The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Israel Shamir ArchiveBlogview
Russia: Tit for Tat
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Hail, fire and brimstone, new sanctions or the US tanks on its borders, Russia takes things in stride. President Putin could adopt the motto of William of Orange: saevis tranquillus in undis, calm amidst the tempest. The tempest is all around. American tanks moved into the Baltic states. American warships sail up the Black sea. The EU sanctions against Russia were extended for another six months. Russian assets were seized in France and Belgium. In Syria, Damascus is threatened by the US-armed rebels. Greece wants to embrace Russia, but probably will not dare. Armenia, a small country hidden between Iran and Turkey, just joined the Eurasian Union of Russia-led states, and already there are public disturbances ominously reminding everyone of Kiev 2013. Ukraine is in shambles, sending waves of refugees to Russia. A weaker nation would become hysterical. Putin and Russia remain nonplussed.

I’ll tell you a Missisippi joke. A black criminal and a white criminal are being led to the gallows. The black takes it easy, the white guy weeps. Stop whining, said the black. It’s easy for you to say, retorted the white, you blacks are used to such treatment. Likewise, Russia is used to such treatment since Soviet days, and even since earlier times, for the rivalry between heirs of Rome and the heirs of Constantinople is very old indeed. Now, a short period of détente is over, and it’s back to cold war. Surprise, surprise: the majority of Russians would prefer the West’s hostility of Brezhnev days to their warm embraces in the days of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Indeed things do improve, with the cold war and the sanctions.

  • The Russian idle rich, bereft of Miami and Côte d’Azur pleasures, pay more attention to their less fortunate fellow citizens. They do not steal less, but spend the loot locally.
  • A most prominent lady, Valentina Matvienko, the Senate Speaker, had been banned from travelling to Europe and the US, so she went for holidays to a Russian resort. She quickly discovered its faults, aside of its considerable charm, and provided the budget needed for improvements. Let them all be banned, was the cry.
  • Russian cheese makers could never compete with French or Italian ones in the liberal, open-markets-and-borders Russia of yesteryear. Came sanctions, and in the span of six months they almost doubled their output. Their cheaper cheeses are now freely available, while previously supermarkets preferred to stock expensive foreign cheeses.
  • The Army needs hardware to defend the Motherland, and advanced Russian industry gets more orders from the Ministry of Defence. Factories and workers laid off or semi-retired get a new life, foreign customers queue up, the rouble is steadied. Young men get some purpose beyond watching telly and complaining. A feeling of national pride – after the terrible humiliations of being unheard and taken-for-granted in Yugoslavia, Ukraine and elsewhere – comes back.
  • Infrastructure is brought up-to-date. Moscow gets a new hundred miles of bicycle paths, parks are well attended. The capital city is clean and shiny despite the stretch of heavy rains.
  • Now you understand why Russians are in favour of sanctions. They are quite supportive of the government and of the president, whose American-agency-measured ratings reached an unheard-of 89%. It’s not that the Russians want war, but they are tired of their country being pushed to the wall, as they see it. They do not want an Empire for themselves, but they want to be heard and their demands considered. And they want their government to make their erstwhile partners, present adversaries, pay for each anti-Russian action.

Among the very popular retaliatory steps of the Russian government, there is the full termination of transfer arrangements for the NATO troops occupying Afghanistan. President Putin in his first term, in 2001, was an enthusiastic supporter of the US; so after the American invasion of Afghanistan he offered Russian assistance with the transfer of equipment to and from that country. Now, almost 15 years later, this shortest and easiest route to Kabul has been cut; the Americans have to shift their heavy weaponry through Pakistan mountain passes where they are ambushed by the guerrillas with a long experience of fighting invaders from Alexander the Great to Brezhnev.

Russians liked the tit-for-tat decision to ban dozens of Western politicians from entering Russia, as a response to Western banning of Russian politicians from entering Europe. Perhaps Russia is not the world’s most popular holiday destination, but surprisingly, the ban did hurt. The very idea of a Russian active response took the Europeans by surprise: they never thought the Russians have the means or guts. Squeaks of excluded Western public figures were music to Russian ears.

Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, there are many who dream of Russian tanks racing to Kiev and restoring civil peace to the troubled Ukraine, but this dream will remain unfulfilled while Putin believes there are other, peaceful ways to solve the problem. Still, the Soviet-style obsessive peace-mongering and fear of war gave way to a more vigorous attitude to war as a forced but unavoidable necessity of life. The soul-numbing mantra of “everything is better than a war” finally has been dropped.

On May 9th celebrations of the 70th V-day were most lavish ever in people’s memory, and provided citizens with a chance to view the newest Russian military toys. This year, the Russians stressed their victory rather than their victimhood, suffering and losses. The victory has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia. This is true, but this truth was rarely mentioned until this year. Faded Russian hopes of Europe supporting Russia’s independent policies for its own benefit gave place to recognition that the European leaders are as obedient to Washington as their predecessors were to Berlin.

Slowly, oh so slowly the Russian giant remembered days of his youth, the battles on the Volga River and the sack of Berlin. These memories made him laugh over threats of Frau Merkel and Mr Obama. Just after the war parade on May 9th, millions of civilians marched the streets carrying photos of their fathers and grandfathers, the soldiers of the War. This was absolutely unexpected: neither I nor other observers and journalists, foreign or domestic, predicted an event of such magnitude. The city of Moscow planned for ten thousand participants; fifty times more, over half a million marched in Moscow alone, twelve million all over Russia.

This unprecedented act of solidarity for Russia had sent seismic tremors through the whole society. Many marchers carried the picture of the victorious war-time leader, Joseph Stalin. He is far from being generally loved, but anyone whose mentioned name can make fat cats and their apologists shake with rage cannot be wholly bad. People call for returning his name to Stalingrad, the place of the great battle, renamed by Khrushchev. Putin is not keen on that step, yet.

The towering presence of the Chinese President Xi at the May celebrations signified an historic realignment with China: a sea change in Russia’s policies. Its connection with China grows stronger every day. This is a new attitude: previously, Russians and Chinese were suspicious of each other, even after overcoming the hostility of late Soviet days. Pro-Western Moscow liberals snubbed the Chinese and planned for an American-led war against China. Now this dream (or nightmare) is over. We are not yet back to 1950s, when Mao and Stalin established their ties, but close to it.

ORDER IT NOW

Some eight hundred years ago Russia had been in a similar situation, being hard pressed by the West. The Pope blessed a Crusade against them, demanding they accept Western hegemony and give up their Byzantine Christianity. Then, Prince Alexander preferred to accept the Mongol patronage of Genghis Khan’s successors rather than submit to the Western diktat. His gamble worked out: Russia retained its own way, and the plucky Prince was sainted by the Church as St Alexander Nevsky. The Russians still feel that using Easterners’ support is less dangerous for the Russian soul than complying with the Western demands.

Could it be that Putin, a native of St Petersburg who cherishes his European contacts, speaks four foreign languages fluently (none of them Chinese), will repeat the deed of St Alexander and realign Russia eastwards? This would be a huge loss for Europe, as the Old Continent will become an American colony in all but name. St Petersburg, the city of St Alexander’s last repose, is definitely an European city, west-facing as opposed to east-facing Moscow. It is most delightful in June, the month of White Nights, when it basks in light, cool and lucid light at day and soft and milky light at night, while lilac bushes in full bloom, dressed to kill, gaze into aquatic mirror for channels and rivers criss-cross the Northern Capital of Russia so a stream is never too far. The old Imperial glory still rests on the shores of the Neva River.

This was the heart of the Russian Empire until Lenin shifted the government seat back to the old capital, to Moscow. That’s why, during the Soviet years, Petersburg (or Leningrad, as it was called then) did not suffer much from massive low-budget housing programmes that disfigured Moscow. The British historian Arnold Toynbee (all but forgotten due to his anti-Zionist stand) said the move to Moscow ‘’embodied the reaction of the Russian soul against the Western Civilization’’. Putin’s presidency, he would say, embodied a pro-European shift of the Russian soul. Could (what some Russians view as) Europe’s betrayal cause Putin part ways with Europe, instead?

I saw him at the recent International Economic Forum in St Petersburg. At the Forum, Putin did very well: calm, he kept his poker face, answered every question sincerely, he never became irritated or visibly annoyed. He calmly dealt with the crisis of the seized Russian property. His people would prefer if he were to thump his fist and seize French and Belgian assets. Instead, he promised to deal by legal means through European courts.

He came to St Petersburg after a very successful trip to Baku, the capital of oil-rich Azerbaijan where European Games provided a chance to meet and confer at length with Presidents of Turkey and Azerbaijan. None of Western leaders showed up, but these rulers of the Orient were quite satisfied with their own company.

Summing it up, President Putin speaks softly. If he carries a big stick, he does not flash it around. He does not act heartbroken because of some Western unpleasantness. It seems he is working hard for alternative arrangements but he wants to postpone painful decisions as long as possible. Eventually he may be forced into a strategic alliance with China, which will further undermine Europe’s remaining independence.

However, things are not black-and-white. Russia is interconnected with the West in many unexpected ways. The most implacable enemy of Russia is the former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. His wife has been banned from visiting Russia. At the same time, Bildt was appointed an advisor to a Russian oil company, belonging to the second-richest oligarch of Russia, Michael Friedman. Friedman, one of the seven original oligarchs of Yeltsin’s days, began as a ticket tout. He lavishly spends on Jewish education. His Alfa Bank tried to stop production of the new Russian tank, Armata by bankrupting the armour-building factory. Friedman is friendly with Putin. So much for the simple image of the ruthless Russian dictator, sworn enemy of Jewish oligarchs.

Indeed Russia remains liberal, and Russian liberals copy American liberals, mutatis mutandis. They treat Putin like their US counterparts treated Bush II, though by their choice of vocabulary you’d think he is a Kim Jong Il. Newspapers are free to slight Putin, and they use their freedom to utmost. Theatre directors insert anti-Putin philippics into monologues of classic plays replete with attacks on the Church. Cinema stresses poverty and abuse in his realm just like Jim Jarmusch. But ordinary people like Putin as Bush II was popular in the Red states. They would like him even more were he to give the Americans a double tit for their tat, but meanwhile Putin prefers to do with token retaliation.

Israel Shamir can be contacted at adam@israelshamir.net

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin 
205 Comments to "Russia: Tit for Tat"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Sad to have to admit that Mr. Putin is indeed the statesman, using diplomacy in an attempt to avoid greater conflict, while my home country behaves like mafia bosses; undermining sovereignty, sabotaging peace efforts and escalating, both rhetorically and militarily, a conflict with Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crypto-gentile
    Typical deception. This is not Russia vs US.

    This is Judaism vs White Europeans. Jews want white extinction.
    , @SFG
    They have the edge (the tanks are in Ukraine, not in Canada or Mexico) and think they can push it. Imagine if Putin was fomenting anti-American activity in Sonora...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /ishamir/russia-tit-for-tat/#comment-990422
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @Anonymous
    Sad to have to admit that Mr. Putin is indeed the statesman, using diplomacy in an attempt to avoid greater conflict, while my home country behaves like mafia bosses; undermining sovereignty, sabotaging peace efforts and escalating, both rhetorically and militarily, a conflict with Russia.

    Typical deception. This is not Russia vs US.

    This is Judaism vs White Europeans. Jews want white extinction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "This is Judaism vs White Europeans. Jews want white extinction."

    Perhaps, but whites allow it!
  3. it is understandable that he is so popular within russia. they just need to think back to the horrors of the 90s decade. any leader who got them out of it would enjoy near universal popularity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Oooh if the US could have a great leader....but alas it's not to be.
    , @HLMunchkin
    Some of the players from the 'Not So Gay Nineties'

    who are the oligarchs?

    This is an 'Oldie' that I saved awhile back.

    Here are some of them.

    * Boris Berezovsky, 57, with a Ph. D. in mathematics, dabbled in a car dealership before creating a sophisticated get-rich-quick financial structure that appealed to the new Russia. He then set about penetrating the president’s inner circle, befriending Yeltsin’s ghost-writer and offering to publish his “autobiography.” Such generosity was well rewarded. In 1994, Yeltsin handed him control of the privatized ORT TV network and, soon after, Berezovsky took control of the state oil company Sibneft and the national carrier Aeroflot.

    * Vladimir Gusinsky, 53, parlayed his business in cabs, jeans and copper bracelets into real estate and construction. Then his eyes opened to the riches of banking. Through his friendship with Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, he made millions managing the city’s funds, while plowing his mounting profits into newspapers (including a stake in Ma’ariv), magazines and TV companies. His NTV TV network played a pivotal role in Yeltsin’s 1996 electoral victory over his Communist adversaries.

    * Mikhail Fridman, 39, graduated from cleaning windows to importing cigarettes and photo-copiers before moving into the oil business. By 1991, he was a millionaire. Then the privatization of Russia’s banks grabbed his attention. After recruiting Yeltsin’s trade minister, Pyotr Aven (himself an oligarch), he created the Alpha Group, which today controls Russia’s largest private bank, half of Tyumen, Russia’s fourth-largest oil company, and Crown Resources, a commodities trading company turning over some $5 billion a year.


    * Roman Abramovich, 37, was a protégé of Berezovsky, who parachuted him into the family. He rose from selling plastic ducks and second-hand car tires to acquiring the world’s richest aluminum company. He also bought Berezovsky’s shares in Aeroflot and Sibneft. Indulging his passion, he recently sank several hundred million dollars into Chelsea football club. Abramovich bought himself a slice of immunity when he became governor of Russia’s remote region of Chukotka.

    NOW, PUTIN has rung down the curtain on the final act of the drama and invited the Kremlin’s nomenklatura to return to their old ways of making up the law to suit themselves. Only now there is a difference. Russia’s integration in the West allows the Kremlin to try to use the international judicial system to cull its targets.

