  216. FB says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thanks for admitting that Hitler wanted to conquer Bolshevism ‘and occupy the lands that had given birth to it…’

    This will of course disappoint a lot of your fellow Nazis here who maintain that dear old uncle Adolph never had any such plan…Generalplan Ost is just a giant hoax…

    Not to mention the paradox your statement poses about the question of the German invasion of Russia being ‘defensive’…well that’s interesting, because invading and occupying ‘the lands that gave birth to Bolshevism’ has what exactly to do with ‘defense’…?

    I do agree that Hitler didn’t want to kill Englishmen and desired to get Churchill and FDR on his side for an ‘all-white’ team effort against the ‘inferior’ Russians…

    As to why those two rejected Uncle Adolph’s overtures…you really must have some kind of mental block that prevents you from arriving at the logical conclusion…Hitler was more of a threat to the business of imperialism than was a socialist Russia that had no imperial designs…

    And ultimately FDR felt it was time for the US to take over the global empire business from a fading old Britain…

    Of course both Churchill and FDR were happy to let the Germans and Russians slug each other senseless…and then waltz in at the end and take the biggest share…Churchill perhaps a little more nervously as he surely realized that Hitler could have crushed Britain like a walnut…

    Hitler was a mentally deranged nutcase, driven by primitive and unproductive impluses like the rest of you Nazi mouthfoamers…

    Germany’s natural alliance is with Russia…as both Germans and Russians of today are realizing…

    • LOL: Wally, Carolyn Yeager
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  217. @Begemot

    It’s not so much my foot as your ass, out of which you’re talking from both sides.

  218. @FB

    “Germany’s natural alliance is with Russia…as both Germans and Russians of today are realizing…”

    On this point at least you’re 100% correct.

    • Agree: Iris
  219. Wally says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    said:
    “It can be granted that the Germans employed terror and committed real crimes in Poland.”

    No, it cannot “be granted”.

    Without even naming & then proving such “real crimes in Poland” you are merely reciting propaganda.

    Why do you dodge presenting the specifics of your assertion?

    http://www.codoh.com

  220. Mulegino1 says:
    @Sparkon

    Yes, one can only imagine now those long armored columns of the Red Army’s kinda sorta formidable T-26s and BTs rolling across the frontier into the Third Reich much like a juggernaut of tin cans on a death ride, being shot to pieces by the Wehrmacht on its home ground. Even worse, the spotlight would shine brightly now on comrade Stalin.

    As I stated above, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. The Wehrmacht was also outgunned by the French Army and the BEF, and their panzers were not significantly superior to those of the French or British at the time. It was the brilliant thrust through the Ardennes that was the key factor in winning the Battle of France, not any German wonder weapons.

    On June 21, 1941, the vast Soviet deployments were in vulnerable salients along an east-west axis, not entrenched. There was no defense in depth. The Stalin Line had been opened, roads and bridges de-mined, defensive fortifications destroyed (obviously to facilitate movement west). Light infantry was deployed to the Carpathians (makes no sense as a defensive strategy). Virtually the entire front line Soviet air force was destroyed during the first 24 hours of Barbarossa precisely because it was sitting on its tarmacs wingtip to wingtip and thus made an easy target. The facts speak for themselves. The Soviets were not a “staggering colossus” as they had proved their prowess at the Battle of Khalkin Gol when they crushed the Japanese 6th Army employing Zhukov’s offensive strategy.

    The proof of the Soviet offensive intent is what actually happened as opposed to what was in Stalin’s or Hitler’s mind at the time. There is no other explanation for the unprecedented German successes- the vast encirclements, the huge cauldrons formed and the vast numbers of prisoners taken- in the first weeks and months of Barbarossa other than that the Soviets were staging for an invasion and were preempted by the Germans and their allies.

  221. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…It wasn’t in him to kill them all, or to starve them. They were Englishmen, after all…”

    Right, and because the 3 million Russian POWs he captured at the beginning of Barbarossa “were not Englishmen, after all” but inferior Slaves Hitler let them starve.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wally
  222. Mulegino1 says:

    Extract from an excellent interview with General Remer on Codoh site:

    Q: Did you agree with Hitler’s policies, particularly his policy towards Russia?

    A: Regarding the military campaign against the Soviet Union:

    First of all, it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941, when we had ten divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border, the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign, we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack.

    The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions, but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for attack.

    That’s the truth of the matter, which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr. Pemsel, who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot. In the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign, he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the border.

    I also know from my own experience in the Russian campaign, and with the Russian prisoners, about the preparations by the Soviets for an imminent attack against Europe. The Russians were hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could then take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe.

    Q: Do you believe war with the Soviet Union was inevitable following Hitler and Molotov’s meeting in November 1940?

    A: Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov demanded the Dardanelles. That is, we were supposed to approve the turning over of foreign territory which belonged to the Turks. Molotov thus made provocative demands which simply could not be met. Hitler was also conscious of the Soviet takeover of territory in Romania, at a time of supposed peace. Hitler also knew that the anti-German uprising in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, was organized by the Soviets. It was the Russians who wrecked the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union.

    And after he received more and more reports of Soviet preparations for an attack against Germany and Europe, Hitler reacted. I am thus absolutely certain that Hitler did not originally plan to attack the Soviet Union. Instead, he acted as the changing situation demanded.

    Q: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as “subhumans”?

    A: Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else.

    Your question, whether we called the Russians “subhumans,” is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.

  223. @Wally

    I can find no information confirming your assertion : Gleiwitz = Operation Himmler = Operation Tannenberg. The equation Gleiwitz = Operation Himmler is correct, but not = Operation Tannenberg, which is described thusly :

    Operation Tannenberg (German: Unternehmen Tannenberg) was a codename for one of the extermination actions by Nazi Germany that was directed at the Poles during the opening stages of World War II in Europe, part of the Generalplan Ost for the German colonization of the East. The shootings were conducted with the use of a proscription list (Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen), compiled by the Gestapo in the span of two years before the 1939 invasion.[1]

    The top secret lists identified more than 61,000 members of the Polish elite: activists, intelligentsia, scholars, clergy, actors, former officers, and others, who were to be interned or shot. Members of the German minority living in Poland assisted in preparing the lists.[1] It is estimated that up to 20,000 Germans living in Poland belonged to organizations involved in various forms of subversion.[2]

    Operation Tannenberg was closely followed by the Intelligenzaktion, a second phase of the Unternehmen Tannenberg directed by Heydrich’s Sonderreferat from Berlin. It lasted until January 1940. In Pomerania alone, 36,000–42,000 Poles, including children, were killed before the end of 1939.

    Wikipedia, Operation Tannenberg.

    So the Gleiwitz incident, whether it was real or a false flag, had nothing to do with
    Operation Tannenberg, which was clearly an attempt at destroying Poland’s cultural elite in order to prevent any future rebellion against its slave status. There was no “military necessity” for this genocidal operation, as Carolyn Yeager claims.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wally
  224. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Just to dispose of this quickly, Hitler didn’t “let the Slavs starve”; he didn’t have the food to give them. He didn’t want to have the same thing happen with the British at Dunkirk. Hitler was, in reality, more of a humanitarian than anyone else involved in WWII. Which is not saying a lot, I know.

    You can try to twist my words into your preferred meaning, which is just another trick to cover your know-nothingness, but it doesn’t work. Honest people understand.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  225. Sparkon says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    How many times have we heard this?
    […]
    implying treason, better be applied to the Churchill-Roosevelt team.

    You’ve heard it many times because most knowledgeable military historians agree that it was an enormous if not fatal mistake for Hitler to order Gudernian’s panzers to pull up short of Dunkirk, which allowed the BEF to escape. Considering there was widespread sentiment in Germany that England was responsible for starting the war, a view held by Hitler himself, it seems inconceivable he would pass on the chance to knock them out of the war he said they started. It could have been a sensational propaganda coup for the Wehrmacht to smash or capture the BEF, expeditionary force of the warmongering Jew-led British, but Adolf couldn’t do it, closet nice-guy that he was.

    The fact that Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin were scoundrels doesn’t mean that Hitler wasn’t in on the game too. Churchill primarily wanted to crush Germany again to eliminate it as military and especially economic rival, and probably wasn’t a fellow traveler with Stalin and FDR, although all three were under the influence of Jews, for one reason or another — debt, in Churchill’s case — who in their signature way were lurking slightly behind the scenes, letting someone else have the main limelight, such as Lazar Kaganovich, who was standing at Stalin’s shoulder before, during, and after the war.

    I can’t quite make up my mind if the guy with the little mustache was fool or tool, but view with suspicion Hitler’s reported assignment by the German army in 1919 to infiltrate the DAP, forerunner to the NSDAP, the real NAZIs everyone’s looking for:

    After World War I ended, Adolf Hitler returned to Munich. Having no formal education or career prospects, he tried to remain in the army for as long as possible. In July 1919, he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance commando) of the Reichswehr to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the DAP.

    So an Austrian-born intelligence agent of the the German army is assigned to infiltrate a worker’s party and rises to be its loudmouth-in-chief who leads Germany into a foolish two-front war where he squanders every possible chance for victory in favor of disastrous decisions that leave the country in ruins, the Red Army astride central Europe, and a millstone of guilt for Germany she will wear for decades, if not forever, at least if the Jews have their way.

    ‘Quite a job.

    • Troll: Carolyn Yeager
  226. @Carolyn Yeager

    Just realized my error here — Dunkirk came before the mass capture of the Russians, of course. But since Hitler saw the Bolsheviks as the REAL enemy and not the English, it still makes sense.

  227. @Sparkon

    Thanks for identifying yourself with the Jim Condit, Jr. and Christopher Jon Bjerknes wing of the nut-case students of why Adolf Hitler was a Jew, a traitor, and a sexual degenerate.

  228. @Sparkon

    You’ve heard it many times because most knowledgeable military historians agree that it was an enormous if not fatal mistake for Hitler to order Gudernian’s panzers to pull up short of Dunkirk

    No, they don’t. How do you define “knowledgeable”? Give us the names of those many knowledgeable historians who agree with you.

    It could have been a sensational propaganda coup for the Wehrmacht

    Propaganda coup according to whom? Hitler wasn’t interested in propaganda coups. He strongly criticized the 1st Gebirgsjaeger Division on its way to the oil fields of Batu and Baku when part of the group diverted to climb Mt. Elbrus and replace the Russian flag with the German flag. It had a “tremendous propaganda effect” in the Austrian province from where the men originated, but Hitler only scoffed, “Crazy climbers at best. Instead of interconnecting with the timetable to take Sukhumi, they climb a mountain instead.” (Hermann Giesler, The Artist Within the Warlord, pgs 116-17, 2017)

    Hitler wanted his plans followed and at the time of Dunkirk, he was already worrying about an attack from the Soviet Union when he would have all he could handle in the West. Germany getting bogged down with England is what Stalin was waiting for. Certainly, the Fuehrer had a far more intimate knowledge of Stalin than you do. LOL. Hitler considered that England was pretty well stymied for the time being. Thus he made his decisions.

    The rest of your baloney is unworthy of any serious thought.

    • Replies: @FB
  229. Iris says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Thanks Sergey. Please, can you translate briefly what the commentator is saying? Regards.

    • Replies: @L.K
  230. FB says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hey Crazy Lady…you’re referencing your own book…without even giving yourself credit…are the orderlies late with your injection this evening…?

    Seriously folks you have to look at the reviews of this ‘book’ on Amazon…there’s one ‘professor’ there who is literally creaming himself about the wonderful humanity that was Hitler…nothing like a Nazi in love…LOL

    • Replies: @Wally
  231. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    LOL Another Communist USSR propaganda film.Truly desperate

    Zero proof that the dead shown were the results of German actions.
    The Soviet NKVD were notorious for their mass killings of all Russians who resisted Communism. Numerous real mass graves have been found.

    – There’s not even proof that those depicted in the propaganda film died during WWII.

    – Recall bogus Allied footage of allegedly German atrocities that were really the result of Allied actions, i.e.: Nordhausen.

    Striking resemblances to the communist claim that thousands of Poles killed at Katyn were murdered by the Germans, when in fact it was the Soviets who did the killing There was even a fake trial and Germans were executed

    Katyn facts: ‘Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn’: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    “When the Germans published their findings about this Soviet mass murder, the Allied nations reacted with a massive counter propaganda, accusing Germany of committing mass atrocities themselves. Among it was a British claim that at the Auschwitz camp the Germans would kill every single day as many people as they had found at Katyn. The Soviets staged show trials at Kharkov and Krasnodar that accused Germans and their collaborators of having murdered thousands of innocent people while occupying Soviet territory”
    . (See G. Rudolf. T. Dalton, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington 2010, pp. 257, 271f., 308f.)

    Documents from the U.S. National Archives reveal that the U.S. government helped cover up the Soviet 1940 massacre on some 20,000 Poles at Katyn AND OTHER PLACES — not just during the war, but even afterwards. The Katyn Massacre by the Soviets was accepted by the Allies at Nuremberg as a German crime.: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11013&p=83910&hilit=Roosevelt+colluded+with+Stalin#p83910

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  232. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – Present your proof that the Germans let them starve.

    – Please show us the human remains of your laughable ” 3 million Russian POWs” who were supposedly starved.

    Speaking of real starvation, I suggest a look at Eisenhower’s POW death camps * and the Soviet gulags which you always try to cover up.

    * Eisenhower Death Camps

    starving Germans held in outdoor camps

    also see:
    In “Eisenhower’s Death Camps”: Part I, A U.S. Prison Guard’s Story, by Martin Brech :
    https://codoh.com/library/document/2281/?lang=en
    Other Losses, book review, by Arthur S. Ward : https://codoh.com/library/document/2293/?lang=en

  233. @Wally

    Take those pills

    • Replies: @Wally
  234. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    And continue to dodge my challenges to your laughable Zionist / Communist propaganda.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  235. Wally says:
    @FB

    No doubt you’ll dodge these too:

    Elie’s Adventures in Buchenland, By Carolyn Yeager : https://codoh.com/library/document/3894/?lang=en

    The Fifth Diamond: A Special Jewel in the Genre of Holocaust Horror Stories, in 5 parts: https://codoh.com/library/document/4427/?lang=en

    http://www.codoh.com

  236. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Highly recommended to all:

    The Soviet Union’s documented use of document forgeries, Active Measures:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12297

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  237. @Franklin Ryckaert

    There was no “military necessity” for this genocidal operation, as Carolyn Yeager claims.

    Please inform me when, where I said “there was no military necessity” for what you call “genocidal Operation Tannenberg.” I really have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  238. @Wally

    What challenge. I am not taking no challenges especially from mentally ill. According to you, only your nazi documents are valid which make you also look quite ridiculous. According to your method you actually cannot prove anything. Not even bombings of those cities that can be said to be another nazi propaganda.

    • Replies: @Wally
  239. @Wally

    Lol, you are quite a scholar. Say hello to Bonaparte and others over there.

  240. Fox says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Not quite; the Sudeten is a mountain range between Silesia and Bohemia. “Sudeten Germans” was the summary name given to all Germans living in Czecho-Slovakia. The purely German areas of Czrcho-Slovakia were split off of CzechoSlovakia by international agreement in 1938; there still remained Germans in the remaining Czecho-Slovakia in areas which were majorilly Czech, and there were also some Czechs to remain in the transferred areas. These were given the option to become subjects of Germany or go to Czech0-Slovakia.
    I don’t know when the Czechs came to be in Bohemia, before them there were, as far as I know the Markomans, a Germanic tribe; Prague was a German city, amongst other things seat of the oldest German university, and where the Czech intransigence came from is at present not clear to me. A people who can live in a larger nation- Germany- and retain its cultural and language character for a thousand years does not have a good claim at being suppressed. Had the Czechs opted for their independence in 1918 within their bounds, they would have had a good claim to it. Instead, they were following their chauvinistic urges and thought they would never have to try to have a good-neighborly existence with Germany surrounding.
    That was a mistake, much like the Polish delusions of grandeur and conquest. I don’t know how they will get out of the corner they have painted themselves in either.

  241. Ron Unz says:
    @Begemot

    The bulk of Soviet tanks were earlier and lighter models like the T-26 and BT-7, which the German tanks of 1941 were more than capable of defeating.

    I don’t think that’s correct. While it’s certainly true that only a fraction of the 1941 Soviet tanks were the extremely powerful T-34s, from what I’ve read the bulk of the German tanks at that time were even weaker in armament and armor than most of their vastly more numerous Soviet counterparts.

    As I discussed in an article last year, there does seem overwhelming evidence suggesting that the Soviets were offensively deployed in mid-1941 and probably preparing for a massive invasion and conquest of all of Europe, which was only averted by Hitler’s desperate last-minute pre-emptive attack:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    For example, unlike any other country in the world, Stalin had already deployed thousands of fully amphibious tanks, presumably aimed at assisting in the conquest of Britain after the rest of the continent was completely overrun.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Begemot
  242. Ron Unz says:
    @Sparkon

    I’ve written before at UR about my conjecture that Stalin wanted the Germans to attack. He was in league with fellow traveler U.S. Pres. FD Roosevelt, and both had the same game plan to let the enemy strike the first blow so that the moral high ground could be seized by the Allies from the outset, and that’s exactly how it played out.

    Well, it’s nice to see that this thread attracts the usual complement of totally insane commenters…

    So Stalin had deployed his gigantic military forces all along the German border in highly-vulnerable offensive salient positioning in deliberate hopes of “luring” Hitler into suddenly attacking him. As a result, Hitler took the bait and annihilated Stalin’s entire air force on the ground in the first couple of days of fighting, quickly destroyed the bulk of the entire Soviet ground forces, occupied large portions of European Russia, and almost seized Moscow. So I guess Stalin must have been extremely pleased that his diabolical plan had succeeded so well…

    I’d say this reconstruction is roughly comparable to the Moon Hoax lunacy, and indeed I do seem to vaguely recall that our friend “Sparkon” is himself a Moon Hoaxer…

  243. L.K says:
    @Iris

    Hmm… Do you understand the concept of Stalinist Soviet propaganda peddled by the likes of hardcore Stalinists such as SerGay Krieger, a scumbag who just the other day under an article by Kevin Barrett, wrote:

    I always thought Germany got away too easy with crimes committed. The author is an asshole as I stated and shameless demagogue.

    Not before pushing, yet again, his idiotic propaganda about Germany murdering 3 million pows and 18 million civilians.

    FB, another Stalinist pig posting here, has made many JOKES about the mass rapes suffered by German women at the hands of his glorious Red Army. There is a record of it here at Unz.
    As a woman, how do you feel about it?

    I think you will enjoy the following pearl by SerGay, I thought of you when I saw it, Iris.
    Under the article ‘From Norway… to Washington… to Christchurch…’
    http://www.unz.com/article/from-norway-to-washington-to-christchurch/
    SergAy Krieger wrote

    I actually believe that Israeli policy of not allowing blacks into their country is a right thing and must be emulated. Same goes for muslims. If they ate looking for refuge , there is a lot of peaceful Muslim nations to flee to. Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Uzbekistan.
    blacks should not have been allowed into any civilized society ever. Simple example. One such adult black stole my 5 years old son bike to sell. Another one stabbed our neighbor. Few years ago there was some 40+ shootings in Toronto all of them by black. Generally, the only races that can live together peacefully are whites and eastern asians.

    Funny – or bizarre – how these Stalinist pigs immigrate from Russia to the West, often to the ZUSA and Canada of all places!

    Interestingly, I’ve noticed several of these types making very prejudiced comments( racially/religiously) in the last couple years here at Unz, while whining about National Socialism’s racial views from the 1930s!!
    Hypocrisy much?

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Iris
  244. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    @Begemot
    The bulk of Soviet tanks were earlier and lighter models like the T-26 and BT-7, which the German tanks of 1941 were more than capable of defeating.

    Ron Unz responds: “I don’t think that’s correct.”

    Here is what armor specialist and author, Steven Zaloga, writes about the situation and the “obsolete” Soviet tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa:

    … Many histories of Operation Barbarossa deprecate the Soviet tanks as old and obsolete, other than the new T-34 medium and KV heavy tanks. This was not the case, and the BT-7 was clearly better than the majority of German tanks such as the PzKpfw I, PzKpfw II and PzKpfw 35(t). On the other hand, the BT-7 was inferior to German medium tanks such as the PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV. …

    The two tank types that are the focus of this work are the German PzKpfw 38(t) and the Soviet BT-7. Both types were comparable in technical terms with similar levels of armour and firepower, making them a reasonably close technical match. …

    However, out of the 3,400/ 3,500 German tanks & assault guns available for Barbarossa, only around 1,400 were PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV.
    Consider that just the first strategic echelon of the Red Army had close to 1,000 T-34s and more than 500 KVs when the campaign started.
    Zaloga again:

    The largest tank battles in history took place as part of Operation Barbarossa during June–August 1941 in the western border region of the Soviet Union, with more than 13,000 Soviet tanks pitted against 3,400 German tanks. In spite of the Red Army’s enormous quantitative advantage, its tank units were smashed in a series of violent confrontations.
    Nearly 12,000 Soviet tanks were lost in less than three weeks of combat; German tank losses were about 400. …

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  245. Cyrano says:
    @L.K

    FB, another Stalinist pig posting here, has made many JOKES about the mass rapes suffered by German women at the hands of his glorious Red Army.

    What are you talking about, you moron. What rapes? If anything, the Red Army should be applauded for its humanism.

    At the end of WW2 they realized that as a result of nearly 8 million Germans being killed, mostly military men and mostly by the Russians, there is going to be a shortage of organs.

    The Red Army simply answered that humanitarian need and unselfishly donated their organs to the German fraus who were already starting to feel the shortage of German organs as a result of many fools not making it back alive from the Eastern Front. I think a little appreciation for the Soviet generosity is in order.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  246. Sparkon says:

    As a result, Hitler took the bait and annihilated Stalin’s entire air force on the ground in the first couple of days of fighting, quickly destroyed the bulk of the entire Soviet ground forces, occupied large portions of European Russia, and almost seized Moscow. …

    The Wehrmacht had great success against the Red Army in the early days of the war, but it is entirely an exaggeration to say that the Germans “quickly destroyed the bulk of the entire Soviet ground forces.” In fact, the Germans had completely underestimated both the Red Army’s order of battle, and its available reserves, expecting 150 Red Army divisions, but astonished already that summer to count over 350.

    Most of those Soviet aircraft destroyed early in the war were obsolete types like LaGG-1, LaGG-2, MiG-1, MiG-3, I-153, and the “backbone” of the Soviet air force at the outset of WWII, the I-16 with over 3,000 in service by 1941.

    Polikarpov I-16: (Flying PoS)

    So I guess Stalin must have been extremely pleased that his diabolical plan had succeeded so well…

    That seems to be the case. To the victors go the smiles. Almost doesn’t count. The final result was that the Red Army stopped the Germans at Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk, finally chased the Wehrmacht out of Kharkov and all the way back to Berlin, where it was crushed, and the Third Reich put to rest.

    The war ended with the Red Army in control of Berlin, the Soviet Union in control of Eastern Europe, and Stalin firmly in control of the Soviet Union. Why wouldn’t he be pleased?

    Most of the military hardware lost by the Soviets in the early days of Barbarossa was obsolete junk, both tanks and aircraft. Stalin had already demonstrated his supreme disregard for Soviet lives when he forced collectivization on the unwilling peasants and confiscated their grain, so that millions starved. I am doubtful Stalin would suddenly grow a heart when it came to Red Army losses of even a few million more. The Red Army had by some accounts as many as 15 million reserves. New and powerful tanks and aircraft designs were just beginning to roll of the assembly lines, some of which were deep in the Soviet Union beyond the Ural mountains and far out of range of any German weapon. Germany never had a chance.

    Well Ron Unz, it seems to be the case that anyone who holds a different point of view than you is “insane.”

    Charming.

  247. Begemot says:
    @Ron Unz

    To get some balance on this topic I strongly recommend you read “Stumbling Collossus” by Col. David Glantz. Glantz is a recognized Western authority on the Soviet-German war. This book specifically addresses the state of the Soviet military on the eve of the German invasion in 1941. The prose is dry but there is a great quantity of facts. If you read this book you will be better positioned to evaluate the truth of the proposition that Stalin was on the brink of invading Europe in the summer of 1941.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  248. @Carolyn Yeager

    Your comment nr. 210 :

    “Poland had striven for a war with Germany, had been soundly defeated and was now occupied. Poles who continued to resist were subject to execution, period, because they hampered the entire German war effort. Those groups in which resistance fomented were dangerous, such as the priesthood and the intelligensia“.

    Yes, and it was the priesthood and intelligentsia who were murdered in Operation Tannenberg. Not because they were actively fighting against the Germans, but because they might inspire ordinary Poles to do so. Thus you justify “for military reasons” their slaughter. For the same reason the Polish Catholic Church was persecuted. See : Persecution of the Catholic Church in Nazi Crimes Against the Polish Nation.

    As for the 3 million Russian POWs that Hitler “had to” starve because he could not feed them, he could have send them to Germany to work there as slave laborers. Ultimately there would be 10 million of them, and they were all fed by the Germans.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  249. I will answer your moronic comment only once. Germany attacked and invaded USSR and it was the plan all along as Hitler himself was writing in his book. Mass murder of the Soviet citizens and POWs is a hard fact for every normal person which is not nazi scambag like you or Wally.
    Russians and germans are people of the same white indo European race, while blacks negroes are representative of completely alien race which as history teaches ate incompatible with civilized societies and are disruptive. I do not Condit Israeli policies but keeping black out is a right thing to do. The longer time passes after the great patriotic war and ww2 the more freaks like you crawl from under the stones to challenge the truth which is Germany under Nazies committed heinous crimes against humanity in 20 th century causing tens of million deaths. The fact of German invasion of the Soviet union is well documented and Hitler words to his troops prior to this invasion encouraging massive genocide are well known. I mean leaving consciousness behind when dealing with those slavs. There was a number of holocausts committed by germans and the major was against Soviet people. It is just that Jews always did great effort to benefit from their Holocaust while Russians are different sort of people. Documentaries and archives show germans real crimes so is demographic statistics. But is it useless to talk about it with such as you.

  250. Ron Unz says:
    @Begemot

    To get some balance on this topic I strongly recommend you read “Stumbling Collossus” by Col. David Glantz.

    Well, of course, I read Glantz’s book. If you’d actually bothered looking at the link to the article I’d provided, you’d have surely noticed the following paragraph:

    Several years ago, I came across a website debate on the topic, and one strong critic claimed that Suvorov’s theories had been totally debunked by American military historian David M. Glantz in Stumbling Colossus, published in 1998. But when I ordered and read the book I was sorely disappointed. Although purporting to refute Suvorov, the author seemed to ignore almost all of his central arguments, and merely provided a rather dull and pedantic recapitulation of the standard narrative I had previously seen hundreds of times, laced with a few rhetorical excesses denouncing the unique vileness of the Nazi regime. Most ironically, Glantz emphasizes that although Suvorov’s analysis of the titanic Russo-German military struggle had gained great attention and considerable support among both Russian and German scholars, it had been generally ignored in the Anglo-American world, and he almost seems to imply that it can probably be disregarded for that reason. Perhaps this attitude reflected the cultural arrogance of many American intellectual elites during Russia’s disastrous Yeltsin Era of the late 1990s.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    That Glantz is regularly cited as the primary “debunker” of the Suvorov Hypothesis is one important reason I regard it as overwhelmingly likely.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  251. @Sparkon

    No question that Stalin’s utter disregard for his subjects well-being was successfully weaponized during the war (scorched earth, etc.). But as horrific as collectivization was in terms of human life, it didn’t leave cities and infrastructure devastated as the war did. And while the Soviets did of course win the war, in the end they held a ruined Eastern Europe (poor to begin with) and only a quarter of Germany. The greater prize of Western Europe (including most of Germany) went to the Americans. Something Stalin surely would have anticipated if his goals were limited to simply provoking an initial German strike to justify joining the Anglo-Americans war. I.e. insufficient reward given the risk.

  252. Bukowski says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    The Germans in Sudetenland were denied the right to self determination which the Allies claimed to be fighting for in WW1. They complained to the League of Nations many times but this organisation did nothing so they ended up going to Hitler.
    http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/czechconspiracy/cc00.html

  253. Iris says:
    @L.K

    Do you understand the concept of Stalinist Soviet propaganda peddled by the likes of hardcore Stalinists such as SerGay Krieger

    Germany and Russia were both played by a cynical power, Britain, who orchestrated the two World Wars and passed the baton of her dying empire to the emerging American empire. Further back in the shadows, the Zionist masterminds were pulling the strings.

    Both Germany and Russia were made to pay the most atrocious human price for the delusion of grandeur of the Anglo-Zionists.

    Focusing the discussion on which one, Germany or Russia, was the guiltiest during WW2, is similar to scrutinising an elephant through a microscope: you may see very interesting details but will undoubtedly miss the big picture.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  254. Wally says:
    @Sparkon

    said:
    “Most of the military hardware lost by the Soviets in the early days of Barbarossa was obsolete junk, both tanks and aircraft. ”

    LOL.
    I rather doubt Stalin, with his planned invasion of Germany, thought so.

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

  255. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    said:
    “According to you, only your nazi documents are valid which make you also look quite ridiculous. According to your method you actually cannot prove anything. Not even bombings of those cities that can be said to be another nazi propaganda.”

    – Except you have presented no real documents of any kind. Why can’t you?
    But then you did post a laughable Communist propaganda film which I quickly debunked, so now you dodge the challenges I made about it. Your problem, not mine.

    – What “method” is that?
    Perhaps you mean the method that is required in real courts of law, aka: proof
    . LOL

    – Bombing of what cities & are you trying to talk about?

    – Frankly, you are vastly over matched.

    It’s probably not a good idea to faithfully believe in something you cannot prove when challenged.
    When you and those like you do so you end looking like just another Zionist fanatic.

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  256. Begemot says:
    @Ron Unz

    I did not go back to read your article because I tried to read it when it was first published and bailed when I saw the direction it was going in. I remember your being impressed by the fact that some Soviet tanks of the time had amphibious capability and that you accepted that as very strong evidence that the Soviets intended to conquer Europe. Europe has all those rivers, you know (not so many in the Soviet Union?). This view struck me as being naively credulous so I gave up on your essay. Probably didn’t get to where you referenced Col. Glantz.

    My recommendation of Glantz’s book was kindly meant, based on the assumption that you were both unfamiliar with it and interested in getting to the truth of the matter. Invalid assumptions on my part. My apologies.

    Having been a soldier myself I find Glantz’s accounting of the state of the Soviet military in 1941 as not being capable of carrying out a successful invasion of Europe, at this time, credible. The Suvorov hypothesis is not. But it would appear that this is a topic that, like religion, has obtained a belief in some quarters that is resistant to criticism.

    On this topic I withdraw from the lists and leave the field to the true believers. Pax.

    • Agree: FB
  257. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckaert:
    You just love your slogans.
    What, by the way, do you think would have happened had the Poles not declared the joining of the German city of Danzig a case for war, what would have happened had they not committed evermore outrages against Germans living under their rule and what would have happened had they not caused the numerous border incidents, such as firing on German Lufthansa planes, conducting raids of armed gangs into Germany or shelling of German towns close to the border? All of this before September 1, 1939.
    No one knows what would have happened had the war not broken out, had Poland agreed to the proposals of Hitler, or rather, as it was formulated by the German government, made them a point of departure for discussions coming to a mutual understanding.
    What would happen if a world war was caused through the pursuit of a medieval British political doctrine could be well foreseen by people with common sense.
    Since those were in short supply, or side-lined in places such as London, or Washington, we are now in the position where Europe is at the abyss, and even Poland with its gains will soon have to wonder whether the border on its west will shield it from the consequences of its foolishness of putting its prospects in another power’s hand.

  258. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    IOW, you simply dodge what I post and have also shown you cannot keep our lies straight.

    ie.:
    – Previously Franklyn Ryckaert also tried to promote the fake “Generalplan Ost”, which also never existed. LOL
    see: http://www.unz.com/?s=generalplan+ost&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    Ah yes, the way of the True Believer. Don’t confuse them with the facts’. LOL

  259. FB says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    You posted a picture of the Polikarpov I16 with a derogatory comment…

    The I16 is widely acknowledged as a revolutionary design for its time, the early 1930s…being the first low wing monoplane fighter aircraft with retractable landing gear…

    Up until that point in time fighters were mostly non-retractable biplanes…the configuration pioneered by the I16 became the standard right until the jet era…

    The I16 was the best fighter of its generation and, in the right hands, was able to acquit itself well against the new generation Bf109 in the Spanish Civil War…

    Of course the 1930s was a decade of rapid aircraft technology advances…it should be noted that all of the major aviation powers engaged in a very ‘socialist’ approach to advancing the technology…with the NACA in the US…the Royal Aircraft Establishment in the UK… the Central Aero and Hydrodynamic Institute [TsAGI] in the USSR…and the Reihsluftfahrtministerium [RLM] in Germany…the progress achieved would have been impossible without such a centralized effort…

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  260. Ron Unz says:
    @Begemot

    I did not go back to read your article because I tried to read it when it was first published and bailed when I saw the direction it was going in….On this topic I withdraw from the lists and leave the field to the true believers. Pax.

    So I read several books on both sides of the issue and drew the obvious conclusions. Meanwhile, you brag about the fact that you deliberately avoided reading any contrary material and yet describe me as a “true believer.” LOL.

    As I mentioned, Glantz’s book struck me as almost totally worthless since he deliberately refused to respond to any of Suvorov arguments. He didn’t deny them, he just ignored them. If Glantz is the best you can cite, your case is simply non-existent.

    I remember your being impressed by the fact that some Soviet tanks of the time had amphibious capability and that you accepted that as very strong evidence that the Soviets intended to conquer Europe. Europe has all those rivers

    Suvorov makes a very reasonable point that amphibious tanks only make sense as offensive weapons, and building thousands of them is merely one of many important datapoints suggesting Stalin’s plans to conquer all of Europe. Whether they were especially aimed at the English Channel or just all the other rivers in Central and Western Europe is secondary.

    Unlike yourself, I make no claims to being a great military expert, but the arguments against the Suvorov Hypothesis seem so remarkably weak and vacuous that it seems clear that the only reason it wasn’t fully accepted decades ago is because of the near-total blacklisting in the English language media…

    • Replies: @L.K
  261. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Franklin, you are telling lies.
    First, you take one sentence from an entire paragraph I wrote, and try to make a case from that. You don’t put in boldface that in the Polish priesthood and intelligensia dangerous resistance was fomented. IF dangerous resistance was found to be active, execution was justified by the military. You call it “murder” and also use the word “slaughter.”