    Berezovsky was arrested on an international warrant in London earlier this year. He persuaded the British authorities that he faced persecution rather than prosecution if he was returned. Gusinsky, once head of Russia’s Jewish community, was arrested on an international warrant in Athens earlier this year but he, too, managed to persuade the Greek authorities that the charges against him were manifestly unjust. After walking free, he invoked his rights as an Israeli citizen and made aliya.

    Meanwhile, Abramovich’s immunity (by virtue of his governorship of Chukotka) appears increasingly fragile.
  4. Realist says:
    @Crypto-gentile
    Typical deception. This is not Russia vs US.

    This is Judaism vs White Europeans. Jews want white extinction.

    “This is Judaism vs White Europeans. Jews want white extinction.”

    Perhaps, but whites allow it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    Many whites do, but that does not mean jews should not be held responsible for this.
  5. Realist says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    it is understandable that he is so popular within russia. they just need to think back to the horrors of the 90s decade. any leader who got them out of it would enjoy near universal popularity.

    Oooh if the US could have a great leader….but alas it’s not to be.

    Read More
  6. Kiza says:

    One day when he retires, I would love Vladimir Putin to write a book on strategy and decision making. He certainly has something to teach others, especially the prima donnas who call themselves “the Western leaders”, the “International Community” etc. Putin is just a cool guy and his people love him.

    Another wonderfully insightful article by Israel, 10 out of 10.

    PS. The US polling outfit that Israel mentions is Levada Center. It measured for Putin 89% approval rating. Beat that Hitlary Clinton!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Somewhere there are translations of Alexander Dugin, alleged to be the Karl Rove of Putin.
  7. SFG says:

    Putin’s clever enough to know if he stands firm long enough the West will forget about Crimea and turn to other issues.

    He’s also clever enough to know if a war starts it can’t necessarily be kept from escalating–and if nukes get used, that could be the end of Russia, as well as Europe, America, and most of humanity.

    So, he’s doing what any sensible leader would at this point. Which is more than I can say for some of ours!

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    Nobody in the elite really cares who Crimea belongs to. What they really want is Russia, and what I mean by want is to have gay pride parades at the Kremlin, their politicians picked by NYT and The Economist editors, the Russian economy to be run by them and for them and not for the Russian people. Ultimately they want Russia to be run by the jews, same for every other place.
  8. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    The US Military=A Global Force for Social and Cultural Filth!!!!!!!!…see your Military Recruiter Today!!!!!!!!!

    What’s happening these days on the USS Ronnie Reagan?

    Read More
  9. SFG says:
    @Anonymous
    Sad to have to admit that Mr. Putin is indeed the statesman, using diplomacy in an attempt to avoid greater conflict, while my home country behaves like mafia bosses; undermining sovereignty, sabotaging peace efforts and escalating, both rhetorically and militarily, a conflict with Russia.

    They have the edge (the tanks are in Ukraine, not in Canada or Mexico) and think they can push it. Imagine if Putin was fomenting anti-American activity in Sonora…

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Imagine if Putin was fomenting anti-American activity in Sonora…
     
    You don't have to imagine that the US is fomenting anti-Russian activity in their near abroad.
  10. neutral says:
    @Realist
    "This is Judaism vs White Europeans. Jews want white extinction."

    Perhaps, but whites allow it!

    Many whites do, but that does not mean jews should not be held responsible for this.

    Read More
  11. neutral says:
    @SFG
    Putin's clever enough to know if he stands firm long enough the West will forget about Crimea and turn to other issues.

    He's also clever enough to know if a war starts it can't necessarily be kept from escalating--and if nukes get used, that could be the end of Russia, as well as Europe, America, and most of humanity.

    So, he's doing what any sensible leader would at this point. Which is more than I can say for some of ours!

    Nobody in the elite really cares who Crimea belongs to. What they really want is Russia, and what I mean by want is to have gay pride parades at the Kremlin, their politicians picked by NYT and The Economist editors, the Russian economy to be run by them and for them and not for the Russian people. Ultimately they want Russia to be run by the jews, same for every other place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Partly true, except that they really did want Crimea. If NATO could have successfully grabbed Sevastopol, that would have been a major coup. Russia's surface fleet would have all but ceased to exist. Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.
    , @SFG
    That was exactly my point. He wants it more than they do, so he knows if he holds onto it long enough, they'll forget.

    The rest of your point I agree with, though I think it's the larger Western elite apparatus (which has a heavy Jewish contingent, maybe 1/4-1/2, more in some sectors like media).
    , @Bill
    That's not true at all. As Seamus Padraig pointed out, prying Crimea permanently away from Russia was one of the secondary US objectives in fomenting the Ukrainian war. By taking Crimea back, Russia gets both the port at Sevastopol and claim to probable large gas deposits in the Black Sea near Crimea.

    The US elite cares a lot who controls which energy assets. The US elite cares a lot who has what naval power.
  12. @neutral
    Nobody in the elite really cares who Crimea belongs to. What they really want is Russia, and what I mean by want is to have gay pride parades at the Kremlin, their politicians picked by NYT and The Economist editors, the Russian economy to be run by them and for them and not for the Russian people. Ultimately they want Russia to be run by the jews, same for every other place.

    Partly true, except that they really did want Crimea. If NATO could have successfully grabbed Sevastopol, that would have been a major coup. Russia’s surface fleet would have all but ceased to exist. Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Putin was not going to let NATO grab Sevastopol. He could not allow that. There would have been war and with the choke-points available at the entrance to the Black Sea, it would have been a disaster for NATO.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;
    2. If NATO would get Sevastopol two things would have happened:

    a) Putin would have been overthrown and Russian "liberals" would have hanged from the lamp post all over Russia;
    b) There would have been war and I mean real one, not the low intensity combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
    , @Ace
    The U.S. was dabbling in Ukrainian regime change politics and gave zero public assurances to the Russians on their Black Sea fleet. Ergo, you're probably right about our having some kind of designs on Crimea or, at least, cutting Russia off from it. Oops. So sorry. We forgot to tell you.

    When that didn't work out all that well, we got into a snit and ramped up the cry baby/sanctions nonsense. There's some kind of Zbig push against the Russians afoot as evidenced by this pathetic demonization of Putin and Russia. Crimea would be part of Ukraine at this very moment if the U.S. and the E.U. hadn't decided to have a little fun and play Junior Jeostrategist.
  13. SFG says:
    @neutral
    Nobody in the elite really cares who Crimea belongs to. What they really want is Russia, and what I mean by want is to have gay pride parades at the Kremlin, their politicians picked by NYT and The Economist editors, the Russian economy to be run by them and for them and not for the Russian people. Ultimately they want Russia to be run by the jews, same for every other place.

    That was exactly my point. He wants it more than they do, so he knows if he holds onto it long enough, they’ll forget.

    The rest of your point I agree with, though I think it’s the larger Western elite apparatus (which has a heavy Jewish contingent, maybe 1/4-1/2, more in some sectors like media).

    Read More
  14. MarkinLA says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Partly true, except that they really did want Crimea. If NATO could have successfully grabbed Sevastopol, that would have been a major coup. Russia's surface fleet would have all but ceased to exist. Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.

    Putin was not going to let NATO grab Sevastopol. He could not allow that. There would have been war and with the choke-points available at the entrance to the Black Sea, it would have been a disaster for NATO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Which is why Russia's snap re-unification with Crimea did not surprise me in the slightest. If I had been a Russian ruler--or, for that matter, a Crimean!--I would have acted no differently.
  15. Realist says:
    @neutral
    Many whites do, but that does not mean jews should not be held responsible for this.

    The Jews can only do it if whites let them.

    Read More
  16. The conspiracy is even worse than you think: it’s not just “the Jews” but an entire species called humanity involved. A bad bunch to be sure – most of their leaders are vainglorious, completely selfish power seekers and are acting for their greedy fellows who love war and domination. As Yakov Smirnoff should have put it, “What a planet!”

    Where’s the punctuated equilibrium of evolution when you need it? So far, only hopeless monsters…

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    There's a heavy Jewish *component* to the upper class these days, but I don't think if America were still ruled by WASPs they'd be singing Kumbaya with Putin. Power politics is power politics--the USA wants to keep being #1. They might pick a less ridiculous cause than gay marriage though.
  17. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Seamus Padraig
    Partly true, except that they really did want Crimea. If NATO could have successfully grabbed Sevastopol, that would have been a major coup. Russia's surface fleet would have all but ceased to exist. Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.

    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;
    2. If NATO would get Sevastopol two things would have happened:

    a) Putin would have been overthrown and Russian “liberals” would have hanged from the lamp post all over Russia;
    b) There would have been war and I mean real one, not the low intensity combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Andrew, tovarisch against war, good quotations on your blog – and thanks for the long hair Omega rock.

    “Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet,
    I’m off to join the Development Set”

    That’s about it. To realize more lost in one day by one ally in Siege of Stalingrad than all of technological war dilettantism is startling to the cherished illusions of old narratives that are turned to support for new delusions.

    I was aware, not just from A.S., but also works like “The Unknown War” series by Hollywood’s Burt Lancaster.

    It is vulture warfare, following the unprinciples of vulture capitalism. Let others do the work and sacrifice, then swoop in to profit with the least effort.

    Fine, but then to not even show up at the memorial to the vast dead who made your commanding heights even possible.

    Pretending to ride the moral high horse while actually sitting under the horse’s ass in a pile of s— is conveyed by what our J.Q. Adams wrote, appropriate to all times when this hubris occurs:

    “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
    , @Seamus Padraig

    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;
     
    Re-read my original post more closely:


    Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.
     
    I bolded the 'not' for you this time.
  18. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Just a reminder:THE US NAVY=A GLOBAL FORCE FOR GLOBAL HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILIA!!!!!

    What do you think the US Navy was doing all those years down at Subic Bay? What was Admiral Mike Mullins doing?

    Read More
  19. Bill says:
    @neutral
    Nobody in the elite really cares who Crimea belongs to. What they really want is Russia, and what I mean by want is to have gay pride parades at the Kremlin, their politicians picked by NYT and The Economist editors, the Russian economy to be run by them and for them and not for the Russian people. Ultimately they want Russia to be run by the jews, same for every other place.

    That’s not true at all. As Seamus Padraig pointed out, prying Crimea permanently away from Russia was one of the secondary US objectives in fomenting the Ukrainian war. By taking Crimea back, Russia gets both the port at Sevastopol and claim to probable large gas deposits in the Black Sea near Crimea.

    The US elite cares a lot who controls which energy assets. The US elite cares a lot who has what naval power.

    Read More
  20. Rurik says:

    The victory has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia.

    They weren’t fighting Russia.

    They were fighting the Bolshevik fiend that had “gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and had become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” (Churchill quote)

    Millions of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians and Cossacks and assorted Slavs also fought this fiend who today controls what’s referred to as the “west”. We must not consider the actions of NATO as resulting from the Western peoples values anymore than the NKVD was doing the bidding of the Russian people as it carved its way across the blood-stained steppe.

    We should all understand, Russian and European, American and Australian, Muslim, Christian and human, that the fiend that we all are threatened by lurks in the dank recesses of the international banking houses. It’s them against all of us, Russian, American and all the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Your comments=heaping stinking mound of Cold War manure. Vietnam and Cuba posed 0 threat to America.
    , @annamaria
    So tragically true...
  21. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Here is what I think:Victoria Nuland…Susan Rice….and Samantha Powers…exterminate as many Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian speaking Ukranians as is necessary to provoke Vladimir Putin into sending in the Tanks and Russian Troops into Eastern Ukraine….Then it’s the Rilly Big Shewwwww!!!!!….Am I wrong about this?

    Read More
  22. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Who ever would have thought that the thermonuclear extermination of The Russian People would be done in the name of homo rights? Yesterday’s hippie-yippie rolling in the filthy-stinking-reeking mud of Wodstock…is today’s mass murderer armed with ICBMS…groovy man!!!!

    Read More
  23. Maj. Kong says:
    @Kiza
    One day when he retires, I would love Vladimir Putin to write a book on strategy and decision making. He certainly has something to teach others, especially the prima donnas who call themselves "the Western leaders", the "International Community" etc. Putin is just a cool guy and his people love him.

    Another wonderfully insightful article by Israel, 10 out of 10.

    PS. The US polling outfit that Israel mentions is Levada Center. It measured for Putin 89% approval rating. Beat that Hitlary Clinton!

    Somewhere there are translations of Alexander Dugin, alleged to be the Karl Rove of Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Sergei Ivanov is Putin's Chief of Staff and so, I suppose, he'd be the equivalent of Carl Rove. They said Rove was "Bush's brain" but I really have trouble even understanding how someone could think Putin is in need of a "brain" of this sort. I honestly think even children and dogs would be able to tell Putin is in no need of a care-giver like Carl Rove. Seriously a six year-old could tell you which President was smarter after spending some time around the two men.

    As for Dugin:


    Scared of Putin's Shadow
    In Sanctioning Dugin, Washington Got the Wrong Man


    Dugin has no official status within the Russian government. He is not even a member of the Public Chamber—a consultative institution created by Putin to foster a regime-friendly civil society—although one of Dugin’s close associates, Valery Korovin, was elected by an informal public vote as a member in Spring 2014. Nor is Dugin a part of Putin’s inner circle. The two men might not have ever even met. (Dugin is known to take every opportunity to publicize his personal connections with the Russian political elite, but has never bragged about having met the Russian president.)
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2015-03-25/scared-putins-shadow
  24. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Rurik

    The victory has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia.
     
    They weren't fighting Russia.

    They were fighting the Bolshevik fiend that had "gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and had become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." (Churchill quote)

    Millions of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians and Cossacks and assorted Slavs also fought this fiend who today controls what's referred to as the "west". We must not consider the actions of NATO as resulting from the Western peoples values anymore than the NKVD was doing the bidding of the Russian people as it carved its way across the blood-stained steppe.