    Second, I don’t acknowledge the Wikipedia version you are going by, of German operations in Poland. Take a look at the “Notes and references” and try to access them – there is nothing that gives one any confidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenberg#Notes_and_references The page says the lists drawn up by the Gestapo “identified more than 61,000 members of the Polish elite: activists, intelligentsia, scholars, clergy, actors, former officers, and others, who were to be interned or shot.” No source. Then, “the action began on September 1, 1939, and ended in October, resulting in at least 20,000 deaths in 760 mass executions by Einsatzgruppen special task units with help from regular Wehrmacht units.” Again, no source, although it may have come from the Encyklopedia PWN (Polish) or something called Piata kolumna in Kampania Wrzesniowa 1939. Since you don’t read Polish, you have no idea what is said.

    No one really knows what “Operation Tannenberg” was or how many victims. As I have stated before, the Poles lie big time and when you’re known to lie so much, you can’t expect to be believed. And, as Wally says, where are the graves of these 20,000? Why is no proof ever demanded for these claims?

    By the way, the Polish Catholic Church clergy were violent German-haters and preached it openly. A great deal has been written about that. They associated Germans with Lutheranism which they saw as an abomination, and actually taught from the pulpit that God hated Lutherans and wanted them killed. The Polish clergy was unusually political, for some reason. Maybe because they were the highest authority for most Poles.

    As to the 3 million Russian POWs, your suggestion is ludicrous. Why would they allow all these enemy Russians, many of whom were extremely primitive and ignorant, working in Germany? They would need extraordinary supervision. As always, you give some unworkable suggestion for solving problems and leave it at that.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  262. @Carolyn Yeager

    The Polish intelligentsia and clergy were not killed because they were actively engaged in armed resistance (otherwise they would simply be called “the resistance”), but because they might in the future inspire to resistance. Such preventive killing is murder in my book, but obviously not in yours. If your morality would be applied to Germany itself, then the Morgenthau Plan or even Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish” would be equally acceptable.

    As for the “ludicrousness” of using the Russian POWs as workers in Germany, here are some data about those workers :

    Foreign forced labourers
    Numbers
    10 million (1944 est.)[1]
    including:
    6.5 million civilians
    2.2 million POWs
    1.3 million camp inmates
    Abducted
    12 million[1]
    Place of origin
    USSR (33.6%), Poland (21.7%), France (17.1%), Belgium, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Romania and others[1]

    Source : Wikipedia, Forced labour under German rule during World War II

    So POWs were part of the foreign labour force under German rule and 33.6% of the total did come from the SU. There was no excuse to let the Russian POWs die. As for your racist argument that those Russians were “too primitive” to work in Germany, one wonders how Stalin could ever modernize his backward country in such a short time if his labor force was “primitive”.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Fox
  263. FB says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Franklin why do you bother to debate this crazy lady…?…she has no clue about reality from fantasy…

    My dad was stationed in West Germany when I was a kid and I lived there for three years…in the Germany of the 1960s you didn’t have to drive very far in the countryside to see plenty of ‘primitive’… I still remember to this day when one of the locals from whom we would sometimes buy produce butchered a live pig right in his house…in a room just off the kitchen…

    Will never forget that…that pig was huge and the smell will stay with me forever…I was about five at the time…they had an actual hayloft in their attic…so they were living cheek by jowl with livestock…

    My grandmother’s farm back home was like Fifth Avenue compared to how German Peasants lived…

  264. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Good grief. More Wikipedia. I’M not saying the Polish intelligentsia and clergy were even killed – YOU are saying that. I’m saying they justifiably could have been killed under international law if they engaged in the resistance helping to kill Germans. The clergy did indeed hide weapons and traffic in weapons, and many were young and actively engaged in helping armed militia. Your idea of “preventive killing” and “might in the future inspire to resistance” is simply that — your idea.

    I also don’t accept your list of forced laborers in Germany, and you (naturally) don’t say when the Russian POWs were sent there. It was for sure not 3 million all at once in 1941. You also can’t say for sure how many Russian POWs died from lack of food, can you. Most of whatever labor there was came later under Speer and a better developed labor program. Your sneakiness and dishonesty, and failure to reply to my questions and the facts I bring up, has gotten old and beyond tiresome. I am now convinced you MUST be a Jew, as only they are such fanatic opponents of everything to do with AH and the Third Reich. That’s all you’re after, using the Poles, Russian, Slavs to pose as a White Nationalist. OR, as so many others say – you’re just dumb.

    I’ve said all I’m going to say to you on the matter. You’re welcome to keep writing your comments for as long as you’re able. I have yet to see one (and I’ve seen a great, great many) that wasn’t based wholly on a Wikipedia page.

  265. @Cyrano

    This cretin does not get it. Were Soviet army to pay back for what germans did in the Soviet union there would be no Germany or germans left.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Fox
  266. Cyrano says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Absolutely. Just to show you how smart the krauts are – they called one of the greatest nations that ever existed – subhumans. You don’t call a subhuman someone who can rip you a new one, like the Russians did to the germans. Or maybe they were afraid that the Russians lacked the proper motivation to fight them. The vintage nazi germans deserved what they got from the Russians and much, much more.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  267. @Cyrano

    Germany sure get away cheaply. They must thank “evil” Stalin for that.

  268. @Begemot

    Aww, you’re no fun.

    • Replies: @Iris
  269. Iris says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Hi Mighty. I’ve been checking a book by a (left-wing) French historian (Annie Lacroix-Riz). She states that the policy of “Appeasement” followed by the UK/France, and supported by the US, deliberately ruined many attempts made by the USSR, starting from 1933-1934, to set a “Collective Security” scheme that would contain Germany on both East and West fronts. This thesis was formalised by historians Namier and Taylor, and was prominent until the 60’s (when the Cold War made it necessary to demonise the USSR).

    The upshot is a very typical British “divide and rule” policy was put in place to get Germany and the USSR to destroy each other, long before operation Barbarossa took place, making it inevitable. What do you think of it?

    Also, I ‘ve been stalking your discussions with Jacques S. about Picasso. You broke my heart.!!
    How can you not love Picasso? I adore him 🙂 🙂 Best

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  270. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Of course, you are leaving out the fact that a good part of the millions of foreigners working in Germany were recruited, paid, had health- and old age insurance. That was the trick twenty years ago when the then Chancellor Schröder made an attempt to end the criminal exploitation of Germans – but then, it was suddenly forbidden to talk about that, even former foreign workers in Germany were not allowed to say that they were treated well, paid and are still in contact with their former employers. It is apparently possible to invent a past, isn’t it?
    Perhaps you remember Mitterand? Also in your category. He visited the farm near Sigmaringen where he was sent (“forced”) in the mid-80s when he was French President, to talk to his former empoyers whom he held in very good memory.
    Ryckaert, try to rise above demagoguery and cease throwing around Wikipedia cut-and-pastes.

  271. @Iris

    Hey Iris, so that would be a bit stronger than the standard lefty line (e.g. Parry here) that hidebound and ignorant anti-communism led the West to rebuff Stalin’s efforts at peace, that in fact the West deliberately sabotaged these efforts to foment war? Well, there’s little doubt that the primary exponents of war were the Anglo-Americans and Organized Jewry. However it’s hard to view Soviet efforts as anything but cynical. Still, even honest offers would have been rejected by the British, who were determined to go to war (and abetted by Polish stupidity). WW2 follows the historical pattern of Britain implacably opposing the rise of a continental power (and a German-Russian alliance makes too much sense). It’s claimed that the British warned Stalin in vain of the impending attack, but a more likely scenario is that they were feeding him false information.

    BTW, what Picasso discussion are you referring to?

    • Replies: @Iris
  272. Sparkon says:
    @FB

    Right. The I-16 was a revolutionary design for its time, but its time passed quickly. I disparaged it in the context of contemporary aircraft design by mid-1941, when its stubby airframe had been superseded by the much more aerodynamic and by-now familiar low-wing streamlined monoplane design used throughout the war by all major combatants in such familiar warbirds as the Hurricane, P-40, Bf-109, Yak-3, Spitfire, P-51 and others, up until the advent of jet aircraft.

    Surprisingly, if the Wikipedia article is to be believed, well over 7,000 I-16s were produced, with half surviving until 1943 when the type was phased out.

    During the early phase of the campaign the I-16 bases were the main targets for the German aircraft and after 48 hours of combat, of the 1,635 Polikarpov monoplanes in service on 21 June 1941, only 937 were left.

    Was the glass half-empty or half-full? Whichever way one looks at it, the performance of the lowly I-16 alone demonstrates that Stalin’s air force was never “wiped out.”

    Indeed, contrary to what some must believe, including notably our host Mr. Unz, the entire Soviet air force (VVS) was not annihilated on the ground, nor was “the bulk of the entire ground force quickly destroyed” on or shortly after June 22, 1941.

    If it had been, it is doubtful comrade Stalin would have been able to join the Allied invasion of Iran on Aug. 25, 1941 with the participation of three entire Soviet armies, 44th, 47th, and 53rd forming three armored spearheads with over 1,000 T-26 tanks that helped the Allies rapidly brush aside the Iranians, and take control of the country. During the war, over 5 million tons of supplies were moved through the so-called Persian corridor.

    Anyway, in contradiction to Suvorov/Rezun, I subscribe to the general theory that the Red Army had neither the equipment, training, organization, or readiness to contemplate an invasion of Europe in 1941, especially with the Wehrmacht standing in its way. I mean, would you attack the Germans with the I-16 as your primary fighter, and the T-26 as your most numerous tank? I sure as hell wouldn’t, and I’m doubtful that the generals and commissars from that “nation of chess players” would have agreed to such a foolish action either, especially since they would have been keenly aware, not only of the shortcomings of war machines like T-26, T-28, and I-16, but also of the much better capabilities of the Red Army’s latest generation of weapons which were just beginning to roll off the assembly lines in significant numbers by 1941.

    Psst. But yeah sure, once past the Wehrmacht, and having completed its joyride across France, comrade Stalin could order the Red Army to move up its amphibious tanks and simply sail across the English channel to attack Blighty and complete his conquest of Europe. ‘Piece of cake. Duck soup. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Never mind that by 1941, the Red Army’s most numerous amphibious tanks — the T-38 — were death traps:

    Amphibious capability was important to the Red Army, as evidenced by the production of over 1,500 amphibious tanks in the 1930s. The T-40 was intended to replace the aging T-37 and T-38 tank light amphibians. It was a superior design, but due to the pressures of war the Soviets favored the production of simpler tank designs, so only a small number of T-40s were built
    […]
    A total of 1,228 T-38 tanks were built from 1936 to 1937, with an additional 112 made in 1939 after a two-year break in production.
    […]
    The T-38 also struggled with carrying any excess cargo across water. The tank was incapable of supporting the weight of two infantrymen while floating, and overloads of 120-150 kilos would cause the commander’s hatch to flood, sinking the vehicle.

    ‘Another one for the “Easier Said Than Done” department.

    Finally, I thought Suvorov had earlier promoted the idea that Stalin’s invasion of Europe was going to be accomplished with airborne troops? Has he abandoned that concept and gone on now to amphibious tanks as his theorized instrument of Stalin’s impending but fabled conquest of Europe?

    • Replies: @Anon
  273. Fox says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Krieger (“Warrior”):
    Your snippet makes me think of a book by R.T.Paget: Manstein-His Campaigns and his Trial.
    Paget was Mansteins barrister when the latter was processed as a war criminal” in Hamburg. Naturally, fantastical accusations were launched against Manstein and the German troops in the Ukraine. Paget made some of his own inquests and found that Soviet imagination had indeed taken wings.
    Again: Since it is an established fact that there was an intense troop build-up at the western border of the SU, its behavior, armaments and instructions pointing towards an impending attack, why was there no effort to dispel the impression of impending attack if there was only peacable daydreaming and bucolic reverie in air in the SU?
    Why did the SU also have no hesitation to act militarily in a way so as to suggest that the troop build-up was not a mere exercise?
    In other words, why do you think that the behavior of the SU with its gigantic armaments, gigantic military expenditure, aggressive language and behavior, aggressive doctrine and dubious maneuverings not be suspected of using the Red Army for an attack in the near future?
    Look at Unternehmen Barbarossa as a defensive strike against the SU, which would easily have been avoided by an attempt to dispel the very well grounded suspicions caused by the SU’s behavior. No such attempt was made. Perhaps Hitler had no choice between waiting for the attack he believed to come or to forestall it by a preemptive strike.
    Note that the attack was directed at the Bolshevik Soviet Union, not on Russia.
    All in all, there was, prior to the war, a lot of planning for future grandeur, these plans were thoroughly going south for all parties involved including the SU, the US, Britain and France, i.e., the countries who were actively stoking the fires of war.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @EugeneGur
  274. Ron Unz says:
    @Sparkon

    I’ve written before at UR about my conjecture that Stalin wanted the Germans to attack. He was in league with fellow traveler U.S. Pres. FD Roosevelt, and both had the same game plan to let the enemy strike the first blow so that the moral high ground could be seized by the Allies from the outset, and that’s exactly how it played out.

    Actually, I’d forgotten to mention another historical detail that totally demolishes the ridiculous notion that FDR/Churchill/Stalin were secretly in league, trying to provoke the German attack on the USSR which eventually occurred.

    Here’s a paragraph from another one of my articles:

    Judging the credibility of a source from such a distance in time is not easy, but sometimes a single telling detail provides an important clue. In revisiting Huddleston’s book, I noticed he casually mentioned that in Spring 1940 the French and British had been on the very verge of a military attack against Soviet Russia, which they regarded as Germany’s crucial ally, and planned an assault on Baku, intending to destroy Stalin’s great oil fields of the Caucasus by a strategic bombing campaign. I had never read a single mention of this in any of my World War II histories, and until recently I would have dismissed the story as an absurd rumor of that era, long since debunked. But just a couple of weeks ago, I discovered a 2015 article in The National Interest confirming these exact facts, over seventy years after they had understandably been expunged from all of our mainstream historical narratives.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/

    So in early 1940, the British and French were on the verge of launching a massive air attack against the USSR from their Syria and Iraq bases, planning to destroy Stalin’s oil fields in hopes of eliminating Hitler’s vital fuel supplies. The only thing that prevented the surprise French/British attack on Russia was Germany’s subsequent attack and occupation of France.

    I think the fact that this absolutely astonishing element of WWII was widely known in elite circles at the time but then successfully covered up for almost 75 years in 100% of all history books demonstrates the sheer worthlessness of Establishment WWII historiography…

  275. FB says: • Website

    You make some sensible points for an ‘insane’ guy…LOL

    But seriously…I think Mr Unz is just very enamored of the crackpot Suvorov ‘theory’…perhaps taking into account the formidable logic of softhead ‘Wally’ and mental patient ‘Carolyn Yeager’…not to mention all the other Nazi moon howlers here…

    He also high handedly dismissed another eminently sensible commenter here and the respected military historian Glantz…on account that Glantz apparently didn’t address all of Crackpot Suvorov’s so called ‘points’…perhaps for the simple reason that such ‘points’ exist only in the feverish ‘minds’ of crackpots like Suvorov…and therefore merit no discussion…LOL

    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
  276. @Ron Unz

    Nice mention of Operation Pike. Believing Stalin would have trusted the British is about as ridiculous as believing that he would have trusted Hitler.

    BTW, the Soviet participation in the invasion of Iran (with Britain) is a big nothing burger. The operation had an important military objective, namely opening a critical southern supply route and knocking out a pro-German government. It is not really surprising that the Soviets would commit resources to it, this does not indicate that their situation against the Germans was not dire.

  277. @Ron Unz

    Have a look at this link:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Baku+bombing+1940&tbm=bks&prmd=inv&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1999&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibufeD4ffhAhVDrVkKHWfbDt0QpwUIHg&biw=375&bih=553&dpr=2

    Here you’ll find books going back to 1948 years mentioning Churchill’s idea of bombing Baku in 1940. In short, this information was never hidden, certainly not 100% for 75 years.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Ron Unz
  278. Mulegino1 says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    When objective, real historiography finally eclipses the Manichean propaganda of the official narrative, the invidious contrast between the bloodthirsty warmonger Churchill and the conciliatory Chancellor of Germany will emerge center stage.

    Churchill loved war and he loved bloodshed, however unjust or copious. Hitler, as a decorated veteran of the Great War, desired neither war nor bloodshed, because he personally shared in their cost through, among other things, temporary blindness.

    Churchill was a compromised and totally bought and paid for drunken slob, whose entire future prospects depended upon him doing the bidding of the British war party, which paid off his debts through generous donations from the FOCUS group.

    The reality is that there have been- in the whole history of Europe- few statesmen as desirous as Hitler was for peace. Unfortunately, over 80 years of propaganda bullshit have obscured the reality of the situation in 1930’s Europe.

    We live in a world totally dominated by propaganda and big lies. The credulity of the “broad masses” has not diminished, it has increased exponentially- to the point where, in many places throughout the western world it has become a crime to use the wrong pronoun with respect to obvious and fixed biological realities and to cite established facts with respect to history.

    To the objective student of world history it has become ever clearer that the entire world, outside of Wall St. the City of London and Tel Aviv, was the big loser of the Second World War.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @FB
    , @Iris
  279. Wally says:
    @Mulegino1

    said:
    “We live in a world totally dominated by propaganda and big lies. The credulity of the “broad masses” has not diminished, it has increased exponentially- to the point where, in many places throughout the western world it has become a crime to use the wrong pronoun with respect to obvious and fixed biological realities and to cite established facts with respect to history.”

    At the very top of the propaganda heap, where it’s been deemed that “truth is no defense”, is the scientifically impossible ‘6M Jews, 5M others, and gas chambers’. The “holocaust” narrative is the reigning King of The Big Lies.