    We should all understand, Russian and European, American and Australian, Muslim, Christian and human, that the fiend that we all are threatened by lurks in the dank recesses of the international banking houses. It's them against all of us, Russian, American and all the rest.

    Your comments=heaping stinking mound of Cold War manure. Vietnam and Cuba posed 0 threat to America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Cuba was certainly a threat, beyond the Missile Crisis, they were sending agents and uniformed soldiers into 'brushfire' wars across the globe.

    Mandela praised the Castro dictatorship for defeating the RSA army at Cuito Cuanavale.
  25. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    The victory has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia.
     
    They weren't fighting Russia.

    They were fighting the Bolshevik fiend that had "gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and had become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." (Churchill quote)

    Millions of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians and Cossacks and assorted Slavs also fought this fiend who today controls what's referred to as the "west". We must not consider the actions of NATO as resulting from the Western peoples values anymore than the NKVD was doing the bidding of the Russian people as it carved its way across the blood-stained steppe.

    We should all understand, Russian and European, American and Australian, Muslim, Christian and human, that the fiend that we all are threatened by lurks in the dank recesses of the international banking houses. It's them against all of us, Russian, American and all the rest.

    So tragically true…

    Read More
  26. Rurik says:

    What’s going on here is what I like to call a geo-political version of ‘rope-a-dope’.

    It’s what they did to Hitler when they used Poland like today they’re using Ukraine. They forced Hitler’s hand by allowing / encouraging Poland to abuse the ethnic Germans in Danzig and elsewhere, thereby forcing Hitler to demand ‘the corridor’. Just like today the Fiend is using the thugs in Kiev to slaughter ethnic Russians in Donbass in order to force Putin to do his own version of ‘rope-a-dope’. Only Putin isn’t playing along as well as the Fuhrer did. Perhaps he learned from Uncle Adolf’s mistake.

    Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets (NKVD, Kulaks, Katyn, gulags, so many others) and understand that Nazism was a direct consequence of the Bolshevik threat. That’s why so many Eastern Europeans (and Russians and Norwegians and others fought in the side of the Wehrmacht. Not because they loved the arrogant Germans. Hardly. It was because they understood all too well the very real threat of the Fiend. If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn’t fight for Hitler or fascism, but rather against the international bankers and their golem the Bolshevism, then this conflict could end like a wisp of gossamer floating away in the wind, and the Fiend could stir in its juices and plot some other war where Russians and Europeans won’t end up as the charred dupes.

    BTW, why is the MH17 “investigation” taking so long?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Both Medvedev and Putin as President and/or Prime Minister have laid wreaths at the Katyn Forest monument and monuments for those killed in the Gulag system.

    ...
    In an interview with a Polish newspaper, Vladimir Putin called Katyn a "political crime"
    ...
    On 4 February 2010, the Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, invited his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk, to attend a Katyn memorial service in April.[109] The visit took place on 7 April 2010, when Tusk and Putin together commemorated the 70th anniversary of the massacre.[
    ...
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

    I recommend people simply go to the Kremlin's website and search for words like: Katyn, Gulag, Bolshevik and Soviet to get the official view these matters straight from the horse's mouth:
    http://en.kremlin.ru

    I think you are right that the Kiev regime and it's western advisors want to draw Russia into a war and are abusing the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine to do it. The fools in Kiev may believe they'll be eligible for a new Marshall Plan and debt forgiveness if they can get the Russian Federation to clearly cross their borders in the east.

    , @annamaria
    "If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn’t fight for Hitler or fascism..."

    The paper did address your concern: "The victory [in WWII] has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia. This is true, but this truth was rarely mentioned until this year."
    It was the EU policies (actually the policies of the US vassals in Europe) that made Russians to take another look at the supposedly virtuous European states. Moreover, the Ukraine and Baltic states were never the enemies of Russians for the simple reason that too many Russians have been living there. Perhaps you do not realize it, but the shared cultural heritage - particularly the shared language of belle letters - made all former Soviets into "Russians." For instance, the majority of "Russian" immigrants in the US are Jews that had had an advantage for settling in the US thanks to the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
    You are trying to convince the readers that it was the RF policies against Europe, which have been "stoking the flames of hatred," but the facts are not on your side. Russians want normal (pragmatic) relationships with all European States, but this plan does not fit the model of unipolar world, which had been expressed so clearly in the Wolfowitz Doctrine and which had been pursued so obviously by the US (plutocracy). A planned Iraqization of Ukraine reflects on a standard model for massive looting (and why the US are on a border with RF, thousands miles away from the US geographical borders?)
    God help us all to avoid a confrontation of two nuclear powers.

    , @MarkinLA
    Your Poland rant would have more validity if Hitler hadn't occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia after getting the Sudetenland. Maybe the Poles figured once Hitler got Danzig back he would occupy the rest of Poland. Can't blame them for thinking that.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Putin has repeatedly and publicly repudiated the crimes of the Soviet Union, but simply will not airbrush it out of history completely. There is absolutely no reason at all why he--or any Russian--should not celebrate their extremely hard-won victory in the 'Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland'. A brutal war which the Soviets never sought, and which could have conceivably destroyed their country had they lost. It took them years to rebuild their country from that nightmare of devastation; but by the late 50's, they were already launching satellites and had Kennedy frightened of a "missile gap".

    My money's with the Russians this time.
    , @Bill Jones
    What a pos you are.

    "Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets "

    And the murderous Americans need to repudiate the theft of of half of Mexico, the theft of Hawaii
    The colonization of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, the Dresden firestorms, the nuclear attack on Japan, the murder of three million Vietnamese etc. etc,

  27. @Maj. Kong
    Somewhere there are translations of Alexander Dugin, alleged to be the Karl Rove of Putin.

    Sergei Ivanov is Putin’s Chief of Staff and so, I suppose, he’d be the equivalent of Carl Rove. They said Rove was “Bush’s brain” but I really have trouble even understanding how someone could think Putin is in need of a “brain” of this sort. I honestly think even children and dogs would be able to tell Putin is in no need of a care-giver like Carl Rove. Seriously a six year-old could tell you which President was smarter after spending some time around the two men.

    As for Dugin:

    Scared of Putin’s Shadow
    In Sanctioning Dugin, Washington Got the Wrong Man

    Dugin has no official status within the Russian government. He is not even a member of the Public Chamber—a consultative institution created by Putin to foster a regime-friendly civil society—although one of Dugin’s close associates, Valery Korovin, was elected by an informal public vote as a member in Spring 2014. Nor is Dugin a part of Putin’s inner circle. The two men might not have ever even met. (Dugin is known to take every opportunity to publicize his personal connections with the Russian political elite, but has never bragged about having met the Russian president.)

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2015-03-25/scared-putins-shadow

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Sergei Ivanov is Putin’s Chief of Staff and so, I suppose, he’d be the equivalent of Carl Rove.
     
    There is NO Russian equivalent of Carl Rove or, for that matter, anything even remote. Russian history and culture IS NOT comprehensible for the majority of Anglo-sphere, that is why all these "Russia Experts" are nothing more than bunch of hacks.
    , @Kiza
    Thank you for answering the challenge appropriately. I agree with you completely.

    There is no doubt that behind every great leader there is a selected team of highly capable staff which he usually selects himself or herself. But to give to one staff member all the credit for the success is pure marketing by this person (these days if you are connected with journalists and pay well those cheap presstitutes will promote you into a God). Thus Karl Rove and his image of a President Maker.

    Where are the staff when Putin does a live 4-5 hour address to the nation? When has any US president, or any Western politician, done anything similar? Maybe Putin had staff hiding under his desk during the live marathon, right?

    Putin is just amazingly capable leader, one such born in a century. Good luck to Maj Kong for denying this.

  28. SFG says:
    @Fran Macadam
    The conspiracy is even worse than you think: it's not just "the Jews" but an entire species called humanity involved. A bad bunch to be sure - most of their leaders are vainglorious, completely selfish power seekers and are acting for their greedy fellows who love war and domination. As Yakov Smirnoff should have put it, "What a planet!"

    Where's the punctuated equilibrium of evolution when you need it? So far, only hopeless monsters...

    There’s a heavy Jewish *component* to the upper class these days, but I don’t think if America were still ruled by WASPs they’d be singing Kumbaya with Putin. Power politics is power politics–the USA wants to keep being #1. They might pick a less ridiculous cause than gay marriage though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    It's worth noting that the WASPs are arguably the most Jewish-ish people in all of Christendom, west of Armenia. Their only rivals to that title are the Dutch, who are really just their close cousins. These North Sea Ferengi would be causing mischief in the world even if the US had a tiny and powerless Jewish population. It was the Waspy Samuel Huntington who declared a "clash of civilizations" at the end of the Cold War, after all.
  29. @Rurik
    What's going on here is what I like to call a geo-political version of 'rope-a-dope'.

    It's what they did to Hitler when they used Poland like today they're using Ukraine. They forced Hitler's hand by allowing / encouraging Poland to abuse the ethnic Germans in Danzig and elsewhere, thereby forcing Hitler to demand 'the corridor'. Just like today the Fiend is using the thugs in Kiev to slaughter ethnic Russians in Donbass in order to force Putin to do his own version of 'rope-a-dope'. Only Putin isn't playing along as well as the Fuhrer did. Perhaps he learned from Uncle Adolf's mistake.

    Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets (NKVD, Kulaks, Katyn, gulags, so many others) and understand that Nazism was a direct consequence of the Bolshevik threat. That's why so many Eastern Europeans (and Russians and Norwegians and others fought in the side of the Wehrmacht. Not because they loved the arrogant Germans. Hardly. It was because they understood all too well the very real threat of the Fiend. If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn't fight for Hitler or fascism, but rather against the international bankers and their golem the Bolshevism, then this conflict could end like a wisp of gossamer floating away in the wind, and the Fiend could stir in its juices and plot some other war where Russians and Europeans won't end up as the charred dupes.

    BTW, why is the MH17 "investigation" taking so long?

    Both Medvedev and Putin as President and/or Prime Minister have laid wreaths at the Katyn Forest monument and monuments for those killed in the Gulag system.


    In an interview with a Polish newspaper, Vladimir Putin called Katyn a “political crime”

    On 4 February 2010, the Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, invited his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk, to attend a Katyn memorial service in April.[109] The visit took place on 7 April 2010, when Tusk and Putin together commemorated the 70th anniversary of the massacre.[

    http://en.kremlin.ru

    I think you are right that the Kiev regime and it’s western advisors want to draw Russia into a war and are abusing the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine to do it. The fools in Kiev may believe they’ll be eligible for a new Marshall Plan and debt forgiveness if they can get the Russian Federation to clearly cross their borders in the east.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Yea Putin has made some very important progress towards reconciliation. He even made an important speech recently. But he needs to do more, even at the risk of alienating some of the more nationalistic Russians.

    The people of Estonia or Ukraine or Poland don't remember the red army as liberators. Hardly. They remember them as rapists and thugs. And that's often what they were. It's time for Russia to own its own crimes during the war and afterwards and stop calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and "fascists". This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West IMHO.

    Let them tear down the hated statues of Lenin and Stalin and especially the red army. Let them honor their fallen heroes. Just as the Russian people must be allowed to honor theirs.

    I'm an American so I have no dog in that fight. I just don't want to see that particular pettiness lead to yet another bankers' war with slaughtered Russians and Europeans dying for the fun and profit of Victoria Nuland et al. There was quite enough of that during the 20th century thankyouverymuch. And I see the exact same folly happening all over again with the exact same players, only a generation or two removed.

    Nothing new under the sun I guess.
  30. @SFG
    There's a heavy Jewish *component* to the upper class these days, but I don't think if America were still ruled by WASPs they'd be singing Kumbaya with Putin. Power politics is power politics--the USA wants to keep being #1. They might pick a less ridiculous cause than gay marriage though.

    It’s worth noting that the WASPs are arguably the most Jewish-ish people in all of Christendom, west of Armenia. Their only rivals to that title are the Dutch, who are really just their close cousins. These North Sea Ferengi would be causing mischief in the world even if the US had a tiny and powerless Jewish population. It was the Waspy Samuel Huntington who declared a “clash of civilizations” at the end of the Cold War, after all.

    Read More
  31. I was taking my own advice and doing a word search at the Kremlin site for “GULAG” and found this amusing exchange between Putin and a journalist:

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/47054#sel=69:1,80:52

    Read More
  32. Rurik says:
    @Cagey Beast
    Both Medvedev and Putin as President and/or Prime Minister have laid wreaths at the Katyn Forest monument and monuments for those killed in the Gulag system.

    ...
    In an interview with a Polish newspaper, Vladimir Putin called Katyn a "political crime"
    ...
    On 4 February 2010, the Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, invited his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk, to attend a Katyn memorial service in April.[109] The visit took place on 7 April 2010, when Tusk and Putin together commemorated the 70th anniversary of the massacre.[
    ...
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

    I recommend people simply go to the Kremlin's website and search for words like: Katyn, Gulag, Bolshevik and Soviet to get the official view these matters straight from the horse's mouth:
    http://en.kremlin.ru

    I think you are right that the Kiev regime and it's western advisors want to draw Russia into a war and are abusing the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine to do it. The fools in Kiev may believe they'll be eligible for a new Marshall Plan and debt forgiveness if they can get the Russian Federation to clearly cross their borders in the east.

    Yea Putin has made some very important progress towards reconciliation. He even made an important speech recently. But he needs to do more, even at the risk of alienating some of the more nationalistic Russians.

    The people of Estonia or Ukraine or Poland don’t remember the red army as liberators. Hardly. They remember them as rapists and thugs. And that’s often what they were. It’s time for Russia to own its own crimes during the war and afterwards and stop calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists”. This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West IMHO.

    Let them tear down the hated statues of Lenin and Stalin and especially the red army. Let them honor their fallen heroes. Just as the Russian people must be allowed to honor theirs.

    I’m an American so I have no dog in that fight. I just don’t want to see that particular pettiness lead to yet another bankers’ war with slaughtered Russians and Europeans dying for the fun and profit of Victoria Nuland et al. There was quite enough of that during the 20th century thankyouverymuch. And I see the exact same folly happening all over again with the exact same players, only a generation or two removed.

    Nothing new under the sun I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    As an American, have you studied the history of the WWII?
    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the "other" (Russia) produces "thugs and rapists." Well, here for you some facts: "The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:" http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/baltic.asp
    You also write that Russians should stop "calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists”. This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West..." Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.
    Here are the people "who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists." These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. "A Family Business of Perpetual War:" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
    , @Cagey Beast
    I get the sense that the Polish and Baltic republics' resentment of Russia is unquenchable. Russians could commit nationwide mass suicide in the style of Jonestown, leave millions of handwritten suicide notes apologizing to their western neighbours and it still wouldn't be enough. I've done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue. The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.
  33. annamaria says:
    @Rurik
    What's going on here is what I like to call a geo-political version of 'rope-a-dope'.

    It's what they did to Hitler when they used Poland like today they're using Ukraine. They forced Hitler's hand by allowing / encouraging Poland to abuse the ethnic Germans in Danzig and elsewhere, thereby forcing Hitler to demand 'the corridor'. Just like today the Fiend is using the thugs in Kiev to slaughter ethnic Russians in Donbass in order to force Putin to do his own version of 'rope-a-dope'. Only Putin isn't playing along as well as the Fuhrer did. Perhaps he learned from Uncle Adolf's mistake.

    Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets (NKVD, Kulaks, Katyn, gulags, so many others) and understand that Nazism was a direct consequence of the Bolshevik threat. That's why so many Eastern Europeans (and Russians and Norwegians and others fought in the side of the Wehrmacht. Not because they loved the arrogant Germans. Hardly. It was because they understood all too well the very real threat of the Fiend. If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn't fight for Hitler or fascism, but rather against the international bankers and their golem the Bolshevism, then this conflict could end like a wisp of gossamer floating away in the wind, and the Fiend could stir in its juices and plot some other war where Russians and Europeans won't end up as the charred dupes.

    BTW, why is the MH17 "investigation" taking so long?

    “If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn’t fight for Hitler or fascism…”

    The paper did address your concern: “The victory [in WWII] has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia. This is true, but this truth was rarely mentioned until this year.
    It was the EU policies (actually the policies of the US vassals in Europe) that made Russians to take another look at the supposedly virtuous European states. Moreover, the Ukraine and Baltic states were never the enemies of Russians for the simple reason that too many Russians have been living there. Perhaps you do not realize it, but the shared cultural heritage – particularly the shared language of belle letters – made all former Soviets into “Russians.” For instance, the majority of “Russian” immigrants in the US are Jews that had had an advantage for settling in the US thanks to the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
    You are trying to convince the readers that it was the RF policies against Europe, which have been “stoking the flames of hatred,” but the facts are not on your side. Russians want normal (pragmatic) relationships with all European States, but this plan does not fit the model of unipolar world, which had been expressed so clearly in the Wolfowitz Doctrine and which had been pursued so obviously by the US (plutocracy). A planned Iraqization of Ukraine reflects on a standard model for massive looting (and why the US are on a border with RF, thousands miles away from the US geographical borders?)
    God help us all to avoid a confrontation of two nuclear powers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The paper did address your concern: “The victory [in WWII] has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia. This is true, but this truth was rarely mentioned until this year.”
     
    But that is my very bone of contention. It wasn't a "Russian" victory. It was a Bolshevik victory, and the Russian people were just as defeated as the Eastern Europeans. There were millions of ethnic Russians who fought on the side of Germany who the allies returned to Stalin at Yalta at the end of the war. These were the most heroic of the Russian people, the ones who would not suffer the genocidal slavery of the Bolsheviks over their lives. They certainly didn't like the Germans, but fought along side them knowing the Fiend for what it was, and were tossed into its belly by yet more Allied betrayal. Sort of what happened to General Patton after the war when he too saw the face of the Fiend for what it was.

    In total, some two million people were repatriated to the USSR at the end of the Second World War.[10]

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

    It was the EU policies (actually the policies of the US vassals in Europe) that made Russians to take another look at the supposedly virtuous European states.
     
    The US are also vassals to the Fiend (international banking cartel). who is doing all of this to punish Putin for thwarting them in their march to Damascus- as the stepping stone to Iran and beyond. The Fiend is drooling for more power (duh), and Putin stood in the way. This whole tragic Ukrainian charade is all part of a bigger picture.

    You are trying to convince the readers that it was the RF policies against Europe, which have been “stoking the flames of hatred,” but the facts are not on your side.
     
    the opposite actually


    Russians want normal (pragmatic) relationships with all European States, but this plan does not fit the model of unipolar world, which had been expressed so clearly in the Wolfowitz Doctrine and which had been pursued so obviously by the US (plutocracy). A planned Iraqization of Ukraine reflects on a standard model for massive looting (and why the US are on a border with RF, thousands miles away from the US geographical borders?)
     
    I completely agree. This is because the Fiend has now made its nest in the West. It no longer resides in Moscow, where Putin has forced its oligarch demons to play nice. Now it's in NY, London and Tel Aviv. And it's from there that you are getting your unipolar world.

    Just like the Russians of the last century were under the Fiends boot, so today we in the West find ourselves doing its bidding. When the wall came down it was because it was no longer necessary. The Fiend was on both sides. Putin has changed that, to some degree. God pray he remains as statesman like as he's been so far. The Fiend does not like being thwarted. Not at all.
  34. annamaria says:
    @Rurik
    Yea Putin has made some very important progress towards reconciliation. He even made an important speech recently. But he needs to do more, even at the risk of alienating some of the more nationalistic Russians.

    The people of Estonia or Ukraine or Poland don't remember the red army as liberators. Hardly. They remember them as rapists and thugs. And that's often what they were. It's time for Russia to own its own crimes during the war and afterwards and stop calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and "fascists". This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West IMHO.

    Let them tear down the hated statues of Lenin and Stalin and especially the red army. Let them honor their fallen heroes. Just as the Russian people must be allowed to honor theirs.

    I'm an American so I have no dog in that fight. I just don't want to see that particular pettiness lead to yet another bankers' war with slaughtered Russians and Europeans dying for the fun and profit of Victoria Nuland et al. There was quite enough of that during the 20th century thankyouverymuch. And I see the exact same folly happening all over again with the exact same players, only a generation or two removed.

    Nothing new under the sun I guess.

    As an American, have you studied the history of the WWII?
    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the “other” (Russia) produces “thugs and rapists.” Well, here for you some facts: “The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:” http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/baltic.asp
    You also write that Russians should stop “calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists”. This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West…” Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.
    Here are the people “who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists.” These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. “A Family Business of Perpetual War:” https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    “The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:”, say what?
    Oh please, don't make me laugh.

    Laws of science are the enemy of impossible 'holocaust' claims.

    Don't be a sucker for Zionist lies.

    Referring to the Yad Vashem Potemkin Village Theme Park's propaganda is laughable and easily debunked.
    www.codoh.com

    Holocau$t Lies, Who profits?

    I challenge anyone to actually show verified and photographed real excavations of verified enormous mass graves as alleged (i.e.: 900,000 Jews claimed at Treblinka) and supposedly in known locations. Show us the verified contents. Put up or shut up. Don't just claim, show us.

    See what happens when an www.unz.com participant tries pushing the laughable 'holoschlock' impossibilities:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9414
    and:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451
    and:
    'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

    , @AP

    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the “other” (Russia) produces “thugs and rapists.”
     
    Nations are not inherently more good or more evil than others, but governments are. Stalin's government was quite evil. Hitler's was even worse. Poland's was much less evil than either Stalin's or Hitler's government.

    Here are the people “who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists.” These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
     
    You cited globalreaearch.ca, the same clowns who love North Korea:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-a-land-of-human-achievement-love-and-joy/5344960
    , @Rurik

    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the “other” (Russia) produces “thugs and rapists.”
     
    not at all

    I'm suggesting that Russia during the second WW was under the thrall of what I've been calling the Fiend. As such, they (the NKVD, red soldiers marching west, etc..) behaved like rapists and thugs. Much like NATO is behaving now, under the thrall of the very same Fiend.

    It isn't about nationalities or ethnicities, it's about simple human truths and simple human decency. When your country is invading and slaughtering and enslaving and torturing, that is wrong and bad, IMHO. Whether it's Russians doing it yesterday or today's Americans.

    Also I don't want to sound like an apologist for the Nazis either. There was hubris and arrogance to go around.

    Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.
     
    like my dad?

    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. “A Family Business of Perpetual War:”
     
    yes, isn't that funny and ironic?

    The Jewish war mongers are cynically using Nazi sympathizers to foist war on Russia as they use their media to smear Putin as a Hitler, of all things. : )

    They're simply using the natural fault line. The simmering animosities that are lingering from that horrible war and the atrocities that were committed on both sides. It is those animosities that I'm specifically trying to show the folly of with my efforts here. Russians and Europeans and so many others were ground up in that war, foisted on them all by the very real Fiend. The same one who is at it again. Please Russia and Ukrainians and Pols and Baltics, see this unfolding strife (that could turn nuclear) for what it is, just more war foisted upon you for the fun and profit of the bankster class.
  35. @Rurik
    Yea Putin has made some very important progress towards reconciliation. He even made an important speech recently. But he needs to do more, even at the risk of alienating some of the more nationalistic Russians.

    The people of Estonia or Ukraine or Poland don't remember the red army as liberators. Hardly. They remember them as rapists and thugs. And that's often what they were. It's time for Russia to own its own crimes during the war and afterwards and stop calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and "fascists". This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West IMHO.

    Let them tear down the hated statues of Lenin and Stalin and especially the red army. Let them honor their fallen heroes. Just as the Russian people must be allowed to honor theirs.

    I'm an American so I have no dog in that fight. I just don't want to see that particular pettiness lead to yet another bankers' war with slaughtered Russians and Europeans dying for the fun and profit of Victoria Nuland et al. There was quite enough of that during the 20th century thankyouverymuch. And I see the exact same folly happening all over again with the exact same players, only a generation or two removed.

    Nothing new under the sun I guess.

    I get the sense that the Polish and Baltic republics’ resentment of Russia is unquenchable. Russians could commit nationwide mass suicide in the style of Jonestown, leave millions of handwritten suicide notes apologizing to their western neighbours and it still wouldn’t be enough. I’ve done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue. The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The EU is giving the Eastern European nations slack on CultMarx, as long as their nationalists don't realize that the EU means multikult, gay rights, and Muslim invasion, they will continue to view Russia as the greater threat.

    We will have to show them the reality of the EU, Grexit may be the first step in our direction.
    , @Rurik

    The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.
     
    you are SO right!

    but what they need to do is stop with all the 'heroic red army' bs

    they need to allow the Pols and Baltics and Ukrainians to honor the memory of their fallen heroes without calling them Nazis and fascists.

    There is blame to go around. I just with the Russian people felt the same way about the NKVD that Iranians feel about SAVAK or I feel about Gitmo. Disgust at least.

    If Russia stops demanding everyone celebrate the "victory" of the Soviets over Eastern Europe, and stop calling it a 'liberation", then the healing can begin, and perhaps another catastrophic banker's war can be avoided.
  36. MarkinLA says:
    @Rurik
    What's going on here is what I like to call a geo-political version of 'rope-a-dope'.

    It's what they did to Hitler when they used Poland like today they're using Ukraine. They forced Hitler's hand by allowing / encouraging Poland to abuse the ethnic Germans in Danzig and elsewhere, thereby forcing Hitler to demand 'the corridor'. Just like today the Fiend is using the thugs in Kiev to slaughter ethnic Russians in Donbass in order to force Putin to do his own version of 'rope-a-dope'. Only Putin isn't playing along as well as the Fuhrer did. Perhaps he learned from Uncle Adolf's mistake.

    Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets (NKVD, Kulaks, Katyn, gulags, so many others) and understand that Nazism was a direct consequence of the Bolshevik threat. That's why so many Eastern Europeans (and Russians and Norwegians and others fought in the side of the Wehrmacht. Not because they loved the arrogant Germans. Hardly. It was because they understood all too well the very real threat of the Fiend. If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn't fight for Hitler or fascism, but rather against the international bankers and their golem the Bolshevism, then this conflict could end like a wisp of gossamer floating away in the wind, and the Fiend could stir in its juices and plot some other war where Russians and Europeans won't end up as the charred dupes.

    BTW, why is the MH17 "investigation" taking so long?

    Your Poland rant would have more validity if Hitler hadn’t occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia after getting the Sudetenland. Maybe the Poles figured once Hitler got Danzig back he would occupy the rest of Poland. Can’t blame them for thinking that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. They took area #2 on the map here in the "Resolution" section at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

    It's a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    , @Rurik

    Your Poland rant would have more validity if Hitler hadn’t occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia after getting the Sudetenland. Maybe the Poles figured once Hitler got Danzig back he would occupy the rest of Poland. Can’t blame them for thinking that.
     
    +

    Perhaps not.

    The asshole did say shit about lebensraum and untermenschen, so you have point.

    I just see the issue of the corridor as a trap that was set for Germany by the international bankers who did not like what Hitler had done to Germany. They liked the Weimar regime better. And as the tragic dupes were roped in, dope like, 60 million of the flower of Europe and Russia perished in the madness.