    Below is where free speech on the truly impossible “holocaust” storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes. In all western countries, persecution, harassment, violent attacks & threats are the order of the day against those who engage in free speech about the impossible claims within it.
    Those are obvious admissions that the storyline doesn’t stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.
    Only lies require censorship.

    http://www.codoh.com

  280. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    And they lost that Commonwealth too, didn’t they? Through their own blunders.

    Under those same German kings…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_II_the_Strong

    By the time Poniatowski came to the throne the Russians could pick and choose the ruler.

    If you want to attribute the successes of the PLC to their German princes, you have to give them the blame too.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  281. FB says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    Glad you mentioned Hitler’s ‘temporary blindness’…the nutcase was indeed treated at Pasewalk hospital in 1918, for ‘hysterical amlyopia’ a mental disorder that causes temporary blindness…commonly known as hysterical blindness…

    Like I said…Shitler was a psychopath…that has been medically established since WW2 and is not in doubt…

    At the end of the day he was a pathetic loser…picking a fight and then getting crushed…think back to your childhood…do you remember kids like that…?

    I do…they would stupidly challenge stronger kids, often for no good reason, and then promptly get the shit kicked out of them…that’s called mental illness…

    This is why it’s so easy to crush you softheaded Nazi mouthfoamers…you’re fucking losers…worshipping history’s biggest fucking loser…who blew his brains out at the end like every fucking loser you read about every day in the paper, after he’s cornered by the cops…

    • Agree: Cyrano
  282. Mulegino1 says:
    @FB

    Glad you mentioned Hitler’s ‘temporary blindness’…the nutcase was indeed treated at Pasewalk hospital in 1918, for ‘hysterical amlyopia’ a mental disorder that causes temporary blindness…commonly known as hysterical blindness…

    It has been observed that being the victim of chemical weapons can have temporary deleterious effects upon one’s health, but he got over it- unlike you true believers, who are still mired in your ridiculous comic book notions of history.

    Like I said…Shitler was a psychopath…that has been medically established since WW2 and is not in doubt…

    This kind of rhetoric is usually employed by second graders when they don’t get their way. Nothing of the sort has been “medically established since WW2.”

    At the end of the day he was a pathetic loser…picking a fight and then getting crushed…think back to your childhood…do you remember kids like that…?

    I do…they would stupidly challenge stronger kids, often for no good reason, and then promptly get the shit kicked out of them…that’s called mental illness…

    Sorry, but your autobiographical moments are of interest to no one.

    Hitler did not “pick a fight.” It was Poland, Great Britain, France, and surreptitiously, the FDR administration, that picked a fight with him.

    I realize that ignoramuses like you cannot even keep the proper chronology of events in perspective, and are satisfied with sound bites from the History Channel, but your problem goes deeper. I would seriously suggest you purchasing a thesaurus, as your use of profanity evinces a very limited vocabulary.

    Hitler, whatever his faults- and all great men save Christ have them- engineered the greatest economic recovery in recorded history, and restored a sense of dignity and moral worth to the German people. Was Germany under some kind of moral imperative to lay supine and starving and prostitute its wives and daughters in order to appease the predatory jackals of international finance? Was Hitler, as German Chancellor, remiss in his duties by restoring his nation’s defenses to a level merely at rough parity with Germany’s potential adversaries?

    Ignoramuses like you, trapped in your little bubble of deception and tidy mindedness swallow official narratives because you lack both intellectual curiosity and the capacity to assimilate new information.

    • Replies: @FB
  283. Sparkon says:
    @Ron Unz

    demonstrates the sheer worthlessness of Establishment WWII historiography…

    Crazy as it may sound, I pretty much agree with you, at least on that point, and of course it goes way beyond WWII.

    At any rate, I don’t think there’s much doubt that FDR’s administration was infiltrated and compromised by Red agents:

    The president’s most trusted adviser is a Soviet agent. The nation’s leading nuclear scientist is turning secrets over to the Kremlin. The entire federal government is honeycombed with Communists. American intelligence agencies are infested with Russian spies. Soviet agents are working in the offices of renowned American columnists, and one beloved journalist is actually on Moscow’s payroll.

    This isn’t the plot of a second-rate spy thriller. This is the actual truth about the astounding Soviet penetration of the United States during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, as carefully researched and dispassionately presented by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel in The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors.

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/robert-d-novak/stalins-agents

    • LOL: FB
  284. Iris says:
    @Mulegino1

    Churchill loved war and he loved bloodshed, however unjust or copious.

    Thanks for the great comment. While I am not familiar with some of the details and information you provide, the logics is impeccable.

  285. FB says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    You forgot to address his parting shot…into his own wooden head…LOL…

    How do you rationalize this little tidbit of lowest common denominator signature violent criminal behavior…which we see every day from unhinged nutcases after a crime spree leads to the inevitable ‘fatal self inflicted gunshot wound’…

    No amount of fantasizing by your sorry ass changes reality…grow up loser…if you start now you could still turn your sorry ass life around…

    • Replies: @L.K
  286. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Here you’ll find books going back to 1948 years mentioning Churchill’s idea of bombing Baku in 1940. In short, this information was never hidden, certainly not 100% for 75 years.

    Well, I’m obviously not claiming there were absolutely no books that mentioned it. After all, I had directly pointed to the 1955 Huddleston book. However, I checked several of the references you had supposedly found in your Google Books sweep, and only one or two of the more obscure ones seem to slightly mention it even slightly, with most of the others referring to entirely different things.

    If a full sweep of everything in Google Books seem to turn up only a handful of very scanty references to what obviously would have been the turning point of WWII, namely the planned joint British and French attack on the Soviet Union in 1940, I think that demonstrates it’s been just as thoroughly “disappeared” as I suggest.

    Here’s a further datapoint. In 2007, Chris Bellamy a professor of military studies published Absolute War, an authoritative 800pp account of World War II relating to the USSR. Yet based upon the lengthy index, it doesn’t seem to even be mentioned in a single sentence. So either Bellamy was still “covering it up” 65 years later, or (quite possibly) he was simply unaware of it.

    I’d certainly never heard of it and I very much doubt too many other people had either. If you claim that it’s so widely known, why don’t you go ahead and find me the lengthiest and most substantial reference you can, preferably in a major book by a reasonably prominent author.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  287. L.K says:
    @Begemot

    Having been a soldier myself I find Glantz’s accounting of the state of the Soviet military in 1941 as not being capable of carrying out a successful invasion of Europe, at this time, credible.

    Several Russian historians and also former Red Army officers, including decorated Generals, disagree with you and Glantz.

    Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran, Pyotr Grigorenko, pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941 & that just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”

    Former Red Amy Major-General Petr Grigorenko, who commanded troops in initial battles following June 22, 1941, complained in his memoirs that “there could be only one reason for [the heavy deployment of Red Army offensive troops in the west], namely, that these troops were intended for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack, these troops would already be half encircled. The enemy would only need to deal a few, short blows at the base of our wedge and then encirclement would be complete.”13

  288. L.K says:
    @FB

    You write like a hysterical little 14 year old girl.

    Who exactly do you think you are impressing with your vacuous, desperate little spamming posts?

    FB == Clown without the makeup.

  289. Iris says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Hello Mighty; apologies for the late reply.
    I quoted Annie Lacroix-Riz, a lady historian whose thesis is that Stalin’s alliance offerings were deliberately turned down by the Britain/France/Poland group supported by the US .
    She is a prominent academic, professor emeritus of modern history at Universite Paris 7, and a specialist of international relations during the first half of the 20th century, and of France’s WW2 “Occupation”.

    Her thesis is that the USSR tried desperately to form a “Rear alliance” to contain Germany, one that would replicate the successful reciprocal defensive alliance of WW1.
    Indeed, negotiations to establish a Franco-Soviet pact of mutual assistance started in 1934; interestingly the French negotiator Louis Barthou was murdered and replaced by future collaborator Laval who buried the project.

    After the March 1935 German declaration of re-armament, the French public renewed its demands for an alliance with the USSR. A Franco-British mission was sent to Moscow from 11 to 24 August 1936 to calm the public. But while the Soviet negotiator was empowered and had a precise and specific common defence plan to build up upon, his recalcitrant counterparts recognised they were not authorised to make any decision. Their mission for just for the show.

    The historian reminds how often the expression “free rein in the East” (“main libres a l’Est“) was familiar to all British and French politicians partisan of an “Appeasement” policy with Germany, and often found in the 1938-1939 correspondence between French (Bonnet) and German (Von Ribbentrop) FM’s.

    Finally, she states that far from new, this was the dominant historic thesis after WW2, as concluded in:
    – “Diplomatic prelude 1938-1939″ , Lewis B. Namier, 1948
    – ” The origins of the 2nd World War” A.J.P Taylor, 1961
    – “La Russie en Guerre” Alexander Werth, 1964
    https://www.legrandsoir.info/le-role-de-l-urss-dans-la-deuxieme-guerre-mondiale-1939-1945.html

    Would that surprise anybody? Why would Stalin NOT want an alliance to contain Germany? Why somebody as cynical would have believed that the USSR could take on Germany on her own? After the WW1 disater in Russia? Stalingrad was a miracle in many ways.
    It is way more likely and logical that France and Britain deliberately deceived Germany to attack the USSR on their behalf, to destroy both. All the best, dear.

  290. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    I find it “amusing” that these trolls pile up on Suvorov, while ignoring the various other Russian historians, several of whom former Red Army or intel officers, who have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning an offensive against NS Germany in the summer of 1941.

    For example, Albert Weeks is a US historian & former Professor of International Affairs, fluent in Russian, who has closely followed the Russian historians’ disputes which arose [after the fall of the Soviet Union and the partial opening of archives] over the Stalin regime’s offensive war plans against NS Germany. Despite being very ignorant of the German side, basically repeating the usual anti-Hitler line, professor Weeks nevertheless concedes that several Russian historians and former Red Army and intel veterans have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning to attack.
    Not only that but several of these Russian historians and military people have/had connections to the Russian Ministry of Defense and some are of a pro-Soviet inclination:

    Nevertheless, what the researchers have produced is a pattern of Red Army deployments and concentration of troops along the Soviet western frontier in spring 1941 that strongly suggests that the General Staff and Stalin were planning eventually to get the preemptive jump on the Wehrmacht. The fact that in addition to Russian historians a number of informed ex–Red Army or security officers make this allegation cannot be ignored. As it turned out, of course, the Germans got the jump on the Soviets. …
    it is significant and worth recognizing that a number of “new” Russian historians are opting for the offensist interpretation as to Stalin’s and the Red Army General Staff’s war planning on the eve of Barbarossa. In the meantime, it is unhelpful to assume, as some Western writers have, that these Russian historians take the positions they do, like the notions proffered so vehemently by émigré Viktor Suvorov, because they blindly hate Stalin or for some other reasons unrelated to the facts and documents that they have collected.

    Note that some of the historians of the offensist persuasion are connected with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Others (unlike the much despised Suvorov) show pro-Soviet tendencies in their interpretations of events. Yet they hew to the offensist thesis concerning Stalin war planning.15
    It behooves Western specialists and observers to pay attention to the Russian historians’ latest findings as well as to their interpretations of their findings. The Russian historians say that they will keep on pressing the authorities for more archives to be opened because, they insist, additional top-secret information from the period of 1939–41 continues to be kept concealed. …

    Source: Stalin’s other war

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Troll: Sergey Krieger
  291. L.K says:
    @Fox

    Very good posts, Fox;

    However, “casting Pearls before swine” comes to mind when I see you and Mulegino trying to engage clowns like this SerGay, FB, the Dutch dude and others of their ilk.
    It’s like running head first against a brick wall.

    Regards.

  292. @Anon

    Dear Anonymous,
    You can spin it any way you want, but it was your full-fledged Polish King who lost the Commonwealth. I don’t want to bash Poles here, but consulting your own choice of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_August_Poniatowski, I find:

    Having arrived at the Russian imperial court in Saint Petersburg in 1755, he became romantically involved with the future empress Catherine the Great (1762–1796). With her connivance, in 1764 he was elected King of Poland.

    Although Poniatowski protested against the First Partition of the Commonwealth (1772), he was powerless to do anything about it.[33] He considered abdication, but decided against it.[31]
    Eventually Poniatowski and the Sejm acceded to the “partition treaty.”

    Poniatowski also planned a reform to improve the situation of Polish Jews.[51]

    In July 1792, when Warsaw was threatened with siege by the Russians, the king came to believe that surrender was the only alternative to total defeat.[65]
    To their surprise, there ensued the Second Partition of Poland.[62] Faced with his powerlessness, Poniatowski once again considered abdication;

    Poniatowski’s plans had been ruined by the Kościuszko Uprising.[70]
    Poniatowski tried to govern the country in the brief period after the fall of the Uprising, but on 2 December 1794, Catherine demanded he leave Warsaw, a request to which he acceded on 7 January 1795, leaving the capital under Russian military escort and settling briefly in Grodno.[71] On 24 October 1795, the Act of the final, Third Partition of Poland was signed.

    He was the last King of Poland – the King who failed to save the country.[92]

    P.S. The German-blooded kings were of course Polanized, so they were not functioning at best. Blaming it all on August II and III is typically Polish reasoning, I’m sorry to say.

    • Replies: @Anon
  293. @Ron Unz

    Well, I’m obviously not claiming there were absolutely no books that mentioned it. After all, I had directly pointed to the 1955 Huddleston book. However, I checked several of the references you had supposedly found in your Google Books sweep, and only one or two of the more obscure ones seem to slightly mention it even slightly, with most of the others referring to entirely different things.

    Well, looking over the first page of hits, the second (by Horne), fourth (Azerbaijan International), fifth (Pike), sixth (Dick et al), seventh (Brown & MacDonald), and eighth (Knight) all relate to the topic at hand. The first (Levine), ninth (Gilbert), and tenth (Diane) do not. The third (Lawlor) is unclear, but I think given the years the book covers and the topic (Churchill), it’s safe to say the book does in fact address the possibility of Britain and France bombing Baku. That’s seven out of ten that mention it and that’s just the first page of hits and a search limited to books published before 2001.

    If a full sweep of everything in Google Books seem to turn up only a handful of very scanty references to what obviously would have been the turning point of WWII, namely the planned joint British and French attack on the Soviet Union in 1940, I think that demonstrates it’s been just as thoroughly “disappeared” as I suggest.

    Except it didn’t happen, so it’s not a turning point. In fact, given what follows with Barbarossa makes the consideration extremely unimportant. In fact, I’m not sure why this is some kind of “gotcha” at all. Britain and France were fighting Germany. There was a real possibility that the USSR, which Churchill despised, was going to supply fuel for Germany. So obviously Churchill would consider attacking Soviet oil fields. He’d be foolish not to. Am I missing something?

    Here’s a further datapoint. In 2007, Chris Bellamy a professor of military studies published Absolute War, an authoritative 800pp account of World War II relating to the USSR. Yet based upon the lengthy index, it doesn’t seem to even be mentioned in a single sentence. So either Bellamy was still “covering it up” 65 years later, or (quite possibly) he was simply unaware of it.

    Bellamy does mention it — on page 237. So does Beevor in his single-volume history (I have a nonpaginated ebook, but it’s there and on more than one page). Overy mentions it in his book on bombing.

    Ron, I don’t know how to break this to you, but this idea of bombing Baku is all over like white on rice.

    I’d certainly never heard of it and I very much doubt too many other people had either. If you claim that it’s so widely known, why don’t you go ahead and find me the lengthiest and most substantial reference you can, preferably in a major book by a reasonably prominent author.

    I think I made my case but I remain perplexed as to why this is supposed to be a big deal. Everyone knows Churchill hated the Soviets. Everyone knew that there was a nonaggression pact between Germany and the USSR before Barbarossa, and everyone knew that there was widespread economic cooperation, including military training, between the two countries. Plus, Churchill had attempted to mine Norwegian waters, and they were an ally, so why not bomb the Baku oilfields? And again, given that it was just an idea and not something that actually happened, what’s the harm in treating it only in passing?

  294. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Blaming it all on August II and III is typically Polish reasoning

    is an example of projection and misattribution– I have no Polish blood (or from anywhere else in the PLC) whatsoever, nor did I attribute “it all” to German kings– I said that to the extent the successes of the PLC are attributed to German kings, to that extent they must be blamed for its failures.

    Is anything in your comment a reply to that contention?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  295. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Like anything else, if you know what questions to ask, you can find the answer (on google or otherwise). Operation Pike was not sealed in archives like a lot of Allied documents, but it’s still an obscure facet of the war and definitely not widely known.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  296. @Anon

    You quoted me as saying “they lost the Commonwealth too, didn’t they?” So I pointed out from your wikipedia source who lost the Commonwealth. If you can show otherwise, go ahead.

    Then you said, “If you want to attribute the successes of the PLC to their German princes, you have to give them the blame too.” But I did not attribute any success of the PLC to anyone, so you are mistaken here.

    Whether you have Polish blood or not remains unknown, since you choose to hide yourself. Why? Because you are just playing games and hoping to trap me in something? I think so. I am not interested.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  297. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I don’t dispute that. I’m just saying I don’t think it was hidden or suppressed

  298. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Because you are just playing games and hoping to trap me in something? I think so. I am not interested.

    What trap? I am going to, what, turn you in to the Polish inquisition?

    Whether you have Polish blood or not remains unknown

    Okay, you got me. I am the reanimated ghost of Karol Wojtla. Fact.

    You quoted me as saying “they lost the Commonwealth too, didn’t they?” So I pointed out from your wikipedia source who lost the Commonwealth. If you can show otherwise, go ahead.

    I quoted you talking about blunders; if you don’t think the blunders of Augustus the Strong and his son contributed to things like, I don’t know, the Russians occupying the country and, practically speaking, crowning the next king, you should read more history.

    But I did not attribute any success of the PLC to anyone, so you are mistaken here.

    Okay, fair enough. I’m not sure what exactly you meant to say with the “most of their kings were German” bit; not much in particular, it seems, but if you didn’t mean to attribute any credit, you needn’t attribute any blame.

  299. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Well, okay, I think my first reply to this comment may be just a little trollish. So I will give this one straight.

    I think the Poles (and to a lesser extent the Lithuanians, though their role in its foundation was very considerable) were mostly responsible for both the successes and failures of the PLC.

    Just as the Germans were primarily responsible for building and then losing three separate “Reichs”. The first one put the second two to shame, though.

  300. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Bellamy does mention it — on page 237.

    Nope. The reference is to the aftermath of Barbarossa, when the total collapse of the Soviet forces in 1941 led the British to consider bombing Baku in order to deny the Germans access to the oil. Obviously, that has absolutely nothing to do with a planned British/France attack on the USSR in 1940.

    You obviously just did a simple text search and then were too lazy to actually bother reading the page you found. So my statement stands: an 800 page “authoritative” account of the Soviet role in WWII published in 2007 never mentions a single word about it.

    Some of those Google Book hits may also be referencing the 1941 story since it’s hard to tell from the tiny snippets of text Google provides. That applies to the Brown and Knight books, which are anyway quite obscure and long out of print.

    We do apparently have brief mentions in (1) an Azerbaijan academic journal, (2) the academic conference proceedings edited by Pike, and (3) the German book edited by Wegner. I think we’re talking about one sentence or so in each case. Plus maybe a few sentences in the 1969 Horne book.

    The Osborn book documenting the entire story ran 326 pages and was published in a military studies series in 2000, but seems to have been almost totally ignored. That’s why The National Interest treated it as such a shocking revelation in their 2015 article, which they even republished in 2017.

    Roughly around the same time, others seem to have finally started acknowledging the reality. Just as you claim, Beevor’s 2012 volume does give it three glancing mentions, totaling perhaps 50 words across the 880 pages of his book. And as you suggest, Overy’s 2014 book which runs almost 600 pages does indeed give it a couple of paragraphs.

    So my claim stands. Between Huddleston’s 1955 book and Overy’s 2014 book, all we’ve found is a scattered sentence or two here and there, mostly in very obscure sources. And that’s even after the publication of Osborn’s book in 2000, which provided the full archival documentation.

    Once again, I challenge you to find me the longest and most comprehensive presentation prior to 2014, preferably in a major book by a prominent author. Who knows, maybe you’ll be able to find a full paragraph buried somewhere within the ten million pages of World War II books published across those six decades.

    Or as a dishonest history-hoaxer, you can instead go back to your endless denials of the simple factual reality that the early Bolshevik leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish…

  301. Cyrano says:

    Let me indulge in a little amateur psychoanalysis. Feel free to call me Sigmund Fraud. I am going to try to analyze the Fuhrer.

    I think that Adolf knew that he was a loser. He knew that there was nothing there, so he sought greatness through something that he though was greater than him – the German nation. So he whipped them up into a frenzy, charmed them, raised them up into the stratosphere. He had high expectations of them. They failed him. It’s hard to say who was more flawed, the loser leader, or the ones who followed him. They liked the fairy tales of superiority. It appealed to their vanity.

    Despite all this, he failed them more than they failed him. He was a bigger loser than them, because at the end he wasn’t man enough to face the consequences and believed that whatever fate awaits his nation – they deserved it, because they didn’t live up to his deranged fantasies. The greatness that Adolf sought to achieve through the Germans, wasn’t deserved by either of them. His vision for him and for them, was a nightmare for the rest of the world and they all deserved what they got.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Fox
    , @Wally
  302. @Cyrano

    Good analysis. Unlike other dictators, Hitler didn’t suffer from personal megalomania, he suffered from megalomania-of-his-people. The Thousand Year Reich, not his own Ego, was centre of his ambition. Therefore he didn’t create a cult around his own personality like such dictators as Stalin, Mao or Ceausescu did, but a cult around the greatness of the German people, and that was visible in the architecture and sculpture of the Third Reich. When all failed, he blamed the German people, and not his own reckless behavior. It all was a case of projection.

    • LOL: Wally, Carolyn Yeager
  303. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    @283 Sparkon
    “especially with the Wehrmacht standing in its way”

    Mark Solonin:
    Rolling eastward was an avalanche of mismatched automobiles, including captured French autobuses and bread vans.
    http://www.solonin.org/en/article_mark-solonin-june-1941-final

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  304. Fox says:
    @Cyrano

    Oh dear! Now they start to “psychoanalyze”.
    May I add that people who do that seem to commonly draw conclusions about their own personalities.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  305. Wally says:
    @Cyrano

    LOL

    said:
    “His vision for him and for them, was a nightmare for the rest of the world and they all deserved what they got.”

    – You mean the “nightmare” brought to Germany, not by Germany.

    – You mean the “nightmare” for which you have no roof of your childish “holocaust” & ‘German atrocity’claims, as has been demonstrated repeatedly at this site.

    – Zionists are good at reciting fantasies & propaganda, but have no proof for what they mindlessly recite. It’s really that simple.

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    – Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    http://www.codoh.com

  306. Wally says:
    @Ron Unz

    Indeed, one can peruse this site and see a history of Andrew Mathis’s lies among a long list of his nefarious actions.

    http://www.codoh.com

  307. Deschutes says:
    @Sin City Milla

    What nonsense you spew. Not even gonna waste time debating right whinger such as yourself, who is so insecure in his political beliefs that he a) gets his knickers in a bunch because he read an article that he doesn’t agree with–and demands it be banished from this website; and b) arrogantly projects upon all others his own changes in beliefs over time. Finally you resort to name calling: I’m adolescent and ‘need to grow up’ and see things just like you do. You’re a joke, dude.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  308. Cyrano says:
    @Fox

    Just because you’ve heard few psychoanalysis cliches, applied them to yourself – rang true, doesn’t mean that they apply to everybody else. Compared to you, I am capable of original thinking.

    • Replies: @Fox
  309. Sparkon says:
    @Anon

    Yes, well, the Wehrmacht “standing” on its home ground close to its supply and maintenance depots, its families and sweethearts, was a different beast altogether than the attacking Wehrmacht, which relied significantly on horse-drawn transport. Berlin is 1,800 km from Moskva.

    The Red Army used horses as well, and both sides had mounted cavalry formations. According to Wikipedia, in WWII the Wehrmacht and Red Army together used more than 6 million horses …

    In the same way, even with its early defeats, the Red Army standing on Soviet soil was a more capable force than any attacking Red Army would have been at the time, and of course the final result supports that analysis, as the Red Army defeated the Wehrmact in every significant battle.

    According to the standard narrative, the Red Army gained the mobility and transport necessary for sustained offensive operations only with its receipt of Dodge trucks via lend lease later in the war, so once again, the standard narratives “speak with forked tongue” and try to have it both ways.

    In military theory, the 3 to 1 Rule says that the attacking force must have a 3 to 1 advantage over the defender in order to prevail.

    Prior to Suvorov/Rezun, the excuse for the Red Army’s early defeats was that the Wehrmacht was a virtually unstoppable armored juggernaut that took poor Uncle Joe by surprise, while the Red Army was little more than a bumbling rabble with poor leadership, not least because of Stalin’s liquidation of senior Red Army commanders not long before the outbreak of hostilities.

    How can Stalin be making bellicose statements about the Red Army being an offensive force not long after killing off its top commanders? How could he dismiss so many warnings from so many sources, at home and abroad, that the Germans were about to attack? What kind of game was comrade Stalin really playing?

    Simply put, for any army, defense is easier than offense, provided of course that the defenders have competent leadership that does not issue foolish orders for suicidal defensive arrangements, for example the kind of idiotic orders imposed upon the defenders at Pearl Harbor leading up to December 7, 1941, which tied their hands, and made them sitting ducks. All that blood is on FDR’s hands, but at least he got to play the victim and earned a huge boost from skyrocketing American patriotism after the infamous “sneak attack.” Even 50 years later, I personally witnessed deep-seated, almost perverse anti-Japanese sentiment still alive and well in the USA because of Pearl Harbor.

    Does anyone really think that FDR ordered those battleships to Pearl Harbor because he was getting ready to attack Japan or Japanese possessions with them? No. Roosevelt ordered the Pacific fleet to Pearl to act as irresistible bait for the militants and hotheads running Japan, who’d already been backed into a strategic corner by Allied embargoes on vital raw materials Japan needed to survive. Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was willing if not even eager to sacrifice those largely obsolete battle wagons and 3,500 American lives to get the war he wanted.

    Similarly, I realize my point is unchewable, unpalatable, and virtually indigestible for many who subscribe to either of the highly polarized narratives about WWII, but if FDR had ulterior motives in ordering the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor, isn’t it at least possible that Stalin had ulterior motives in ordering some Red Army formations into vulnerable offensive dispositions seemingly to menace Germany?

    Of course, I readily concede that comrade Stalin was entirely straightforward in all his dealings and would never engage in any devious behavior of any kind, so there’s that.

    In my view, neither the Wehrmacht nor the Red Army had the overwhelming (3 : 1) ratio of forces necessary to prevail against the other in 1941. Hitler further diluted the Wehrmacht’s striking power for Barbarossa by dividing his already too-weak attacking force into three army groups with divergent objectives so that none could support the others.

    it was a bloodbath for both sides, but at least the Zionist Jews got Palestine in the bargain.

    One final note about transport, from WWI: The Miracle of the Marne .

    Fresh troops rushed from Paris to the front line thanks to an unlikely means of transport—taxi. Gallieni requisitioned a fleet of 600 Renault taxis to drive 6,000 soldiers from the capital to the battleground. From their wartime service, the vehicles gained the nickname “Taxi de la Marne.”

  310. @Ron Unz

    Nope. The reference is to the aftermath of Barbarossa, when the total collapse of the Soviet forces in 1941 led the British to consider bombing Baku in order to deny the Germans access to the oil. Obviously, that has absolutely nothing to do with a planned British/France attack on the USSR in 1940.

    Ron, I think you need to look again at page 237 in Bellamy. I’ve posted it online and marked the lines in question:

    https://ibb.co/MDDFVxx

    Portal suggests stopping the planning of the bombing of Baku, “which, it had been feared, might be used to supply the Germans.” The footnote is to a GRU ref.

    Now: What other than Barbarossa would cause the British to call off a plan to bomb Baku? Certainly after Barbarossa, the Soviets aren’t going to give Germany their oil, are they? I mean, I suppose your reading is plausible, except this isn’t after “the total collapse of the Soveit forces.” This is one day after the invasion.

    Ron, you don’t do well with being wrong.

    You obviously just did a simple text search and then were too lazy to actually bother reading the page you found. So my statement stands: an 800 page “authoritative” account of the Soviet role in WWII published in 2007 never mentions a single word about it.

    That’s projection, Ron.

    Or as a dishonest history-hoaxer, you can instead go back to your endless denials of the simple factual reality that the early Bolshevik leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish…

    Jesus Christ, Ron, what’d I ever do to you? What’s your actual problem?

    To refresh your memory, I didn’t deny that there were many Jews in the Bolshevik leadership. You remain wrong that it was “overwhelmingly Jewish.” What I pointed out then, and will continue to do now, is that the reference you made was to the “first Soviet government,” which demonstrably had a single Jew among its members.

    You obviously have a Jew-sized chip on your shoulder, Ron, so let me clue you in to something. The people who post here who hate Jews? They don’t feel any differently about you. You are a Jew, and as such, in their eyes, you are subhuman scum. You kissing up to them wouldn’t save your life if they ever got the upper hand. If anything, they’d probably torture you first to demonstrate clearly to you how much they resent you trying to cozy up to them. So I sincerely hope you don’t think that posing now as your generation’s Ben Freedman somehow redeems you in their eyes.

    I don’t think you’ll publish this post — you will read it, of course, because you read the blog I co-run and you’re apparently pissed off about that. I’d really like to have a civil conversation with you, but you just don’t seem able.

    • Agree: FB
    • Troll: Iris
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  311. EugeneGur says:
    @Fox

    In other words, why do you think that the behavior of the SU with its gigantic armaments, gigantic military expenditure, aggressive language and behavior, aggressive doctrine and dubious maneuverings not be suspected of using the Red Army for an attack in the near future?

    What do you think Germany was doing in the meantime? By April 1941, Germany accumulated at the Western border on the USSR 100 divisions, or almost 1 million men – and that is just at the Western direction. By May, the German army was configured along the Northern, Western and Southern directions, exactly the direction the attacks came in 1941 – as you people like to say, in the offensive formation. Overall, there were about 2 million troops in Eastern Prussia, 3 million – in Poland, and about 2 million in the South (Romania, the Balkans). That is not counting their allies – Finns, Romanians, Hungarians.

    You don’t think the Soviet leadership would suspect something and take countermeasures, do you? However, Stalin stopped short of full scale mobilization fearing that Germany considers this a preparation for an attack. The main charge against Stalin and the military leadership of that time has always been that they didn’t do enough to counter the threat.

    Look at Unternehmen Barbarossa as a defensive strike against the SU

    No sane person can possibly do that. There was nothing even remotely defensive about that operation. It took a significant time to prepare; the Army was positioned very close to the border and ready to strike; the offensive started with coordinated simultaneous bombing of multiple Russian cities. It was originally planned to start on may 15th but later mover to June 22nd.

    Note that the attack was directed at the Bolshevik Soviet Union, not on Russia.

    What an idiotic thing to say! It was directed against my country, whatever its name was at the time, and my people, my own family included.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Wally
  312. Fox says:
    @Cyrano

    In your psychic analysis you forgot that Hitler was also a carpet biter. That’s all proven you know. so don’t forget adding it to your Dictionary of Insights.
    Thank you for your words, and I am glad that you are capable of original thinking. My sincere compliment.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  313. Fox says:
    @EugeneGur

    It was already noted in summer 1940 how the SU was moving troops into the Ukraine and Belorussia. An inquiry by the German foreign ministry elicited the reply that “summer maneuvers” were under way. Strange maneuvers which never seemed to have ceased, and together with the SU’s previous attack on Finland, the occupation of eastern Rumania, the Baltic States, Molotov’s refusal to discuss any of Hitler’s suggestions, the demand to occupy Bulgaria, the Dardanelles, the involvement in the coup in Yugoslavia in spring of 1941, well, I don’t think that you can make the case that the SU behaved in any other way than one that would ring all the alarm bells in any normal individual.
    Even the Poles didn’t want the brotherly embrace of the SU in British-Polish-French-Soviet (or is that “Russian”) discussions in spring of 1939.
    Furthermore, who induced the SU to occupy Eastern Poland, in essence to stab Poland in the back when it was at war with Germany? It was a freely made decision in Moscow to wage war against Poland in September 1939 and to establish a common border with the German sphere of influence. That’s the clueless, peaceful, bucolic, turned-inward, non-aggressive Soviet Union for you. Not that its ambitions wouldn’t remind of those of Imperial Russia which desired to extend its influence well into Western Europe, take the Bosporus to be the master of the Dardanelles, but in those days not under the banner of Bolshevism, but rather Pan-Slavism.
    In 1941, however, the Soviet Union was the colossus holding the knife behind its back, not Russia. The SU had demonstrated in words and deeds its intent to carry its ideology beyond its borders, with subversion, military aid, propaganda, espionage and escamottage, and with its military.
    The Wehrmacht stood at the Eastern border in response to the actions and troop build-up of the SU. Contray to your statement, the Red Army was amassed at the Western SU-border well before a German resposne; that came only after Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November of 1940.
    Therefore, the attack on the SU was a pre-emptive strike to prevent an attack the preparation for which had almost been completed – that’s how I see it. I repeat the point again: It was because the Red Army was in the middle of the preparation that the Wehrmacht was so disruptive for the plans of the SU. The amount of material destroyed in the first few days would have sufficed to overrun Western Europe in short order, had the preparations been completed to use them. A defensive positioning would not have led to the seemingly chaotic disintegration of that army of millions within days.
    In that event the only thing worthwhile to see would have been the confused visages of Churchill, Roosevelt, Lord Vansittart, and suchlike.
    I have never understood the ambitions of mega countries such as the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, but also the United States and the British Empire before its decline, they all are (or were) so big, with all the resources they ever needed, the space, the people, and yet there is the need to expand. When a country such as Germany, which is ever-shrinking and retreating borders (look at the borders as they are continuously retreating over the last 800 years), seriously over-populated, practically without resources, is taking up arms to defend itself against rapacious neighbors in East and West, South and North, there is a quick understanding amongst them that this is an unbearable aggression and must be crushed.
    Finally, I repeat: It was the Soviet Union with its Bolshevik death-bearing ideology as manifested in the multimillion men amassment and astonishing degree of armament of the Red Army at the line of demarcation in spring of 1941 that was being attacked, it was not Russia, and indeed, there was plenty of sympathy for the struggle against Bolshevism in Russia. Note: Germans and the great majority of Europeans did not want to live under Bolshevism. That’s why in the SS the first, and perhaps all-time first, truly multi-national army was fighting against a common foe.