    Let's not do it again, eh?
  37. @MarkinLA
    Your Poland rant would have more validity if Hitler hadn't occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia after getting the Sudetenland. Maybe the Poles figured once Hitler got Danzig back he would occupy the rest of Poland. Can't blame them for thinking that.

    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. They took area #2 on the map here in the “Resolution” section at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

    It’s a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It wasn't Poland's fault that the Western allies decided to allow Germany to dismember Czechoslovakia. But, since a decision was made to allow the country to be dismembered, Poland decided to take Polish-inhabited territory - the piece of Czechoslovakia that Poland took was inhabited by ethnic Poles. This was comparable to Germany taking the German-inhabited Sudetenland (although, Poland's action unlike Germany's was a reactive and not proactive move), but quite different from Germany taking the Czech parts of Czechoslovakia.
    , @Szopen
    Cagey, Some facts:
    (1) Poland in 1930 constantly was demanding to be treated as an equal partner and was against any attempt of dividing states into powers and lesser states; it was against any proposal of "power concerts" (sorry, don't know english translation) which would decide the fate of smaller countries
    (2) Munich was example of what Poland was against to; however, since Munich happened, Poland then demanded to be included in Munich, to be a active participant, not an object about which powers will decide
    (3) The powers declared, that after solving German demands, there will be occassion to solve also demands of other nations. Poland interpreted this as a sign, that great powers will then organize another Munich, possibly without participation of Poland. As Germany already was starting making demands on Danzig (after years of assuring Poland, that Danzig is a provincial city and a non-issue), Poland was affraid that great powers will state that Danzig would go to Germany, and Zaolzie would be a compensation. All over Polish head.

    This was unacceptable for the Polish government at that time. That's why Poland issued ultimatum to Czech and took over Zaolzie. A bad move in a hindsight, and I think that we lost our moral rights for Zaolzie (and I think WE had right to Zaolzie before that). But it was essentially anti-German move, designed to show that Poland is not an object, but an active and independent power, which should be treated as a partner, and not as a pawn by great powers. Whether the objective was reached, is another thing, of course.
    , @MarkinLA
    It doesn't change the fact that Hitler could not be trusted.
    , @Sean T
    Carroll Quigley seemed to suggest that the motive behind the sellout of Czechoslovakia was to get the Czechs to fight Hitler, which they had the army to do. After the war, when the Czech president was asked why he didn't, he responded that he feared he would have to rely on Stalin's help to win. Stalin entering the war would then have allowed Britain and France to openly back Germany. After that, Germany divided Poland with Stalin, and Chamberlain's scheme was foiled. Appeasement? Hardly, the British then did an about face and went with Churchill and Plan B.
  38. Maj. Kong says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Your comments=heaping stinking mound of Cold War manure. Vietnam and Cuba posed 0 threat to America.

    Cuba was certainly a threat, beyond the Missile Crisis, they were sending agents and uniformed soldiers into ‘brushfire’ wars across the globe.

    Mandela praised the Castro dictatorship for defeating the RSA army at Cuito Cuanavale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    I see your point. However, the Soviet Union wasn't running Cuban Foriegn Policy. Cuba had quite an independent Foreign Policy. In 2015, Europeans should just get the hell out of Africa.

    Larger point:US Foreign Policy and US post-1965 Immigration Policy are inseparable..The Cold War gave us The 1965 Immigration Reform Act(Native Born White American Extermination Act) and post-1965 race-replacement Immigration Policy.

    I see that the creepy little Jew Scott Arranson is having an orgasm over at his blog...Shetl Optimized...over the SCOTUS ruling Legalizing Homo Marriage(social and cultural filth) and over the race-replacement of The Historic Native Born White American Majority...
  39. Maj. Kong says:
    @Cagey Beast
    I get the sense that the Polish and Baltic republics' resentment of Russia is unquenchable. Russians could commit nationwide mass suicide in the style of Jonestown, leave millions of handwritten suicide notes apologizing to their western neighbours and it still wouldn't be enough. I've done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue. The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    The EU is giving the Eastern European nations slack on CultMarx, as long as their nationalists don’t realize that the EU means multikult, gay rights, and Muslim invasion, they will continue to view Russia as the greater threat.

    We will have to show them the reality of the EU, Grexit may be the first step in our direction.

    Read More
  40. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast
    Sergei Ivanov is Putin's Chief of Staff and so, I suppose, he'd be the equivalent of Carl Rove. They said Rove was "Bush's brain" but I really have trouble even understanding how someone could think Putin is in need of a "brain" of this sort. I honestly think even children and dogs would be able to tell Putin is in no need of a care-giver like Carl Rove. Seriously a six year-old could tell you which President was smarter after spending some time around the two men.

    As for Dugin:


    Scared of Putin's Shadow
    In Sanctioning Dugin, Washington Got the Wrong Man


    Dugin has no official status within the Russian government. He is not even a member of the Public Chamber—a consultative institution created by Putin to foster a regime-friendly civil society—although one of Dugin’s close associates, Valery Korovin, was elected by an informal public vote as a member in Spring 2014. Nor is Dugin a part of Putin’s inner circle. The two men might not have ever even met. (Dugin is known to take every opportunity to publicize his personal connections with the Russian political elite, but has never bragged about having met the Russian president.)
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2015-03-25/scared-putins-shadow

    Sergei Ivanov is Putin’s Chief of Staff and so, I suppose, he’d be the equivalent of Carl Rove.

    There is NO Russian equivalent of Carl Rove or, for that matter, anything even remote. Russian history and culture IS NOT comprehensible for the majority of Anglo-sphere, that is why all these “Russia Experts” are nothing more than bunch of hacks.

    Read More
  41. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @annamaria
    As an American, have you studied the history of the WWII?
    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the "other" (Russia) produces "thugs and rapists." Well, here for you some facts: "The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:" http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/baltic.asp
    You also write that Russians should stop "calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists”. This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West..." Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.
    Here are the people "who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists." These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. "A Family Business of Perpetual War:" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    “The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:”, say what?
    Oh please, don’t make me laugh.

    Laws of science are the enemy of impossible ‘holocaust’ claims.

    Don’t be a sucker for Zionist lies.

    Referring to the Yad Vashem Potemkin Village Theme Park’s propaganda is laughable and easily debunked.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Holocau$t Lies, Who profits?

    I challenge anyone to actually show verified and photographed real excavations of verified enormous mass graves as alleged (i.e.: 900,000 Jews claimed at Treblinka) and supposedly in known locations. Show us the verified contents. Put up or shut up. Don’t just claim, show us.

    See what happens when an http://www.unz.com participant tries pushing the laughable ‘holoschlock’ impossibilities:

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9414

    and:

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451

    and:
    ‘Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    That's right, annamarina! Go to BobbyBeGood's personal CODOH forum, where he debates as "Hannover" and "moderates" the "debate." Or try to teach your dog to read -- either one has about an equal chance of being fruitful.

    And don't forget to ask BobbyBeGood why he won't debate the Holocaust here.
  42. […] Eastern Europe, will the stance help counter Russia’s policy in Ukraine? 16. The Unz Review: Israel Shamir, Russia: Tit for Tat. 17. Reuters: Ukraine debt envoy ratchets up payment suspension warning. 18. Kyiv Post: After a […]

    Read More
  43. AP says:
    @Cagey Beast
    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. They took area #2 on the map here in the "Resolution" section at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

    It's a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    It wasn’t Poland’s fault that the Western allies decided to allow Germany to dismember Czechoslovakia. But, since a decision was made to allow the country to be dismembered, Poland decided to take Polish-inhabited territory – the piece of Czechoslovakia that Poland took was inhabited by ethnic Poles. This was comparable to Germany taking the German-inhabited Sudetenland (although, Poland’s action unlike Germany’s was a reactive and not proactive move), but quite different from Germany taking the Czech parts of Czechoslovakia.

    Read More
  44. AP says:
    @annamaria
    As an American, have you studied the history of the WWII?
    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the "other" (Russia) produces "thugs and rapists." Well, here for you some facts: "The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:" http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/baltic.asp
    You also write that Russians should stop "calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists”. This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West..." Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.
    Here are the people "who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists." These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. "A Family Business of Perpetual War:" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the “other” (Russia) produces “thugs and rapists.”

    Nations are not inherently more good or more evil than others, but governments are. Stalin’s government was quite evil. Hitler’s was even worse. Poland’s was much less evil than either Stalin’s or Hitler’s government.

    Here are the people “who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists.” These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    You cited globalreaearch.ca, the same clowns who love North Korea:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-a-land-of-human-achievement-love-and-joy/5344960

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "You cited globalreaearch.ca, the same clowns who love North Korea"
    Please give some stronger argument to reject the validity of the pictures that show Mrs. Nuland-Kagan from the US State Dept. and US Senator McCain fraternizing with neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    "Laws of science are the enemy of impossible ‘holocaust’ claims."
    No, they are not. There are still plenty of people with tattooed numbers on their forearms; these people were children when they were branded at the concentration camps, as if they were animals for slaughter. There are people still alive who had lost all their relatives because of the mass slaughter of Jews in Eastern Europe during WWII.

    Don't even try to insert your indecent nationalistic verbiage in this context. There are no inherently good nations and no inherently bad nations, but only courageous people versus opportunists and thieves. After the Stalin and Hitler regimes, the world has witnessed the nuclear holocaust in Japan and the napalm holocaust in Vietnam, followed by Khmer Rouge mass murders (the US supported the Khmer Rouge in the UN as the “legitimate” representative of the Cambodian people). For the last 13 years the world has been witnessing a bloody bath in the Middle East, which is first and foremost a bacchanalia of the Western war profiteers. Currently, the world can see the attempts at creating the Iraqization of Ukraine in order to prevent a growing danger to the unipolarity that the Empire of Federal Reserve and mega-corporations want to maintain by any means.

  45. Kiza says:
    @Cagey Beast
    Sergei Ivanov is Putin's Chief of Staff and so, I suppose, he'd be the equivalent of Carl Rove. They said Rove was "Bush's brain" but I really have trouble even understanding how someone could think Putin is in need of a "brain" of this sort. I honestly think even children and dogs would be able to tell Putin is in no need of a care-giver like Carl Rove. Seriously a six year-old could tell you which President was smarter after spending some time around the two men.

    As for Dugin:


    Scared of Putin's Shadow
    In Sanctioning Dugin, Washington Got the Wrong Man


    Dugin has no official status within the Russian government. He is not even a member of the Public Chamber—a consultative institution created by Putin to foster a regime-friendly civil society—although one of Dugin’s close associates, Valery Korovin, was elected by an informal public vote as a member in Spring 2014. Nor is Dugin a part of Putin’s inner circle. The two men might not have ever even met. (Dugin is known to take every opportunity to publicize his personal connections with the Russian political elite, but has never bragged about having met the Russian president.)
     
    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2015-03-25/scared-putins-shadow

    Thank you for answering the challenge appropriately. I agree with you completely.

    There is no doubt that behind every great leader there is a selected team of highly capable staff which he usually selects himself or herself. But to give to one staff member all the credit for the success is pure marketing by this person (these days if you are connected with journalists and pay well those cheap presstitutes will promote you into a God). Thus Karl Rove and his image of a President Maker.

    Where are the staff when Putin does a live 4-5 hour address to the nation? When has any US president, or any Western politician, done anything similar? Maybe Putin had staff hiding under his desk during the live marathon, right?

    Putin is just amazingly capable leader, one such born in a century. Good luck to Maj Kong for denying this.

    Read More
  46. HLMunchkin says: • Website
    @Astuteobservor II
    it is understandable that he is so popular within russia. they just need to think back to the horrors of the 90s decade. any leader who got them out of it would enjoy near universal popularity.

    Some of the players from the ‘Not So Gay Nineties’

    who are the oligarchs?

    This is an ‘Oldie’ that I saved awhile back.

    Here are some of them.

    * Boris Berezovsky, 57, with a Ph. D. in mathematics, dabbled in a car dealership before creating a sophisticated get-rich-quick financial structure that appealed to the new Russia. He then set about penetrating the president’s inner circle, befriending Yeltsin’s ghost-writer and offering to publish his “autobiography.” Such generosity was well rewarded. In 1994, Yeltsin handed him control of the privatized ORT TV network and, soon after, Berezovsky took control of the state oil company Sibneft and the national carrier Aeroflot.

    * Vladimir Gusinsky, 53, parlayed his business in cabs, jeans and copper bracelets into real estate and construction. Then his eyes opened to the riches of banking. Through his friendship with Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, he made millions managing the city’s funds, while plowing his mounting profits into newspapers (including a stake in Ma’ariv), magazines and TV companies. His NTV TV network played a pivotal role in Yeltsin’s 1996 electoral victory over his Communist adversaries.

    * Mikhail Fridman, 39, graduated from cleaning windows to importing cigarettes and photo-copiers before moving into the oil business. By 1991, he was a millionaire. Then the privatization of Russia’s banks grabbed his attention. After recruiting Yeltsin’s trade minister, Pyotr Aven (himself an oligarch), he created the Alpha Group, which today controls Russia’s largest private bank, half of Tyumen, Russia’s fourth-largest oil company, and Crown Resources, a commodities trading company turning over some $5 billion a year.

    * Roman Abramovich, 37, was a protégé of Berezovsky, who parachuted him into the family. He rose from selling plastic ducks and second-hand car tires to acquiring the world’s richest aluminum company. He also bought Berezovsky’s shares in Aeroflot and Sibneft. Indulging his passion, he recently sank several hundred million dollars into Chelsea football club. Abramovich bought himself a slice of immunity when he became governor of Russia’s remote region of Chukotka.