    Hence, a Vlassov could arise with the goal of a Russia free of Bolshevism.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @EugeneGur
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  314. Cyrano says:
    @Fox

    If you could switch places with the carpet, which body part would you allow the Fuhrer to bite (playfully)? Do you think it would be a touching experience for both of you no matter what?

    • Replies: @Fox
  315. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Ron, I think you need to look again at page 237 in Bellamy. I’ve posted it online and marked the lines in question:

    Yes, I apparently did somewhat misread the sentence in question. But none of that makes your case any less ridiculous.

    For new readers, I may as well recapitulate the matter under dispute…

    A couple of years ago I was reading the 1952 Vichy France memoirs of Sisley Huddleston, a very prominent American journalist of that era. Near the beginning, he causally spent a page or two explaining that in early 1940 France and Britain had been on the very verge of launching a major strategic bombing offensive against the USSR, planning to destroy the Soviet oil fields. The French attack had been scheduled for March 15th, but was delayed for various reasons, and then abandoned a few weeks later when the Germans defeated the French armies and overran the country.

    I found this claim utterly astonishing since a 1940 Allied attack on Russia would obviously changed the course of World War II and almost certainly ensured their eventual defeat at German hands. As Huddleston says “What a narrow escape!” But since I’d never heard the French attack mentioned in any standard WWII history, I assumed Huddleston’s information must have been entirely wrong, drastically undercutting his credibility on all other matters. This was crucial since his claims about Vichy France so utterly contradicted the standard historical narrative I’d always read.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/

    However, I later came across a 2015 article in The National Interest absolutely confirming the Allied plans to attack Russia in early 1940. The National Interest editors were apparently just as utterly stunned as I was, and the author certainly agreed that the French attack would ensured an Allied defeat in WWII:

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-early-days-world-war-ii-britain-france-planned-bomb-19691

    After I recounted this fascinating and long-suppressed story of WWII, a notorious history-hoaxer calling himself “Andrew E. Mathis” showed up to defend the honor of the American historical profession. He claimed that the planned 1940 French/British attack on Russia had always been fully covered in standard WWII histories, and I was therefore merely demonstrating my personal ignorance (with the same presumably being true of the National Interest editors).

    Among other works, he claimed the subject was was discussed in Absolute War, a 2007 volume by military historian Chris Bellamy. Bellamy’s book runs 800 pages, and the glowing blurbs characterize it as the “authoritative” discussion of the Soviet role in WWII.

    However, the entire “coverage” consists of a single sentence on p. 237, describing the Soviet reaction following the 1941 German Barbarossa attack:

    “But on 23 June the NKGB reported that the Chief of the British Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal, had suggested cabling the commands in India and the Middle East ordering them to stop planning to bomb the Baku oilfields, which it had been feared, might be used to supply the Germans.”

    Only a dishonest history-hoaxer would claim that this one sentence about Soviet views in 1941 adequately describes the French bombing attack planned for 1940.

    Moreover, the Huddleston book was written in 1952 and the planned 1940 French attack on Russia was treated as a fact well known to everyone and certainly not disputed. In the six decades that followed, an enormous number of WWII books were published in English, probably totaling tens of millions of pages. I’ve challenged this “Andrew E. Mattis” fellow to find a single paragraph in one of them, preferably a reasonably prominent text, describing these same facts, and he hasn’t responded.

    What clearly happened is that in the aftermath of WWII every knowledgeable person certainly knew that the French had been about to launch a strategic bombing campaign against Russia in 1940. But this extremely “embarrassing” fact was excluded from nearly all subsequent histories, except for an occasional sentence here and there, and eventually forgotten by almost everyone.

    Against these obvious facts, a dishonest history-hoaxer like “Andrew E. Mathis” ignores reality and claims against all evidence that the French plans for a 1940 strategic bombing offensive against the USSR weren’t almost totally censored out of virtually all WWII history books for six decades.

    Perhaps instead of wasting his time leaving dishonest comments on this website, “Andrew E. Mathis” should go off and fulfill my request to locate a standard WWII history text that actually does provide adequate coverage of the French plans to attack Soviet Russia in 1940.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Cyrano
  316. Wally says:
    @EugeneGur

    Poor lad, in denial of the irrefutable facts again:

    recommended:
    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents, by Mark Weber: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    and:
    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    http://www.codoh.com

  317. @Deschutes

    Sorry, no knickers here. And i did not demand or even imply that any article be banished from Unz. The works you refer to are not articles but source materials. I suggest you expand your studies beyond them as they are not worth anyone’s time.

  318. Cyrano says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, there were such plans for joint Franco-British attack on USSR. I don’t know if it’s related to what you have read. I remember watching a documentary few years ago and the commentator in the program described the French-British idea as “hair-brained” The idea was to defend Finland from USSR “aggression” in the winter war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

  319. EugeneGur says:
    @Fox

    It was the Soviet Union with its Bolshevik death-bearing ideology as manifested in the multimillion men amassment and astonishing degree of armament of the Red Army at the line of demarcation in spring of 1941 that was being attacked, it was not Russia,

    Oh really? It doesn’t strike you as odd that the Bolshevik Russia with its “death-bearing ideology” did not attack Germany – and the fact remains no matter how much you twist and turn trying to avoid it – whereas peaceful long-suffering Germany attacked the Bolshevik Russia in 1917-1918 and again in 1941.

    What you, my friend, is doing is abusing whatever logical thinking ability you possess, if any, in a vain attempt to deny or get around the obvious and undeniable fact that it was Germany that attacked. Whatever Stalin wanted, imagined or hoped for cannot possibly be established with any degree of certainty and is immaterial anyway. The only solid fact is the Germany’s offensive against the Soviet Union.

    A defensive positioning would not have led to the seemingly chaotic disintegration of that army of millions within days.

    There is a much simpler – which means more scientific – explanation for that: that the Red Army had not yet been fully deployed by that time.

    Germans and the great majority of Europeans did not want to live under Bolshevism.

    Then perhaps you’d understand that we the Russians didn’t want to live under the German Nazism.

    That’s why in the SS the first, and perhaps all-time first, truly multi-national army was fighting against a common foe.

    Yes, that’s true – the united forces of the European Fascism were fighting against my country.

    Hence, a Vlassov could arise with the goal of a Russia free of Bolshevism.

    Vlassov was a scumbag, a traitor, and a coward. All he wanted was to save his own miserable skin.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Fox
    , @Sin City Milla
  320. @Fox

    Hence, a Vlassov could arise with the goal of a Russia free of Bolshevism.

    Sure, Vlasov did, but as Hitler feared (even expected), when the going got tough, he was willing to turn his German weapons on the SS forces fighting the communist uprising in Prague. Many other Slavs did the same in other, but similar circumstances, looking out for their own interests, which is why I don’t have faith in “white unity”.
    The Russian group here is enough to end that idea. Loyalty must be total, not just to accomplish a particular objective, and that only comes with blood ties.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Fox
  321. Wally says:
    @EugeneGur

    said:
    “Oh really? It doesn’t strike you as odd that the Bolshevik Russia with its “death-bearing ideology” did not attack Germany – and the fact remains no matter how much you twist and turn trying to avoid it – whereas peaceful long-suffering Germany attacked the Bolshevik Russia in 1917-1918 and again in 1941. ”

    LOL
    Again you dodge the proven facts.
    Communist USSR was about to attack if not for Germany’s pre-emptive response:

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents, by Mark Weber: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    And the Communist USSR certainly attacked just about everyone else:

    Aggressive Soviets violated numerous treaties with neighboring countries: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12434

    – On 17 September 1939, the Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact signed on 25 July 1932 was violated when the USSR invaded Poland. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

    – On 28 November 1939 the Soviet Union renounced their Non-Aggression pact with Finland, and invaded two days later. The USSR claimed that Finland attacked a Soviet village, whereas Finland denied it. This false-flag attack committed by the Red Army is known as “Shelling of Mainila.” According to Article 5 of the treaty, parties should have called for a joint commission to examine the incident, which Finland tried to call but the Soviet Union refused. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Finnish_Non-Aggression_Pact

    – On 15 June 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Lithuania, violating the 28 September 1926 Non-Aggression pact. Also, the 10 October 1939 “Mutual Assistance” treaty between the USSR and Lithuania was a set-up for the eventual occupation of Lithuania and was described by The New York Times as a “virtual sacrifice of independence.” The June Uprising strongly suggests this annexation went against the wishes of the Lithuanian people. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Non-Aggression_Pact and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Mutual_Assistance_Treaty

    – On 16 June 1940, the Soviet Union invaded Estonia, violating the 4 May 1932 Non-Aggression treaty. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Treaties_between_Estonia_and_USSR and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Estonian_Non-Aggression_Pact

    – On June 1940 the Soviet Union invaded Latvia, violating the 5 October 1939 Soviet–Latvian Mutual Assistance Treaty as well as the 5 February 1932 Non-aggression treaty. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Latvia_in_1940#Relevant_treaties_between_USSR_and_Latvia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Latvian_Mutual_Assistance_Treaty

    – On 28 June 1940, the Soviet Union invaded the Romanian regions of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. This violated the 27 August 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact, as well as the protocol they signed on 9 February 1929 with Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Romania, confirming adherence to the terms of the Pact. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina

    – Two weeks after the Yalta Conference (held 4 to 11 February 1945) the Soviets violated the Declaration of Liberated Europe by pressurizing the King of Romania to appoint a Communist government. Read more: https://archive.is/b3FQ2#selection-132.0-132.1 and https://archive.is/j1h0N#selection-475.2-475.165 and https://books.google.com/books?id=KN4lAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA141&ots=io1lfLQLyS&dq=%22soviets%20violated%22&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=%22soviets%20violated%20the%20pledges%20of%20political%20freedom%22&f=false

    – On 9 August 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria, violating the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact which was supposed to remain in force until August 1946. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact and https://archive.is/eaLlw#selection-340.0-340.2

    • Agree: Fox
  322. Cyrano says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    What do you mean there is no “white unity”? Didn’t you manage to unite the whole “white” world behind the splendid, splendid idea of multiculturalism? Wasn’t the same idea supposed to save you from all ills that plague modern “democracy” – socialism, racism, leftism, radicalism, revanchism. Be quiet and let that great idea save you all.

    • LOL: Carolyn Yeager
  323. “…Loyalty must be total, not just to accomplish a particular objective, and that only comes with blood ties…”

    That idea is contradicted by the international volunteers in the Wehrmacht and the SS who fought in Russia, many of whom were not even White, pictures of whom are often paraded to prove that the Nazis were “not racist”. See :

    As for the “unreliable” Russians due to their “lack of blood ties” :

    “…Along with the forces allied to the Nazis, the Russians comprised the largest contingent of foreign auxiliary troops on the German side with upwards of 1 million men…”

    Source : Wikipedia, Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II. See also : Wikipedia, Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  324. @Wally

    Comrade Wally are you now doing yourself what you condemned me for all the time, which is QUOTING WIKIPEDIA ? Don’t you know that Wikipedia is a source of disinformation concocted by EVIL JEWS ?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @James Forrestal
  325. @Franklin Ryckaert

    What has any of this to do with loyalty? You, of course, have no sense of it so would not know.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  326. Fox says:
    @Cyrano

    I appreciate your attempt at being funny. Practice makes perfect, they say, and you are definitely only on the way to perfection, but at least you try.

  327. Fox says:
    @EugeneGur

    You must be kind of mind-deaf.
    But I repeat the question again, just for you:
    Why did the Red Army assemble the largest troop contingent with immense armaments in secret on the line of demaracation it ad with Germany, why were these several million soldiers thrown into a wild panic upon being attacked, why were there no defensive positions or lines, and why were these troops equipped with material that had only value for someone with something entirely different in mind than building a fortress? Furthermore, why was Molotov’s visit not aimed at accomplishing common goals, but rather an astonishing affront with rather an array of Soviet demands in contrast with the agreements from a year earlier?
    Your country was acting without provocation against Finland, the Baltic States, Eastern Rumania, Eastern Poland, and declaring its intent to take Bulgaria and the Dardanelles – and that’s just Western Europe. (Don’t forget: I’d like to know why the SU -or do you prefer that I say Russia?-was attacking Poland and thus to meet up with the Germans, i.e., establish a direct border with them. Could that be also a preparation for attack without the Poles inbetween?)
    That Hitler saw through this threadbare scheme is the only reason that we were spared the success of your Bolshevik revolution, at least in those days. The sacrifices of the Wehrmacht and its allied fighting forces- particularly the outstanding performance of the entirely volunteer formations of the SS from all European countries, and even from India, broke the Bolshevik strength. Western Europe was spared the yoke Eastern Europe had to bear for decades.
    That this sacrifice was perhaps for naught in the end is due to such remarkable airheads as Roosevelt or Churchill, and the system of rule by imbecility they established in the west.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  328. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    I chastise you for your Wikipedia citations which do nothing to prove your laughable points.

    And I demonstrate exactly where they are wrong, and who made them wrong.

    After all, some Jews even admit they do it.
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet
    http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

    Simple as that.

    Next.

    http://www.codoh.com

  329. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hitler did indeed mistrust the suggestions of Vlassov for the establishment of a full-fledged Russian volunteer army on Germany’s side. Perhaps that such an army was not established at a time when it would have made a difference, was a mistake, when the Vlassov Army was established it was too small, had insufficient armaments and it was very late in the war. Nonetheless, I read in Peter Kleist’s “Auch Du Warst Dabei” that even in spring of 1945 whole Red Army battalions deserted to join the German army.

    Vlassov would, in my opinion, have fared better had he remained on Germany’s side till the very end, as he was doomed to be delivered into Stalin’s hands anyway. Then they just killed him.

    The idea of White Unity is indeed more of a hopeful construct than a reality. A conversation with an inveterate Churchill adorer or some people in discussion groups does give one the idea that there is a complete misapprehension about the precarious situation we are in as a result of the outcome of the Second War.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  330. @Carolyn Yeager

    If the Nazis didn’t trust non-Germans, then why did they accept them as soldiers in the Wehrmacht and SS ?

  331. EugeneGur says:
    @Wally

    Again you dodge the proven facts.
    Communist USSR was about to attack if not for Germany’s pre-emptive response:

    Even you should be able to appreciate the difference between “about to attack” and “attacked”. The latter is the proven fact, not the former.

    But arguing with you is the same as arguing with a tape recorder.

    • Replies: @Wally
  332. EugeneGur says:
    @Fox

    You must be kind of mind-deaf.

    No, my friend, it’s you who is completely brain dead. I answered your argument in a reasonable manner thinking – my mistake – that I was talking to a reasonable if misinformed person. But you Nazi sympathizers are all the same: you are like parrots repeating the same BS over and over again unable to answer or even understand the counterarguments.

    I’d like to know why the SU -or do you prefer that I say Russia?-was attacking Poland and thus to meet up with the Germans,

    You’d like to know that – I’ll tell you: in response, my friend, in response to Germany attacking and conquering Poland. And somehow it doesn’t occur to you, but it most certainly occurred to Russia, to ask why Germany attacked Poland in the first place. In case you are wondering, Poland lies in the direction towards Russia from Germany.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Fox
  333. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Your incoherent bleating is an interesting example of the phenomenon known as “psychological projection.”

    Remember — your hysteria was originally triggered by… my mention of the simple, obvious, self-evident point that the judeobolshevik empire engaged in continuous imperialistic expansionism in the 20s-40s. Your confused ranting about “but muh ebil Hitlah, tho!” does exactly zero to refute my point.

  334. @Tane

    Ah the old “Quick — think of a non-Trot goy somehow peripherally associated with neoconnery! That’ll distract ’em!” technique.

    Let’s see what the godfather of neo-“conservatism” — the man who literally wrote the book on the subject — had to say about his lifelong lust for Trotsky:

    “I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not one single bitter memory”
    –Irving Kristol,”Neoconservatism” (1995)

    If you actually had any interest in understanding the history of neo-Trotskyism as an intellectual movement, especially in cladistic and (cui bono?) terms, you’d read Kevin MacDonald on the subject:

    https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v4n2/TOQv4n2MacDonald.pdf

    But you don’t — so you won’t.

  335. @Franklin Ryckaert

    he occupied the rest of Czecho-Slovakia

    Clearly what you intended to say was “the Germans occupied the parts of the former Czechoslovakia that had not already been invaded/ occupied by… the Holy, Innocent Polish military dictatorship.”

    https://r.mtdata.ru/r480x-/u4/photoEC39/20684220098-0/original.jpeg#20684220098

    You’re welcome.

    Sure, a lot of it was merely stupidity/ naivete on the part of the Polish dictatorship — to actually trust that the British and French would help them out, rather throw them under the bus to the judeobolsheviks and the Germans as a way to get into a war with Germany, and then throw them under the bus yet again at the end of the war.
    [No declaration of war against the bolsheviks for their invasion of Poland though… huh.]

    But it was more than that. It wasn’t just the widespread massacres of ethnic Germans in Poland. What was the overall stance of the Polish dictatorship toward Germany after they gained the false confidence in British/ French support?

    “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even if it wants to.”
    – Rydz-Smigly, Chief inspector of the Polish army in a public speech in front of Polish officiers (Summer 1939)

    “It will be the Polish army that will invade Germany on the first day of war.”
    – The Polish ambassador in Paris (15.8.1939)

    • Replies: @Wally
  336. Wally says:
    @EugeneGur

    There is no difference when one is about to be attacked by an aggressor.

    You continue to dodge, ignore the proven facts in regards to the planned Communist USSR assault upon Germany. Again, see my comment #333.