    NOW, PUTIN has rung down the curtain on the final act of the drama and invited the Kremlin’s nomenklatura to return to their old ways of making up the law to suit themselves. Only now there is a difference. Russia’s integration in the West allows the Kremlin to try to use the international judicial system to cull its targets.

    Berezovsky was arrested on an international warrant in London earlier this year. He persuaded the British authorities that he faced persecution rather than prosecution if he was returned. Gusinsky, once head of Russia’s Jewish community, was arrested on an international warrant in Athens earlier this year but he, too, managed to persuade the Greek authorities that the charges against him were manifestly unjust. After walking free, he invoked his rights as an Israeli citizen and made aliya.

    Meanwhile, Abramovich’s immunity (by virtue of his governorship of Chukotka) appears increasingly fragile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Interesting.... in contradiction to many stories of vicious anti-Semitism in Russia, it seems that all the biggest money-makers in Russia were/are Jewish men
  47. @Andrei Martyanov
    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;
    2. If NATO would get Sevastopol two things would have happened:

    a) Putin would have been overthrown and Russian "liberals" would have hanged from the lamp post all over Russia;
    b) There would have been war and I mean real one, not the low intensity combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Andrew, tovarisch against war, good quotations on your blog – and thanks for the long hair Omega rock.

    “Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet,
    I’m off to join the Development Set”

    That’s about it. To realize more lost in one day by one ally in Siege of Stalingrad than all of technological war dilettantism is startling to the cherished illusions of old narratives that are turned to support for new delusions.

    I was aware, not just from A.S., but also works like “The Unknown War” series by Hollywood’s Burt Lancaster.

    It is vulture warfare, following the unprinciples of vulture capitalism. Let others do the work and sacrifice, then swoop in to profit with the least effort.

    Fine, but then to not even show up at the memorial to the vast dead who made your commanding heights even possible.

    Pretending to ride the moral high horse while actually sitting under the horse’s ass in a pile of s— is conveyed by what our J.Q. Adams wrote, appropriate to all times when this hubris occurs:

    “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Hi Fran, love my progressive rock of 1970s. As per high moral ground--for US it was over in 2003, after that it is slow and painful death of the remaining miniscule political capital.
    , @Jeff Davis
    Love your stuff Fran. Always classy.
  48. Szopen says:
    @Cagey Beast
    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. They took area #2 on the map here in the "Resolution" section at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

    It's a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    Cagey, Some facts:
    (1) Poland in 1930 constantly was demanding to be treated as an equal partner and was against any attempt of dividing states into powers and lesser states; it was against any proposal of “power concerts” (sorry, don’t know english translation) which would decide the fate of smaller countries
    (2) Munich was example of what Poland was against to; however, since Munich happened, Poland then demanded to be included in Munich, to be a active participant, not an object about which powers will decide
    (3) The powers declared, that after solving German demands, there will be occassion to solve also demands of other nations. Poland interpreted this as a sign, that great powers will then organize another Munich, possibly without participation of Poland. As Germany already was starting making demands on Danzig (after years of assuring Poland, that Danzig is a provincial city and a non-issue), Poland was affraid that great powers will state that Danzig would go to Germany, and Zaolzie would be a compensation. All over Polish head.

    This was unacceptable for the Polish government at that time. That’s why Poland issued ultimatum to Czech and took over Zaolzie. A bad move in a hindsight, and I think that we lost our moral rights for Zaolzie (and I think WE had right to Zaolzie before that). But it was essentially anti-German move, designed to show that Poland is not an object, but an active and independent power, which should be treated as a partner, and not as a pawn by great powers. Whether the objective was reached, is another thing, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    In short, Poland was the bullfrog which was determined to show it was as big as any bull, and kept blowing itself up and blowing itself up ... until it burst.
    , @Seraphim
    A question nagging me for long time. In the context of the "revisionist" atmosphere that pervaded Europe in the lead to and in the wake of the the Munchen agreement, did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?
  49. @MarkinLA
    Putin was not going to let NATO grab Sevastopol. He could not allow that. There would have been war and with the choke-points available at the entrance to the Black Sea, it would have been a disaster for NATO.

    Which is why Russia’s snap re-unification with Crimea did not surprise me in the slightest. If I had been a Russian ruler–or, for that matter, a Crimean!–I would have acted no differently.

    Read More
  50. @Andrei Martyanov
    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;
    2. If NATO would get Sevastopol two things would have happened:

    a) Putin would have been overthrown and Russian "liberals" would have hanged from the lamp post all over Russia;
    b) There would have been war and I mean real one, not the low intensity combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;

    Re-read my original post more closely:

    Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.

    I bolded the ‘not’ for you this time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    I bolded for you what mattered in your statement

    that is not frozen half the year.
     
    I guess, formal logic testifies to the fact that the other half-year it is frozen. But, whatever floats your boat. Consider me being wrong.
  51. annamaria says:
    @AP

    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the “other” (Russia) produces “thugs and rapists.”
     
    Nations are not inherently more good or more evil than others, but governments are. Stalin's government was quite evil. Hitler's was even worse. Poland's was much less evil than either Stalin's or Hitler's government.

    Here are the people “who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists.” These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
     
    You cited globalreaearch.ca, the same clowns who love North Korea:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-a-land-of-human-achievement-love-and-joy/5344960

    “You cited globalreaearch.ca, the same clowns who love North Korea”
    Please give some stronger argument to reject the validity of the pictures that show Mrs. Nuland-Kagan from the US State Dept. and US Senator McCain fraternizing with neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    “Laws of science are the enemy of impossible ‘holocaust’ claims.”
    No, they are not. There are still plenty of people with tattooed numbers on their forearms; these people were children when they were branded at the concentration camps, as if they were animals for slaughter. There are people still alive who had lost all their relatives because of the mass slaughter of Jews in Eastern Europe during WWII.

    Don’t even try to insert your indecent nationalistic verbiage in this context. There are no inherently good nations and no inherently bad nations, but only courageous people versus opportunists and thieves. After the Stalin and Hitler regimes, the world has witnessed the nuclear holocaust in Japan and the napalm holocaust in Vietnam, followed by Khmer Rouge mass murders (the US supported the Khmer Rouge in the UN as the “legitimate” representative of the Cambodian people). For the last 13 years the world has been witnessing a bloody bath in the Middle East, which is first and foremost a bacchanalia of the Western war profiteers. Currently, the world can see the attempts at creating the Iraqization of Ukraine in order to prevent a growing danger to the unipolarity that the Empire of Federal Reserve and mega-corporations want to maintain by any means.

    Read More
  52. @Rurik
    What's going on here is what I like to call a geo-political version of 'rope-a-dope'.

    It's what they did to Hitler when they used Poland like today they're using Ukraine. They forced Hitler's hand by allowing / encouraging Poland to abuse the ethnic Germans in Danzig and elsewhere, thereby forcing Hitler to demand 'the corridor'. Just like today the Fiend is using the thugs in Kiev to slaughter ethnic Russians in Donbass in order to force Putin to do his own version of 'rope-a-dope'. Only Putin isn't playing along as well as the Fuhrer did. Perhaps he learned from Uncle Adolf's mistake.

    Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets (NKVD, Kulaks, Katyn, gulags, so many others) and understand that Nazism was a direct consequence of the Bolshevik threat. That's why so many Eastern Europeans (and Russians and Norwegians and others fought in the side of the Wehrmacht. Not because they loved the arrogant Germans. Hardly. It was because they understood all too well the very real threat of the Fiend. If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn't fight for Hitler or fascism, but rather against the international bankers and their golem the Bolshevism, then this conflict could end like a wisp of gossamer floating away in the wind, and the Fiend could stir in its juices and plot some other war where Russians and Europeans won't end up as the charred dupes.

    BTW, why is the MH17 "investigation" taking so long?

    Putin has repeatedly and publicly repudiated the crimes of the Soviet Union, but simply will not airbrush it out of history completely. There is absolutely no reason at all why he–or any Russian–should not celebrate their extremely hard-won victory in the ‘Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland’. A brutal war which the Soviets never sought, and which could have conceivably destroyed their country had they lost. It took them years to rebuild their country from that nightmare of devastation; but by the late 50′s, they were already launching satellites and had Kennedy frightened of a “missile gap”.

    My money’s with the Russians this time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    had Kennedy frightened of a “missile gap”

    Don't kid yourself. That was campaign BS. Kennedy knew we still had a huge advantage in strategic nuclear forces.
    , @Rurik

    ‘Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland’.
     
    In only turned into that when Stalin cynically needed the Russian people to heed the call. Before it was the Great Patriotic War, it was something else. Just as the Kulaks. Oh, you can't.

    A brutal war which the Soviets never sought,
     
    what planet are you writing from?

    ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?

    do you have any idea of what Stalin put the Russian people through?

    the terror campaigns and the starvation and the gulags and the purges and all the unimaginable horrors?

    My God man do some reading
  53. I have some questions which the virulence of the anti-Semitism amongst the comments should guarantee can be answered with the energy needed for well researched credible responses.

    1. What was the population of Jews in areas occupied by German forces during WW2 before the war and what was it at the end of the war or any subsequent date you like to use? How do you account for the loss in numbers? How does that proportionate loss compare with the losses of any other ethnic group?
    2. How do you dispute the findings in the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case and deny that there was an organised plan to achieve a “Final Solution” known to and approved by Hitler, largely pushed by and organised under Himmler and administered by the likes of Eichmann?
    3. While it may be true that some Westerners gave some Russians reason to believe that NATO would not include some Eastern European countries, was that ever formalised, and, by contrast did not Russia guarantee the Ukraine’s national integrity within the boundaries established within the USSR as a matter of formal treaty in return for the Ukraine giving up all the nuclear weapons on its soil?
    4. As Russia is clearly in breach of the latter treaty is it appropriate for any country to ignore it as if it didn’t happen? If so, or indeed if not, where should the line be drawn and on what reasoning?

    It’s not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin’s demonstratively muscular leadership. What’s the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Addressing myself to 3 and 4:
    History didn't end in 1945, in 1992 or in 2008. It moves on, and since the west had no compunction about violating the solemn Helsinki final act by recognising numerous states formed from constituent elements of the USSR, the SFR of Yugoslavia and even the SR of Serbia, Russia certainly has no reason to care a fig for language about the territorial integrity of the misbegotten "Ukraine" in an agreement with the west about another subject.
    To put it briefly, in the elegant words of Thomas L. "The World is Flat" Friedman,
    Suck. On. This.
    , @HA
    It’s not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin’s demonstratively muscular leadership.

    You must be new here – for the Putin-boosters, that’s more than enough. If you press further, things fall apart pretty rapidly. There was allegedly some sacred NATO agreement (“not one inch to the East”) that James Baker made (without, apparently, bothering to involve a single NATO official) that was supposed to last forever and ever that the "West" flagrantly violated (even though they not only got Gorbachev’s approval when NATO was expanded, but paid him off with economic benefits).

    Of course, Ukraine was trying to make an agreement with the EU, not NATO, when all this happened (its previous attempts to ready for NATO membership had been rejected, to the point where it had given up even trying). But apparently NATO is now indistinguishable from the EU/trans-Atlantic/Neo-Con/Zionist/gay/immigrationist agenda, so that's a minor technicality.

    If you point out that annexing Crimea and sending tanks to Lugansk are a clear and flagrant violation of the Budapest Memorandum, and that there were ways for Russia to get what it wanted without such violations, you get a range of hand-waving responses: big powers break agreements all the time so Russia can, too; the Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by the Senate (funny, no one bothers to ask if that fictitious NATO treaty Baker negotiated was ever ratified by the Senate); Yanukovich’s overthrow nullified Russia’s obligations, and hey, what about how the US got California and the Panama Canal?, etc. If anyone recognizes that for the smoke-and-mirrors that it is, they just scream Nuland/neoCons/Jews/gays/race-replacement/Soros-money over and over and insist that some combination of that was more than enough to void the Budapest Memorandum, and anyone who doesn’t agree is war-mongering Russophobe and Jew (except for pro-Putin boosters like Stephen Cohen – I guess they’re now as gentile as Israel Shamir himself, as long as they keep rooting for Putin.)

    Or something like that. It only gets weaker the closer you look, but all they can muster is shock and outrage when others don’t connect the dots in the same way.

    , @MarkinLA
    Didn't Crimea follow the US written script in Kosovo to the letter? The government declared independence. They had a popular referendum and were officially independent. They just went one step farther and voted to be annexed by Mother Russia.
    , @Anonymous
    “What’s the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?”

    You guys are all the same. You expect the other guy to bend over and take it in the ass, but when it's your turn to bend over you get all huffy and particular and start enumerating your version (bullshjt) of the "facts" about why the other guy is wrong and you're right.

    When the neoconservatives and the neoliberals start behaving principled and pragmatic then get back to me about principled and pragmatic. As long as the neo-cons and the neo-liberals are all about regime change and proxy wars and the Wolfowitz Doctrine of world domination, then the proper response is what I call the Putin Doctrine: the calm and steady stare that says, “We have tanks and we have nukes -- tell that to your sphincter.”

  54. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It was a huge disgrace for Putin to have cooperated with the US in it’s invasion of Afghanistan. What was he thinking, trying to curry favor with the Americans? Although that’s been belatedly rectified they lost moral capital by being seen to be in league with war aggressors.
    The western countries just love to ‘freeze’ or ‘seize’ the assets of others, to steal their gold. It’s just a form of piracy with lawyers on board.