    You also dodged a lengthy list of Communist USSR attacks upon other countries, again, see my comment #333.

    I repeat only because you dodge, and will continue to do so. I only repeat a point if it is applicable to the debate.
    You cannot refute anything I have has posted in regards to the WWII era and the fake “holocaust”.

    You are simply over matched and know it.

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  337. @EugeneGur

    Oh, really? Someone brakes into you home, robs you, rapes you, tortures you, and when you resist has the right according to some “law” to execute you?

    What actual evidence can you cite in support of your wildly-improbably claim that the other countries involved in WW2 had a policy of providing non-uniformed terrorist combatants with free housing and meals, rather than executing them — regardless of who “brake” into whose home?

    [Just to avoid confusion — your feelz, and your blind compulsion to mindlessly regurgitate whatever narrative your teevee feeds you… are not actual evidence.]

    To truly believe that, you have to be either a psychopath or, and this is not mutually exclusive, a closeted Nazi who deep down considers all people Untermenschen.

    Obvious projection is obvious.

    https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews/

  338. Wally says:
    @James Forrestal

    This article appeared in the Polish newspaper Die Liga der Grossmacht in October, 1930:

    A struggle between Poland and Germany is inevitable. We must prepare ourselves for it systematically. Our goal is a new Battle of Tannenberg. However, this time, a Tannenberg in the suburbs of Berlin. Prussia must be reconquered for Poland, and Prussia, indeed, as far as the River Spree. In a war with Germany there will be no prisoners …

    and:

    ”under Polish pressure the Germans in the southern and eastern districts were subjected to oppressive treatment. On Aug. 19 1920 the Poles felt strong enough, indeed, to make an attempt to seize the country by force. On all sides bands of Poles, chiefly recruited from Congress Poland, usurped authority. A number of Germans were forcibly carried across the frontier into Poland, and many were killed. Several weeks elapsed before it was possible to quell this rising and restore order…It had been suggested by the Entente that non-resident Upper Silesians of the German Reich should vote outside Silesia, at Cologne. Germany protested against this, and her protest was recognized as valid by the Entente. In January 1921 the date of the plebiscite was fixed for March 20 1921.
    An immediate revival took place in the use of terrorism by the Poles, especially in the districts of Rybnik, Pless, Kattowitz, and Beuthen. It reached its climax in the days preceding the plebiscite. Voters from other parts of the German Reich were frequently refused admission to the polls; sometimes they were maltreated and even in some instances murdered; and houses where outvoters were staying were set on fire… The day after the plebiscite the Polish excesses recommenced, and from that date onwards continued without interruption… Practically all the towns voted for Germany… the first days of May witnessed a new Polish insurrection which assumed far greater proportions than the former one. Korfanty had secretly raised a well-organized Polish force which was provided with arms and munition from across the border, and was reinforced by large bodies of men from Poland…
    By June 20 the British troops had again occupied the larger towns, while the Poles had the upper hand in the rural districts. As a result of the difficulties in paying his men and providing them with food Korfanty now lost control over his followers. Independent bands were formed which plundered the villages, ill-treated the Germans, and murdered many of them.”

    – 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “SILESIA, UPPER”

    recommended:
    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    ‘Why Germany Invaded Poland’, by John Wear / ‘peaceful Poland’ debunked: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12331

  339. @Gunnar

    Yes and Stalin personally occupied Hawai, the Fidschis, Australia and Great Britain too

    So your claim is that “Hawai [sic], the Fidschis, Australia and Great Britain” are “special,” and that invading other countries “doesn’t count?”

    That invading any other place in the world is just A-OK by Gunnar?

    A novel “argument,” I must admit — but surely you realize that, by taking this rather odd stance… you’re also claiming that Hitler and da ebil not-sees did nothing wrong.

    After all, the Germans never invaded any the locations on your list of what you refer to as “special, sacred countries,” either…

    • Troll: FB
  340. @Fox

    Thank you for your words, which I welcome and value highly.

    I read in Peter Kleist’s “Auch Du Warst Dabei” that even in spring of 1945 whole Red Army battalions deserted to join the German army.

    It’s hard to believe that at that late date when Germany was clearly defeated, any members of the Red Army would “suicide-ily” desert to the Germans. How should we understand that? It brings to my mind what Himmler recounted in his “Freedom Day” speech in 1943 in Posen. It’s translated (copyrighted) at my website here: https://carolynyeager.net/himmlers-oct-24-1943-freedom-day-speech-posen — scroll about half-way down the page to find this:

    “How do you explain this? One day before Stalingrad was taken by the Russians, 2,000 Russians, I believe, deserted from the besieging army to the few hundred German defenders. Nobody can explain it, since reason has nothing to do with it. The besieging army knew very well that for the Germans it was all coming to an end. So 2,000 Russians desert to them!

    “Or in anti-partisan warfare, that is, among the Russian-born units we had on our side, who fought for us as soldiers. Cases occurred in our own units of these Russian rifle squads, the same evening, right after defeating a huge enemy partisan group, they had a kind of victory celebration, and half the company deserted to the defeated enemy! Eight days later about half of them were back!”

    He was speaking about the unpredictibility of Slavs, depending, it seems, on their Mongol blood mixture. It didn’t show up in everyone, but it could show up in anyone. So when you say, “Perhaps that such an army was not established at a time when it would have made a difference, was a mistake,” I reply Perhaps it was a mistake at any time.

    The reason I can see for putting these people under arms is to prevent those from the foreign population who are soldiers or like soldiering from being recruited by your enemy to swell their ranks. That makes sense to me. To expect them to really fight for you to the end does not. I’m not including here the Germanic and other nationalist elements in other European countries from which the Waffen SS Divisions were formed, or the Spanish “Blue Division” (however here, Franco should have done more).

    Vlassov would, in my opinion, have fared better had he remained on Germany’s side till the very end, as he was doomed to be delivered into Stalin’s hands anyway. Then they just killed him.

    Of course. But you’re suggesting that his concern should have been what was better for himself, not for the cause he agreed to fight for. This is the huge difference between a foreign ally and a true German-blooded nationalist. The foreigner will always seek to save himself. In Vlasov’s case, he could not make a decision, thus he betrayed everyone and his fellow Russians not only killed him, they tortured him first.

    The idea of White Unity is indeed more of a hopeful construct than a reality.

    Exactly. I’m glad you said that. And it does seem to always come down to what is believed about the Second (and First also) World War that is the divisor. That’s why I say — the former Allied countries’ war narratives is what is holding the Holocaust in place. Not the Jews. The Jews keep it in the news and active, but the official acceptance of the Roosevelt Administration/U.S. Army, in collaboration with the UK government, Russia and thus all the rest, is the power that gives ‘holocaust belief’ legitimacy. There is no “white unity” as long as this stands.

    • Replies: @Fox
  341. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Exactly which of the many facts that he cited was the most injurious to your feelz?

    You might also wish to acquaint yourself with this very simple concept:

    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/admission-against-interest/

    You’re welcome.

  342. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I didn’t even say that, so why are you basing your question on it? Same old Strawman tactics. Totally dishonest.

  343. Max Parry says:
    @Ron Unz

    Who in the original Bolshevik leadership was Jewish besides Trotsky?

    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Iris
  344. @Sergey Krieger


    See also:

    holocaust
    [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-]
    1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire.
    2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
    The first meaning derives from the second one, which is original.

    “Devastation or destruction by fire”

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  345. Ron Unz says:
    @Max Parry

    Who in the original Bolshevik leadership was Jewish besides Trotsky?

    By most reasonable measures, an overwhelming majority…

    For example, Lenin’s Last Testament focused on five plausible successors, including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, and Stalin, of whom the first three were Jewish. Jacob Sverdlov was a very powerful Bolshevik and if he hadn’t been killed soon after the Revolution, he almost certainly would have been on the list as well, so we’re talking 4/6. After Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev were clearly the most powerful Bolsheviks since they ran Leningrad and Moscow. Lenin himself was 1/4 Jewish although it was widely denied at the time.

    Nearly all the contemporaneous observers described the Bolshevik leadership as being overwhelmingly Jewish, and in an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Putin described it as being 80-85% Jewish, a figure fully consistent with those contemporary estimates. Obviously, “Bolshevik leadership” is a somewhat subjective term, so that some estimates put it at only about 60% Jewish. However, many of the non-Jewish top leaders actually had Jewish spouses. Meanwhile, Russia’s population was about 4% Jewish.

    Interestingly enough, Felix Dzerzhinsky, original head of the Cheka, has always been cited as one of the very few non-Jewish top Bolsheviks since he came from the Polish nobility. But a couple of years ago, I came across a reasonably persuasive article suggesting that his family were actually Jewish converts.

    Here’s a recent comment of mine that provided a number of links:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/macs-minority-assessment-control-system/#comment-3146356

    • Replies: @Max Parry
  346. Iris says:
    @Max Parry

    President Putin said 80% to 85% of members within the first USSR government were Jewish.

    At 0:25″ in an address to the Moscow Jewish Museum (the rest of the video is not necessarily factual).

  347. L.K says:
    @EugeneGur

    you are like parrots repeating the same BS over and over again unable to answer or even understand the counterarguments.

    EugeneGur, you have just described yourself very ACCURATELY.
    Looking into a mirror while typing, eh?

    Like FB, you really are just another clown without the makeup.

    Stalin’s Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav M. Molotov’s statement before the Supreme Soviet on October 31, 1939:

    A single blow against Poland, first by the Germans, and then by the Red Army, and nothing remained of this misbegotten child of the Versailles Treaty, which owed its existence to the repression of non-Polish nationalities.

    • Agree: Fox
  348. Max Parry says:
    @Ron Unz

    The original People’s Commissars or Sovnarkom at the time of the revolution in 1917 only had 1 minister of Jewish origin and that was Trotsky. Zinoviev and Kamenev were part of the Politburo, yes, but both opposed the Central Committee resolution which set in motion the October Revolution.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  349. Cyrano says:
    @James Forrestal

    Poor Germans. Holocausted themselves to save the world from Bolshevism. And yet – they called themselves “Socialists”. Misguided? Or an early example of Russian interference in the Nazi party name selection process?

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  350. Ron Unz says:
    @Max Parry

    The original People’s Commissars or Sovnarkom at the time of the revolution in 1917 only had 1 minister of Jewish origin and that was Trotsky.

    Perhaps, but that’s really rather immaterial. The USSR was always controlled by the Party, and for the first 15-20 years, the top leadership of the Party was overwhelmingly Jewish. Here’s part of a previous comment of mine when this same issue came up a couple of weeks ago:

    Different countries have different forms of government. Sometimes ultimate power is held by a Prime Minister, sometimes by a President, and sometimes by a Supreme Ayatollah.

    In the Soviet Union, supreme power was held by the Communist Party, and its leadership for the first couple of decades was overwhelmingly Jewish. Pointing to the lack of Jews in powerless institutions is just silly.

    For example, throughout all his purges and up until 1940 Stalin held NO official government position, so I guess that proves he had no power. During much of that period, the top government official was Rykov, until Stalin eventually executed him. Perhaps that’s part of the reason that historians call it the “Stalinist Era” rather than the “Rykov Era.”

    Meanwhile, for over a quarter-century during that entire period, the Soviet Head of State was Kalinin. He held such feeble authority that he merely smiled when Stalin became angry at his wife and had her tortured and given a 15 year sentence in the Gulag.

    The Party held supreme power and until Stalin outmaneuvered and purged most of them, the top Party leadership had been overwhelmingly Jewish.

    Here’s a not unreasonable analogy. There’s never been a Jewish American president nor a Jewish vice-president. No Speaker of the House has ever been Jewish, nor has any leader of the Senate. But if someone in the future were to cite these undeniable facts as firm proof that Jews held relatively little national political in modern-day America, I really don’t think that argument would be correct.

  351. @Cyrano

    Poor Germans. Holocausted themselves to blablalba

    And exactly what evidence are you able to produce in support of your rather odd hypothesis that the Germans firebombed Dresden, hmm?

    Or are you engaging in some sort of strange mental gymnastics on the order of “The Germans forced the allies to bomb Dresden via… the power of advanced not-see mental telepathy!!! They couldn’t resist!!! They HAD NO CHOICE!!!”

    If that’s your “argument,” it seems very similar to the way in which the self-chosenites “forced” da ebil not-sees to gas them in fake shower rooms with insecticide…

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Cyrano
  352. @Tane

    Buckley was a thorough creep, but he wasn’t really a neocon. He was a CIA-funded stooge who high-jacked the old, non-interventionist/anti-war right and led its morphing into ghastly, national security state conservatism. This is completely different from the old American Right but still very distinct from neoconservatism. It is true that Buckley and NR bent over for the neocons when the conservative movement made the fatal mistake of bringing them in under Reagan, but this was much later and not really what Buckley should be most remembered for (which is bad enough).

  353. @Ron Unz

    Looks like Parry has gone into idiot Leftist mode here.

    • Agree: Wally
  354. Fox says:
    @EugeneGur

    I wrote “brain deaf” (note the “f”), not “brain dead”. I wrote it because you don’t seem to recognize (or hear) that I am asking you the main question: Why was a an army of several million men, armed to the teeth, posted at the line of demarcation with Germany, beginning in summer of 1940, i.e., nine months before Germany assembled a considerable contingent of troops along the same line of demarcation. Why should Germany not consider the actions of the SU, such as this, with great suspicion. The SU did nothing to disperse any suspicion, behaved aggressively towards its neighbors -Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, Rumania, Bulgaria, Turkey (remember the demand for the Turkish Dardanelles), Yugoslavia. In short, to suspect grave things going on in the SU was entirely understandable, and to laugh these things off would have been impossible to justify. So you can’t just pretend that in the SU the party and party leadership was passing time with playing shepherd games and dancing to tunes of maidens.
    Germany attacked POland because of the increasing persecuton of Germans in Poland, the belligerent and threatening tone of voice the Poleish government assumed, the mobilisation of the Polish military and the countless border incidents the Poles committed (e.g., firing on Lufthansa planes).
    Sorry to burst your bubble here.
    It also needs to be recalled that on the second day of the war, both Germany and France agreed to a a meeting Mussolini suggested to come to a solution to the problem of Polish irrationality with regards to especially Danzig, but also its German minority; Germany offered to halt all operations for this purpose, and only England refused to partake. Hence, your argument with Germany seeking a common border with the SU (or is it Russia?) goes by the wayside; this also, because in the Non-Aggression Pact, it was determinded were German forces would halt, i.e., in the middle of Poland. The decision to march into Eastern Poland and eliminate unoccupied Polish territory completely was a Russian (SU?) one.
    Anyway, if you ever gave an explanation as to my questions, I missed it. So, why should Hitler not have mistrusted the Stalin (to concentrate the question in the two leading personalities), given what I said several times now.
    I would like to know that I am not given to hurl coarse insults at others, and I don’t want you to think that I did.

  355. Cyrano says:
    @James Forrestal

    What exactly are you trying to say? That US committed crimes against inhumanity?

  356. @EugeneGur

    whereas peaceful long-suffering Germany attacked the Bolshevik Russia in 1917-1918 and again in 1941.

    Sarcasm noted. Reminder: in August 1914 it was Russia that mobilized first. In 1914 mobilization was itself a declaration of war n the Tsar knew that when he approved full mobilization that Germany n Austria must respond with their own full mobilizations n declarations of war. Thus it was Russia that triggered WW1, not the Central Powers.

    When the Bolsheviks seized power in late 1917, they inherited the war from Kerensky’s Provisional Government. At first the Bols were divided over whether to continue fighting WW1. What decided the matter was the disintegration of the Russian army. Far from attacking the Bolsheviks, which Germany had every right to do, they waited patiently for many months, hoping that the Bolsheviks would live up to their propaganda n withdraw from the war. But Trotsky declared “neither peace nor war” to cover up the lack of unity among the Bolsheviks n SRs, many of whom wanted an even greater war against all of Europe. Only then did the Germans finally lose their patience n begin occupying White Russia n the Baltic territories. Ukraine had already formed its own regime n sued for peace n asked for German protection from Moscow.

    It’s a complete misrepresentation of these events to pretend that the Russians n the Bolsheviks, either in WW1 or WW2 were somehow innocent victims of unprovoked aggression.

  357. @G

    Yes, in war truth is the first casualty. In WW2 the propaganda factories began cranking out their lies long before the first bullets flew, in fact from the moment Hitler won political office. They are still cranking them out.

  358. @Tulip

    pretending like 2019 is 1934, or that the political and geopolitical struggles of the present have any similarity to the struggles of the 30’s is blind and stupid.

    Quite true. Someone should tell the historical illiterates at ‘Antifa’.

    • Replies: @Tulip
  359. @Cyrano

    You’re stuck in the past. The modern conflict is not class, but racial: Equatorial Migrants n their globalist (((patrons))) versus independent-minded White Nationalists.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  360. Wally says:
    @Ron Unz

    said:
    “In the Soviet Union, supreme power was held by the Communist Party, and its leadership for the first couple of decades was overwhelmingly Jewish. Pointing to the lack of Jews in powerless institutions is just silly.”

    and:

    “Here’s a not unreasonable analogy. There’s never been a Jewish American president nor a Jewish vice-president. No Speaker of the House has ever been Jewish, nor has any leader of the Senate. But if someone in the future were to cite these undeniable facts as firm proof that Jews held relatively little national political in modern-day America, I really don’t think that argument would be correct. ”

    Boom!

    Well said, Ron.