    Read More
  55. 5371 says:
    @Szopen
    Cagey, Some facts:
    (1) Poland in 1930 constantly was demanding to be treated as an equal partner and was against any attempt of dividing states into powers and lesser states; it was against any proposal of "power concerts" (sorry, don't know english translation) which would decide the fate of smaller countries
    (2) Munich was example of what Poland was against to; however, since Munich happened, Poland then demanded to be included in Munich, to be a active participant, not an object about which powers will decide
    (3) The powers declared, that after solving German demands, there will be occassion to solve also demands of other nations. Poland interpreted this as a sign, that great powers will then organize another Munich, possibly without participation of Poland. As Germany already was starting making demands on Danzig (after years of assuring Poland, that Danzig is a provincial city and a non-issue), Poland was affraid that great powers will state that Danzig would go to Germany, and Zaolzie would be a compensation. All over Polish head.

    This was unacceptable for the Polish government at that time. That's why Poland issued ultimatum to Czech and took over Zaolzie. A bad move in a hindsight, and I think that we lost our moral rights for Zaolzie (and I think WE had right to Zaolzie before that). But it was essentially anti-German move, designed to show that Poland is not an object, but an active and independent power, which should be treated as a partner, and not as a pawn by great powers. Whether the objective was reached, is another thing, of course.

    In short, Poland was the bullfrog which was determined to show it was as big as any bull, and kept blowing itself up and blowing itself up … until it burst.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Not really. Poland was a state which demanded to be treated as a sovereign state. Are you Russian? because from my experience Russians seem to have problems with understanding that demanding to be treated equally does not mean megalomania.
  56. @Wally
    “The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:”, say what?
    Oh please, don't make me laugh.

    Laws of science are the enemy of impossible 'holocaust' claims.

    Don't be a sucker for Zionist lies.

    Referring to the Yad Vashem Potemkin Village Theme Park's propaganda is laughable and easily debunked.
    www.codoh.com

    Holocau$t Lies, Who profits?

    I challenge anyone to actually show verified and photographed real excavations of verified enormous mass graves as alleged (i.e.: 900,000 Jews claimed at Treblinka) and supposedly in known locations. Show us the verified contents. Put up or shut up. Don't just claim, show us.

    See what happens when an www.unz.com participant tries pushing the laughable 'holoschlock' impossibilities:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9414
    and:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451
    and:
    'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

    That’s right, annamarina! Go to BobbyBeGood’s personal CODOH forum, where he debates as “Hannover” and “moderates” the “debate.” Or try to teach your dog to read — either one has about an equal chance of being fruitful.

    And don’t forget to ask BobbyBeGood why he won’t debate the Holocaust here.

    Read More
  57. 5371 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have some questions which the virulence of the anti-Semitism amongst the comments should guarantee can be answered with the energy needed for well researched credible responses.

    1. What was the population of Jews in areas occupied by German forces during WW2 before the war and what was it at the end of the war or any subsequent date you like to use? How do you account for the loss in numbers? How does that proportionate loss compare with the losses of any other ethnic group?
    2. How do you dispute the findings in the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case and deny that there was an organised plan to achieve a "Final Solution" known to and approved by Hitler, largely pushed by and organised under Himmler and administered by the likes of Eichmann?
    3. While it may be true that some Westerners gave some Russians reason to believe that NATO would not include some Eastern European countries, was that ever formalised, and, by contrast did not Russia guarantee the Ukraine's national integrity within the boundaries established within the USSR as a matter of formal treaty in return for the Ukraine giving up all the nuclear weapons on its soil?
    4. As Russia is clearly in breach of the latter treaty is it appropriate for any country to ignore it as if it didn't happen? If so, or indeed if not, where should the line be drawn and on what reasoning?

    It's not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin's demonstratively muscular leadership. What's the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?

    Addressing myself to 3 and 4:
    History didn’t end in 1945, in 1992 or in 2008. It moves on, and since the west had no compunction about violating the solemn Helsinki final act by recognising numerous states formed from constituent elements of the USSR, the SFR of Yugoslavia and even the SR of Serbia, Russia certainly has no reason to care a fig for language about the territorial integrity of the misbegotten “Ukraine” in an agreement with the west about another subject.
    To put it briefly, in the elegant words of Thomas L. “The World is Flat” Friedman,
    Suck. On. This.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @5371 [may I ask what is the significance of "5371"]

    I am trying to extract answers to the questions I posed from your references to my questions 3 & 4.

    What, btw perhaps, but to start with is the significance you attach to 1945, 1992 and 2008 in the context of answering my question?

    As you seem to be saying that the US and others have breached some treaty which you call the "Helsinki final act" and that this constitutes justification for Russia disregarding its obligations under another treaty to [correct me if I am wrong] to a different party could you please give me or at least link me accurately to chapter and verse which substantiates the charge you make by reference to the terms and the dates.

  58. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    "If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn’t fight for Hitler or fascism..."

    The paper did address your concern: "The victory [in WWII] has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia. This is true, but this truth was rarely mentioned until this year."
    It was the EU policies (actually the policies of the US vassals in Europe) that made Russians to take another look at the supposedly virtuous European states. Moreover, the Ukraine and Baltic states were never the enemies of Russians for the simple reason that too many Russians have been living there. Perhaps you do not realize it, but the shared cultural heritage - particularly the shared language of belle letters - made all former Soviets into "Russians." For instance, the majority of "Russian" immigrants in the US are Jews that had had an advantage for settling in the US thanks to the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
    You are trying to convince the readers that it was the RF policies against Europe, which have been "stoking the flames of hatred," but the facts are not on your side. Russians want normal (pragmatic) relationships with all European States, but this plan does not fit the model of unipolar world, which had been expressed so clearly in the Wolfowitz Doctrine and which had been pursued so obviously by the US (plutocracy). A planned Iraqization of Ukraine reflects on a standard model for massive looting (and why the US are on a border with RF, thousands miles away from the US geographical borders?)
    God help us all to avoid a confrontation of two nuclear powers.

    The paper did address your concern: “The victory [in WWII] has been perceived as a Russian victory over Europe, not only over Germany; for practically all European nations from France, Spain and Italy to Hungary and Bulgaria fought on Hitler’s side against Russia. This is true, but this truth was rarely mentioned until this year.”

    But that is my very bone of contention. It wasn’t a “Russian” victory. It was a Bolshevik victory, and the Russian people were just as defeated as the Eastern Europeans. There were millions of ethnic Russians who fought on the side of Germany who the allies returned to Stalin at Yalta at the end of the war. These were the most heroic of the Russian people, the ones who would not suffer the genocidal slavery of the Bolsheviks over their lives. They certainly didn’t like the Germans, but fought along side them knowing the Fiend for what it was, and were tossed into its belly by yet more Allied betrayal. Sort of what happened to General Patton after the war when he too saw the face of the Fiend for what it was.

    In total, some two million people were repatriated to the USSR at the end of the Second World War.[10]

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

    It was the EU policies (actually the policies of the US vassals in Europe) that made Russians to take another look at the supposedly virtuous European states.

    The US are also vassals to the Fiend (international banking cartel). who is doing all of this to punish Putin for thwarting them in their march to Damascus- as the stepping stone to Iran and beyond. The Fiend is drooling for more power (duh), and Putin stood in the way. This whole tragic Ukrainian charade is all part of a bigger picture.

    You are trying to convince the readers that it was the RF policies against Europe, which have been “stoking the flames of hatred,” but the facts are not on your side.

    the opposite actually

    Russians want normal (pragmatic) relationships with all European States, but this plan does not fit the model of unipolar world, which had been expressed so clearly in the Wolfowitz Doctrine and which had been pursued so obviously by the US (plutocracy). A planned Iraqization of Ukraine reflects on a standard model for massive looting (and why the US are on a border with RF, thousands miles away from the US geographical borders?)

    I completely agree. This is because the Fiend has now made its nest in the West. It no longer resides in Moscow, where Putin has forced its oligarch demons to play nice. Now it’s in NY, London and Tel Aviv. And it’s from there that you are getting your unipolar world.

    Just like the Russians of the last century were under the Fiends boot, so today we in the West find ourselves doing its bidding. When the wall came down it was because it was no longer necessary. The Fiend was on both sides. Putin has changed that, to some degree. God pray he remains as statesman like as he’s been so far. The Fiend does not like being thwarted. Not at all.

    Read More
  59. MarkinLA says:
    @Cagey Beast
    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. They took area #2 on the map here in the "Resolution" section at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

    It's a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    It doesn’t change the fact that Hitler could not be trusted.

    Read More
  60. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    How many murdered Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian speaking Ukranians will take to provoke Vladimir Putin into sending in the Tanks and Troops into the Ukraine?….50 thousand….75 thousand?….100 Thousands?….1 million?…This is the US game plan you know. If Putin does nothing….he is overthrown by the Russian Military…Yes?…No?

    Read More
  61. MarkinLA says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Putin has repeatedly and publicly repudiated the crimes of the Soviet Union, but simply will not airbrush it out of history completely. There is absolutely no reason at all why he--or any Russian--should not celebrate their extremely hard-won victory in the 'Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland'. A brutal war which the Soviets never sought, and which could have conceivably destroyed their country had they lost. It took them years to rebuild their country from that nightmare of devastation; but by the late 50's, they were already launching satellites and had Kennedy frightened of a "missile gap".

    My money's with the Russians this time.

    had Kennedy frightened of a “missile gap”

    Don’t kid yourself. That was campaign BS. Kennedy knew we still had a huge advantage in strategic nuclear forces.

    Read More
  62. @5371
    Addressing myself to 3 and 4:
    History didn't end in 1945, in 1992 or in 2008. It moves on, and since the west had no compunction about violating the solemn Helsinki final act by recognising numerous states formed from constituent elements of the USSR, the SFR of Yugoslavia and even the SR of Serbia, Russia certainly has no reason to care a fig for language about the territorial integrity of the misbegotten "Ukraine" in an agreement with the west about another subject.
    To put it briefly, in the elegant words of Thomas L. "The World is Flat" Friedman,
    Suck. On. This.

    [may I ask what is the significance of "5371"]

    I am trying to extract answers to the questions I posed from your references to my questions 3 & 4.

    What, btw perhaps, but to start with is the significance you attach to 1945, 1992 and 2008 in the context of answering my question?

    As you seem to be saying that the US and others have breached some treaty which you call the “Helsinki final act” and that this constitutes justification for Russia disregarding its obligations under another treaty to [correct me if I am wrong] to a different party could you please give me or at least link me accurately to chapter and verse which substantiates the charge you make by reference to the terms and the dates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Don't pretend to be less capable of using a search engine than you are. Just for once, I'll give you a little help.
    2008 - Kosovo declares independence
    1992 - all USSR and Yugoslav constituent republics have declared independence
    1945 - some obscure events which you may or may not have heard of.
  63. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Maj. Kong
    Cuba was certainly a threat, beyond the Missile Crisis, they were sending agents and uniformed soldiers into 'brushfire' wars across the globe.

    Mandela praised the Castro dictatorship for defeating the RSA army at Cuito Cuanavale.

    I see your point. However, the Soviet Union wasn’t running Cuban Foriegn Policy. Cuba had quite an independent Foreign Policy. In 2015, Europeans should just get the hell out of Africa.

    Larger point:US Foreign Policy and US post-1965 Immigration Policy are inseparable..The Cold War gave us The 1965 Immigration Reform Act(Native Born White American Extermination Act) and post-1965 race-replacement Immigration Policy.

    I see that the creepy little Jew Scott Arranson is having an orgasm over at his blog…Shetl Optimized…over the SCOTUS ruling Legalizing Homo Marriage(social and cultural filth) and over the race-replacement of The Historic Native Born White American Majority…

    Read More
  64. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    As an American, have you studied the history of the WWII?
    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the "other" (Russia) produces "thugs and rapists." Well, here for you some facts: "The Beginning of the Final Solution, Murder of the Jews of the Baltic:" http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/baltic.asp
    You also write that Russians should stop "calling the people who want to honor their fathers and grandfathers who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists”. This is the main reason for the rancor between Russia and its neighbors to the West..." Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.
    Here are the people "who were fighting the good fight against the Bolsheviks Nazis and “fascists." These people are called the neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. "A Family Business of Perpetual War:" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Your post suggests that some nations are inherently good (Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland) and they produce virtuous warriors and the “other” (Russia) produces “thugs and rapists.”

    not at all

    I’m suggesting that Russia during the second WW was under the thrall of what I’ve been calling the Fiend. As such, they (the NKVD, red soldiers marching west, etc..) behaved like rapists and thugs. Much like NATO is behaving now, under the thrall of the very same Fiend.

    It isn’t about nationalities or ethnicities, it’s about simple human truths and simple human decency. When your country is invading and slaughtering and enslaving and torturing, that is wrong and bad, IMHO. Whether it’s Russians doing it yesterday or today’s Americans.

    Also I don’t want to sound like an apologist for the Nazis either. There was hubris and arrogance to go around.

    Well, perhaps you need first to consult the American veterans that fought the WWII.

    like my dad?

    Take a note that the members of the neo-Nazi organization (that was banished in Europe) have found their the best friends among the acknowledged war-mongers such as Kagan family. “A Family Business of Perpetual War:”

    yes, isn’t that funny and ironic?

    The Jewish war mongers are cynically using Nazi sympathizers to foist war on Russia as they use their media to smear Putin as a Hitler, of all things. : )

    They’re simply using the natural fault line. The simmering animosities that are lingering from that horrible war and the atrocities that were committed on both sides. It is those animosities that I’m specifically trying to show the folly of with my efforts here. Russians and Europeans and so many others were ground up in that war, foisted on them all by the very real Fiend. The same one who is at it again. Please Russia and Ukrainians and Pols and Baltics, see this unfolding strife (that could turn nuclear) for what it is, just more war foisted upon you for the fun and profit of the bankster class.

    Read More
  65. Rurik says:
    @Cagey Beast
    I get the sense that the Polish and Baltic republics' resentment of Russia is unquenchable. Russians could commit nationwide mass suicide in the style of Jonestown, leave millions of handwritten suicide notes apologizing to their western neighbours and it still wouldn't be enough. I've done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue. The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    you are SO right!

    but what they need to do is stop with all the ‘heroic red army’ bs

    they need to allow the Pols and Baltics and Ukrainians to honor the memory of their fallen heroes without calling them Nazis and fascists.