  361. Cyrano says:
    @Sin City Milla

    The modern conflict is not class, but racial

    Really? Which class brought the calamity of racial conflict to the western world? The rich degenerate elites, or the working class? Globalism, mass 3rd world immigration and multiculturalism are not liberal policies. They are extreme right wing policies stupidly disguised as liberal.

    All right, they managed to fool everybody with their “brilliant” deception. But their deception is of the kind of pulling a gun on a cop and while going down in a hail of bullets laughing at the cop “I managed to fool him, I pulled a water pistol on him and he believed me”. Yeah, great deception, as a result of which you end up being dead. That’s how stupid the western elites are.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  362. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you for your reply.
    A lot was argued in the German ranks about equipping a whole Russian Army under Vlassov, Hitler was against it until fall of 1944 and even then agreed only to much less than what Vlassov had suggested as being necessary.
    I think that a support of Vlassov earlier would have greatly strengthened the German operations and weakened the Bolshevik (Russian) ones.
    Whether the motivation for keeping Vlassov at arm’s length was a perceived unpredictability of his actions or that Hitler wanted to keep a free hand in the conduct of the war, I have not given much thought to, but considering the trouble stemming from allied countries Hitler -I am thinking of Italy’s invasion of Greece, its attack on British-controlled Egypt, or of the collapse of the Rumanian front at Stalingrad, it might very well have been his wish to be in complete control of operations that prevented him to readily accept new allies.

    As to white unity: I was thinking of a similar concept that was sported especially amongst the left before the First War: That the proletarians of all countries would recognize their common plight, refuse to go to war and thus make it impossible. There was a perception of an international solidarity between proletarians, transcending nationalities and borders and believed to be based on a common understanding and a common goal for emancipation and self-actualization. In reality, any such solidarity was swept away in the initial nationalistic fervor, even more destroyed through the immense effects of years of intense hate propaganda during the war. And you said it at the end: The First and the Second War still serve in their propaganda versions as means to prevent any recognition amongst the mass of white people that they are in a precarious situation, betrayed by their political masters, and therefore mentally crippled and incapable or unwilling to recognize their actual reality and act accordingly.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  363. Iris says:
    @Fox

    There was a perception of an international solidarity between proletarians, transcending nationalities and borders and believed to be based on a common understanding and a common goal for emancipation and self-actualization. In reality, any such solidarity was swept away in the initial nationalistic fervor,

    A powerful pacifist effort to stop WW1 was led by socialist parliamentary representative Jean Jaures, a prominent French historic figure who tried to prevent the advent of war for the last ten years of his life.

    By the summer 1914, Jean Jaures had threatened to launch a general strike to stop WW1, and was due to launch this international pacifist rally call at the International Workers Party conference in August .
    He was very timely murdered by a “nationalist” on 31 July 2014.

    • Agree: FB
  364. Iris says:

    Credible historic works show that WW2 was also planned to deliver a new economic order, a class war in other terms.

    By 1931, the global economic crisis of 1929 had evolved to a “lock-step” . In continental Europe, social unrest was becoming uncontrollable and the business class was losing its control over the political process. By 1936, French parliamentary elections saw the unprecedented victory of a socialist/communist coalition.

    Historian John Gillingham, author of “Belgian Business in the Nazi New Order” (1977) started his Berkeley thesis with the intention to study the Nazi exploitation of the Belgian economy. While doing so, he experienced a big surprise: Belgian business leaders had devised a collaboration plan that long preceded the Nazi Occupation.

    Extract of a review of this book (Journal of Economic History):

    The available evidence suggests to the author that the professed goals for Belgian collaboration are unbelievable. [..] The controllers of the Belgian industries had lost confidence in liberal capitalism and desired a corporative control of markets. Occupation provided the opportunity to reduce wage rates and to destroy independent trade unions. The expected control of raw materials was accepted in the hope that it would be accompanied by compulsory cartels that could be incorporated in the German cartel system. Only the last of these expectations did not materialise.”

  365. Tulip says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Maybe not, but they might as well call themselves the Anti-Guelphs. They are basically performance artists.

  366. @Fox

    Yes, a lot was argued.
    “I think that a support of Vlassov earlier would have greatly strengthened the German operations and weakened the Bolshevik (Russian) ones.”

    You think? Based on what, other than opinion? This is what all those who criticize Hitler for his attitude toward the Slavs say. But the Wehrmacht and SS worked with Slavic groups very well, without any objection from Hitler, and as Himmler said, they had Russians fighting for them already in 1942. But an entire Army under Vlasov’s command is a very different proposition. I would not be for it, just intuitively. Plus we have the evidence that Vlasov turned out to be weak almost immediately. If he didn’t think what he was given was enough, he should have denied the command.

    Of course AH wanted to keep control. His allies didn’t have a good track record, as you pointed out. You have presented more arguments for Hitler’s position than for the contrary. Most of the armchair generals who think they know WHY he lost and discuss it endlessly are “Monday morning quarterbacks” (is that what they’re called?) and are just making a stab in the dark.

    White unity: It is indisputable that Germany was to be sacrificed for the greater good of British interests as the reason for WWI and again WWII. In both cases, the USA willingly went along, as well as France and Russia, plus the Benelux group, etc. All the White nationalists from these places who agree that Germany should continue to take the fall get no respect from me. Thank God many Germans, and many from all these countries, will never accept this atrocity. I sure hope there are enough who never will. Fuck ’em.

    • Replies: @Fox
  367. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    My expression with”might have been better” comes from the possibility that a Vlassov force against the Bolshevik Red Army could have sapped the Red Army will to fight, and thus led to its collapse and led to an end of the war in the East. As it was, the Red Army was strongly motivated to fight on the idea of repelling an invasion, while a fight against a Vlassov Army would have been more akin to an internal Russian anti-Bolshevik struggle, a continuation of the Civil War after the Bolshevik Revolution. Since initially the German troops were welcomed in the East by the population because they wanted to be rid of the Bolshevik yoke, I think that a Russian-led anti-Bolshevik army could have taken advantage of this anti-Bolshevik attitude more easily than the Wehrmacht. Naturally, in case of success, that would have established Vlassov as a new strongman in the East and created new problems, which is what Hitler expected to be the outcome, and is in my opinion the reason for his rejection of a Vlassov Army.
    Hitler needed a complete Axis-only victory so that history wouldn’t repeat itself with its endless cycles of recycling unresolved problems
    As you see, I do not have a decided opinion on the Vlassov Army, but given the end and outcome of the war, a Vlassov Russia in the east would not have been be a scarier prospect than what the Soviet Union in the East and, as its corollary in the West, the Western Victorious Powers, became: The victory of the Allies meant a stagnation for Europe, the loss of its independence, spirit and creative power, and nowadays, a loss of its very soul and elimination of its racial identity. An elimination of the Bolshevik threat in the East would have allowed to turn the strength of the Wehrmacht towards defense at the Atlantic and a defeat of Britain in North Africa. The three-front war is what finally exhausted Germany’s strength, and as exhaustion became visible, her allies abandoned ship.

    People who are unhappy about what is happening to their country, their nation and people, yet still adulate Churchill or Roosevelt just don’t understand that these two are at the root of their problems. They would repeat the Second War in exactly the same manner their parents or grandparents marched into it.
    I can only hope that eventually reality and its causes reveals itself to enough active minds to set things in motion to undo the damage the war has done to our race, its future and spiritual health.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  368. @Cyrano

    I think that terms like “liberal” n “right-wing” are not helpful when discussing race. Racial conflict has always been with us, n always will be with us as long as people can easily be lumped into groups by appearance. People categorize n react according to what they see, n they do so instantly n emotionally n without thought. It has nothing to do with class. Never has n never will.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  369. @Fox

    You use words like “possibility” and “could have” in relation to Vlasov’s hypothetical Army “sapping the Red Army’s will to fight.” You also depend on the superficial popular idea that “Initially the German troops were welcomed by the population” (in 1941?, but they changed their minds when they weren’t handed free guns & military support by those Germans.

    There is nothing to convince us that any of the Slavic resistance movements would have been loyal to the Wehrmacht or to the German aims. And, in fact, they weren’t—they showed they weren’t in a number of instances. They needed to be under the control of German officers, not under Russian or Ukrainian officers.

    How much influence would a single Army under Vlasov be? Stalin had many Armies in the fiels and his political propaganda apparatus would have blackened Vlasov and his troops to the hilt. It would have worked. Anyone who cooperated would have been made an example of. And wasn’t the “army” composed entirely of Russian PoWs? How would they behave once back in their homeland? Without a doubt many would have deserted, even in face of Stalin’s edict that no PoW’s could return alive. Look at the stories Himmler told.

    The chances for disaster were much higher than the prospects of success.

    You admittedly base your “thoughts” on the very poor outcome for Germany in the end. But that is hindsight (Monday morning quarterbacking). They did give Vlasov’s army a chance, admittedly when all was lost, and he proved then he and his men were not up to the pressures. In my opinion, he proved Hitler to be right.

    White Unity – the anti-Germans I’m thinking of do not adulate Churchill or Roosevelt at all, just the opposite, but they do accept blanket concepts such as ‘Germany was an aggressor state in Europe’, Germany committed war atrocities, Germans are hard to get along with, etc. ESPECIALLY ‘Nazi Germany genocided the Poles, a white people, and wanted to colonize White Russians.’ They are quite ignorant of the actual history between Germany and its eastern neighbors and won’t take the time to learn. They refuse to see the truth about British perfidy and if they do, want to conveniently forget about it as though its all in the past and is no long applicable. It’s still accepted that Germany was the cause of WWI, which is absolutely false, as Germany was fighting for it’s sovereign existence then just as in WWII.

    It is not even that everyone needs to admit fault. Germany was never at fault. Germany was treated completely unjustly because of fear and envy of its superior economic efficiency in Europe. This does not speak well of the White race (Europeans), and those who identify as White racialists should learn that you can’t succeed on empty slogans or on pride not based on your own accomplishments. Unlike you, Fox, I don’t think in terms of “our race” because it’s too broad, too distant.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Fox
  370. Cyrano says:
    @Sin City Milla

    I have a different take on the whole situation. Today the elites are using the racial “generosity” of calling everybody “equal” to cover up economic discrimination. And they think that they are clever. In the process they’ll ruin not only their counties, but the whole civilization. The bill for their “generosity” falls on the shoulders on disadvantaged lower classes who are called “racist” because they can’t afford to live in mansions and distance themselves from the “generosity” of “equality” imposed on them.

  371. Wally says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Excellent points about Vlasov.

    said:
    “but they do accept blanket concepts such as ‘Germany was an aggressor state in Europe’, Germany committed war atrocities, Germans are hard to get along with, etc. ESPECIALLY ‘Nazi Germany genocided the Poles, a white people, and wanted to colonize White Russians.’ They are quite ignorant of the actual history between Germany and its eastern neighbors and won’t take the time to learn. They refuse to see the truth about British perfidy and if they do, want to conveniently forget about it as though its all in the past and is no long applicable. It’s still accepted that Germany was the cause of WWI, which is absolutely false, as Germany was fighting for it’s sovereign existence then just as in WWII. ”

    Indeed. They just can’t throw off all the propaganda that has been heaped upon them.
    Reminds me of those who try to play the “holocaust-lite” game when there is no more proof of it than there is for the full-on “holocaust” claims.

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  372. @Wally

    Thank you, Wally, and the great ‘Fox’ too. I couldn’t agree more with you about “holocaust-lite.” I love it that there’s a group [family?] of commenters here at Unz that pretty much agree on this so-important subject of Truth for Germany. It gives me a warm, happy feeling. I’m so glad I entered in.

    • Replies: @Fox
  373. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you for your interesting reply:
    When I use the term racial unity, or White Unity, I am thinking in the first place of the relative ease with which it is possible for people of European descent to find acceptance when they move beyond the borders of their homeland.
    I consider this as a kind of solidarity which encapsulates the possibility of accepting a larger common fate, and the will to inherit, defend and perpetuate it.
    For this reason I’d wish for the general recognition of the fact that both the First and the Second War were a complete disaster not only for Europe as a whole, its philosophical, cultural and general self-image as expressed in its great artistic and architectural achievements, but also a self-debasement of immense severity through acceptance of the terrible hateful propaganda that was used to achieve victory, victory at every cost.
    If this recognition can be accepted, it will also be accepted that the disaster was wrought by a small power clique, lazy, workshy individuals who had not the interest of the common man or woman, nor the future of the children on their mind, they were just selfish, cynical, spoiled and perhaps clever, but not intelligent people, because intelligence thinks ahead and not just for the moment.
    Such a break with the past could and should lead to an end to the convenient platitudes with Germany being at fault for everything, while England, France and Russia were somehow forced to encircle Germany before the First War, bring it to disaster and have to repeat the whole operation in a second war because the first time they were not raining enough disaster on the small country in the middle of Europe.
    Especially now, that it ought to be obvious even to the blind that our power “elites” are harboring no good intentions for us, such a recognition of the common enemy should be possible – and bear consequences. Even if only a small event so far, the annual memorial meeting in Dresden on the 13th or 14th of February draws people even from North America; this could become much more in the future where the will to live and a break with a destructive past of fratricidal wars would be demonstrated.
    In events of that sort, White Unity could thrive and find a common goal.

    The war in the East was not only lost on account of the immense superiority in numbers of the Red Army, there was also the lesser fighting spirit in some allied armies in the East, widespread sabotage and treason, a lack of loyalty to the NS state (think of Paulus who joined the Bolshevik side after his surrender) and a misunderstanding of the world-historic importance of the struggle.
    Too many officers in the Wehrmacht, too many in the “resistance” within Germany, but also the politicians in England, America, the plotters in Italy and the small town politicians of Free France over in England, they completely misunderstood the nature of the struggle taking place. They thought of returning to a 19th century comfort with clear delineations of their status, power and economic security; no notice was taken of the new system in Russia, or the intent of America to become the successor of the British Empire. The greater, longterm menace was blocked out, and a military defeat of Germany strived for, even as Germany had not wanted this war. -It was indeed not foreseeable that the world of democracy would be crazy enough to ignite a world war because of the German-Polish conflict.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  374. @Fox

    You get the last word, Fox. But it’s hard to believe that England, France and Russia could be persuaded to give up their national myths–and even less the USA. Here it is firmly entrenched that without our ‘brave boys’ willing to “save Europe’s lunch” we would be speaking German now. As though that would be a terrible fate. Then there’s our large Jewish contingent, gaining more political power all the time. Even Germany is fixed in its admiration of the Allies, as we see disgustingly demonstrated every February 13-14 in Dresden.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Fox
  375. Iris says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hello Carolyn; Germany is much admired by educated people in Europe, envied but admired, because it is the foremost intellectual and technological powerhouse.
    As per the less educated, they have seen in their lifetime blood and slaughter mostly resulting from America’s wars. Everybody admires Germany because instead of violence, she establishes productive, win-win relationships based on trade with other countries.

    Outside Europe, the admiration towards Germany is even greater, because nobody gives two hoots about WW2. People are just in awe of Germany’s industry, production quality and general work ethics.

    In my family and social circle, most have three generations of ancestors who fought both WW’s on the French side. Still, in private, we have the same conversations as had on this thread.
    People are not stupid: they understand that only lies need to be protected by censorship. Only the controlled media perpetuate the bashing of Germany.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  376. FB says: • Website
    @Iris

    Germany at one time was an intellectual and technology powerhouse…today not so much…even France has its own space industry [unmanned at least…like every other spacefaring nation other than Russia]…it has its own aeronautical industry…builds nuclear submarines and jet engines etc…

    Germany makes fairly good cars and plays second fiddle even to France in the real technologies that count for something in human progress…aerospace…materials science…nuclear energy etc…

    Germany is not even among the top nations in engineering graduates…neither is Japan for that matter…little Iran graduates as many engineers as the US…

  377. @Iris

    Hello Iris,
    You and I don’t see eye to eye. Let’s leave it at that.

  378. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The myth of the war is in reality a really embarrassing one:
    The whole world is ganging up on a tiny country in Europe with practically indefensible borders, no natural resources, exploited, vilified for decades and strong enough to defy and keep its enemies at bay until they lose all composure, honor, good sense and sense of proportion.
    Therefore, the future of the myth can only be the total annihilation of Germany as a kind of desperate final act of make-believe of the self-comforting myth of Good vs. Evil, or the former victors will start to count the victory as a badge of honor to have prevailed against the mightiest foe they ever encountered and could overcome only through their combined power. That would as a consequence pull the rug out from under the feet of the virtuous and righteous self-image and make Germany an honorable foe.
    The latter would give inner peace and preserve self-respect, which I suspect is in reality at a very low level in the analyzers and providers of the myth, given the mayhem the Allies caused during and after the war and the fact that a lot of effort and money was put into bringing it about. Perhaps an arsonist who puts the match to a home and then calls the firefighters to be the hero is not a bad comparison, especially when I think of people like Churchill. The obsession with the war seems to have a concealed psychological component, the effects of which have not yet settled.
    In Europe, especially Poles and Czechs will have to very strongly rethink their national history narratives, given the fact that they have committed the largest act of “ethnic cleansing” in world history. If they want to live in peace with themselves next to Germans, they will have to redo their myths.
    Could England, France the US have an other concept of the war? I think so, given the fact that a lot of even early revisionists came from these countries. About Russia I am more pessimistic in that regard.

  379. G says:

    Thinking about it…one cannot help but laugh at the irony of this particular situation: (Neo)-National-Socialists, Americans and (Neo-)Marxists ferouciously going at each other. On the stage set and provided for by a Jew. Well played, Mr. Unz! It seems, history *does* repeat itself.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Max Parry Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?