    There is blame to go around. I just with the Russian people felt the same way about the NKVD that Iranians feel about SAVAK or I feel about Gitmo. Disgust at least.

    If Russia stops demanding everyone celebrate the “victory” of the Soviets over Eastern Europe, and stop calling it a ‘liberation”, then the healing can begin, and perhaps another catastrophic banker’s war can be avoided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    >> Iranians feel about SAVAK <<

    What came after Savak was far worse.

    Gitmo is Club Med by any reasonable standard. Too bad that those jihadi scum have to stay locked up. Those whom Obama hasn't sent back to the battlefield, of course.

    Otherwise, very interesting comments.
  66. Rurik says:
    @MarkinLA
    Your Poland rant would have more validity if Hitler hadn't occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia after getting the Sudetenland. Maybe the Poles figured once Hitler got Danzig back he would occupy the rest of Poland. Can't blame them for thinking that.

    Your Poland rant would have more validity if Hitler hadn’t occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia after getting the Sudetenland. Maybe the Poles figured once Hitler got Danzig back he would occupy the rest of Poland. Can’t blame them for thinking that.

    +

    Perhaps not.

    The asshole did say shit about lebensraum and untermenschen, so you have point.

    I just see the issue of the corridor as a trap that was set for Germany by the international bankers who did not like what Hitler had done to Germany. They liked the Weimar regime better. And as the tragic dupes were roped in, dope like, 60 million of the flower of Europe and Russia perished in the madness.

    Let’s not do it again, eh?

    Read More
  67. Rurik says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Putin has repeatedly and publicly repudiated the crimes of the Soviet Union, but simply will not airbrush it out of history completely. There is absolutely no reason at all why he--or any Russian--should not celebrate their extremely hard-won victory in the 'Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland'. A brutal war which the Soviets never sought, and which could have conceivably destroyed their country had they lost. It took them years to rebuild their country from that nightmare of devastation; but by the late 50's, they were already launching satellites and had Kennedy frightened of a "missile gap".

    My money's with the Russians this time.

    ‘Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland’.

    In only turned into that when Stalin cynically needed the Russian people to heed the call. Before it was the Great Patriotic War, it was something else. Just as the Kulaks. Oh, you can’t.

    A brutal war which the Soviets never sought,

    what planet are you writing from?

    ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?

    do you have any idea of what Stalin put the Russian people through?

    the terror campaigns and the starvation and the gulags and the purges and all the unimaginable horrors?

    My God man do some reading

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    "ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact"

    Not at all to deny the cunning peasant Dzhugashvili his fiend's place in Hell, but as usual there's always more context than history revised to support present biases.

    The documented evidence shows Stalin and his ruling circle were tremendously afraid of Nazi Germany's reconstituted military and Hitler's already stated aims to destroy the Soviet Union. The Soviets repeatedly and desperately sought an alliance with the western powers, who finally rebuffed them. Only then did the Soviets turn to the expediency of a pact with Germany, which Stalin craftily thought to turn to advantage, since the Germans seemed so suddenly agreeable. We also know that in secret Hitler never intended to honor that pact, just use it to buy him useful time while he thought to wrap up his western conquests.
  68. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Seamus Padraig

    1. Sevastopol is never frozen;
     
    Re-read my original post more closely:


    Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.
     
    I bolded the 'not' for you this time.

    I bolded for you what mattered in your statement

    that is not frozen half the year.

    I guess, formal logic testifies to the fact that the other half-year it is frozen. But, whatever floats your boat. Consider me being wrong.

    Read More
  69. 5371 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    @5371 [may I ask what is the significance of "5371"]

    I am trying to extract answers to the questions I posed from your references to my questions 3 & 4.

    What, btw perhaps, but to start with is the significance you attach to 1945, 1992 and 2008 in the context of answering my question?

    As you seem to be saying that the US and others have breached some treaty which you call the "Helsinki final act" and that this constitutes justification for Russia disregarding its obligations under another treaty to [correct me if I am wrong] to a different party could you please give me or at least link me accurately to chapter and verse which substantiates the charge you make by reference to the terms and the dates.

    Don’t pretend to be less capable of using a search engine than you are. Just for once, I’ll give you a little help.
    2008 – Kosovo declares independence
    1992 – all USSR and Yugoslav constituent republics have declared independence
    1945 – some obscure events which you may or may not have heard of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @5371

    Your mild dig about using a search engine would make sense if it was possible to put 1945 and0or 1992 and/or 2008 into Google (maybe with "5371's present train of thought") and get something.

    I am not sure whether you are saying that the Crimea was in the same category legally or by some other standard.... ??? It looks as though HA might know the answers if so....
  70. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Fran Macadam
    Andrew, tovarisch against war, good quotations on your blog – and thanks for the long hair Omega rock.

    “Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet,
    I’m off to join the Development Set”

    That’s about it. To realize more lost in one day by one ally in Siege of Stalingrad than all of technological war dilettantism is startling to the cherished illusions of old narratives that are turned to support for new delusions.

    I was aware, not just from A.S., but also works like “The Unknown War” series by Hollywood’s Burt Lancaster.

    It is vulture warfare, following the unprinciples of vulture capitalism. Let others do the work and sacrifice, then swoop in to profit with the least effort.

    Fine, but then to not even show up at the memorial to the vast dead who made your commanding heights even possible.

    Pretending to ride the moral high horse while actually sitting under the horse’s ass in a pile of s— is conveyed by what our J.Q. Adams wrote, appropriate to all times when this hubris occurs:

    “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    Hi Fran, love my progressive rock of 1970s. As per high moral ground–for US it was over in 2003, after that it is slow and painful death of the remaining miniscule political capital.

    Read More
  71. @Rurik

    ‘Great Patriotic War to Save the Motherland’.
     
    In only turned into that when Stalin cynically needed the Russian people to heed the call. Before it was the Great Patriotic War, it was something else. Just as the Kulaks. Oh, you can't.

    A brutal war which the Soviets never sought,
     
    what planet are you writing from?

    ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?

    do you have any idea of what Stalin put the Russian people through?

    the terror campaigns and the starvation and the gulags and the purges and all the unimaginable horrors?

    My God man do some reading

    “ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact”

    Not at all to deny the cunning peasant Dzhugashvili his fiend’s place in Hell, but as usual there’s always more context than history revised to support present biases.

    The documented evidence shows Stalin and his ruling circle were tremendously afraid of Nazi Germany’s reconstituted military and Hitler’s already stated aims to destroy the Soviet Union. The Soviets repeatedly and desperately sought an alliance with the western powers, who finally rebuffed them. Only then did the Soviets turn to the expediency of a pact with Germany, which Stalin craftily thought to turn to advantage, since the Germans seemed so suddenly agreeable. We also know that in secret Hitler never intended to honor that pact, just use it to buy him useful time while he thought to wrap up his western conquests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Hitler’s already stated aims to destroy the Soviet Union.
     
    I wish he would have. The commies were intent on conquering the world. That was their stated goal. They used starvation to force people to submit or die. Just like the allies used starvation to force Germany to sign the Versailles treaty enslaving the German people who had trusted in Wilson's fourteen points - (what folly and treachery is hidden under the historical rock!) - the legacy of which was WWII. The commies were trying to take over Germany when Hitler came to power. In fact the only reason Hitler came to power was as a consequence of the direct threat that the genocidal commies posed to Germany.

    The Soviets repeatedly and desperately sought an alliance with the western powers, who finally rebuffed them.
     
    the entire Soviet adventure was funded by NY bankers

    We also know that in secret Hitler never intended to honor that pact, just use it to buy him useful time while he thought to wrap up his western conquests.
     
    not sure but wouldn't be surprised

    He was up against the worst evil mankind has ever known.

    Scores of millions of people were murdered by their own commie governments in the 20th century. It seems to me that it started in earnest with the Ukrainian peasant farmers and only waned out with the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. Would that the West would have helped Hitler put a stake in the heart of this demon when it was in its nascent larvae stage, the 20th century might not have been so barbarous and awful. Then once the Fiend was dispatched, the rest of the sane world could have dealt with Hitler.

    That's just one man's opinion. But what was done was done. My agenda is to try to help prevent this century from resembling the last one. It looks like we have our work cut out for us.
  72. HA says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have some questions which the virulence of the anti-Semitism amongst the comments should guarantee can be answered with the energy needed for well researched credible responses.

    1. What was the population of Jews in areas occupied by German forces during WW2 before the war and what was it at the end of the war or any subsequent date you like to use? How do you account for the loss in numbers? How does that proportionate loss compare with the losses of any other ethnic group?
    2. How do you dispute the findings in the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case and deny that there was an organised plan to achieve a "Final Solution" known to and approved by Hitler, largely pushed by and organised under Himmler and administered by the likes of Eichmann?
    3. While it may be true that some Westerners gave some Russians reason to believe that NATO would not include some Eastern European countries, was that ever formalised, and, by contrast did not Russia guarantee the Ukraine's national integrity within the boundaries established within the USSR as a matter of formal treaty in return for the Ukraine giving up all the nuclear weapons on its soil?
    4. As Russia is clearly in breach of the latter treaty is it appropriate for any country to ignore it as if it didn't happen? If so, or indeed if not, where should the line be drawn and on what reasoning?

    It's not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin's demonstratively muscular leadership. What's the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?

    It’s not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin’s demonstratively muscular leadership.

    You must be new here – for the Putin-boosters, that’s more than enough. If you press further, things fall apart pretty rapidly. There was allegedly some sacred NATO agreement (“not one inch to the East”) that James Baker made (without, apparently, bothering to involve a single NATO official) that was supposed to last forever and ever that the “West” flagrantly violated (even though they not only got Gorbachev’s approval when NATO was expanded, but paid him off with economic benefits).

    Of course, Ukraine was trying to make an agreement with the EU, not NATO, when all this happened (its previous attempts to ready for NATO membership had been rejected, to the point where it had given up even trying). But apparently NATO is now indistinguishable from the EU/trans-Atlantic/Neo-Con/Zionist/gay/immigrationist agenda, so that’s a minor technicality.

    If you point out that annexing Crimea and sending tanks to Lugansk are a clear and flagrant violation of the Budapest Memorandum, and that there were ways for Russia to get what it wanted without such violations, you get a range of hand-waving responses: big powers break agreements all the time so Russia can, too; the Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by the Senate (funny, no one bothers to ask if that fictitious NATO treaty Baker negotiated was ever ratified by the Senate); Yanukovich’s overthrow nullified Russia’s obligations, and hey, what about how the US got California and the Panama Canal?, etc. If anyone recognizes that for the smoke-and-mirrors that it is, they just scream Nuland/neoCons/Jews/gays/race-replacement/Soros-money over and over and insist that some combination of that was more than enough to void the Budapest Memorandum, and anyone who doesn’t agree is war-mongering Russophobe and Jew (except for pro-Putin boosters like Stephen Cohen – I guess they’re now as gentile as Israel Shamir himself, as long as they keep rooting for Putin.)

    Or something like that. It only gets weaker the closer you look, but all they can muster is shock and outrage when others don’t connect the dots in the same way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    What’s weird is that even though they’ve recently been ranting about “Fabians”, they conspicuously omit mentioning Marxists, given that most everyone knows that it was the latter who for decades were pushing the destruction of the West and the promotion of homosexual and other anti-bourgeois measures that are now supposedly converging on Moscow – the very place where a good deal of their support originated. I guess criticizing Marxists would invite too many questions regarding Schadenfreude and chickens coming home to roost, or involve confusing segues into why exactly was the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the last century (according to their dear leader, anyway). Or maybe it would detract from the implicit claim that it was never Marxists or Soviets, it was always just the Jews. (Pity those poor Freemasons - so much carnage that they wrought, and now, they're all but forgotten when it comes to taking credit for having messed up things.)

    Anyway, don’t worry – it’s not white right-wing Christian Ukrainians that are dying. That would be too obvious. No, they’re all just neo-fascist minions of the Jews (because we all know how much the latter love Ukrainian neo-fascists). Better they should all die than that NATO and Nuland and the gays be seen as winning another one.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    What a treasure. Someone on this blog who sounds reasonable and knows what he (?she) is talking about. I am sure that Ron U knows who I am, as would Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire so I invite you to get my email address from one of them and email me. You wouldn't be the ghost of Jim Chapin I suppose. (He was a treasure. A very learned historian who was an Director of the Socialist International and American! And a bon viveur who took me to the Four Seasons in NYC and had someone else pay!)
  73. HA says:
    @HA
    It’s not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin’s demonstratively muscular leadership.

    You must be new here – for the Putin-boosters, that’s more than enough. If you press further, things fall apart pretty rapidly. There was allegedly some sacred NATO agreement (“not one inch to the East”) that James Baker made (without, apparently, bothering to involve a single NATO official) that was supposed to last forever and ever that the "West" flagrantly violated (even though they not only got Gorbachev’s approval when NATO was expanded, but paid him off with economic benefits).

    Of course, Ukraine was trying to make an agreement with the EU, not NATO, when all this happened (its previous attempts to ready for NATO membership had been rejected, to the point where it had given up even trying). But apparently NATO is now indistinguishable from the EU/trans-Atlantic/Neo-Con/Zionist/gay/immigrationist agenda, so that's a minor technicality.

    If you point out that annexing Crimea and sending tanks to Lugansk are a clear and flagrant violation of the Budapest Memorandum, and that there were ways for Russia to get what it wanted without such violations, you get a range of hand-waving responses: big powers break agreements all the time so Russia can, too; the Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by the Senate (funny, no one bothers to ask if that fictitious NATO treaty Baker negotiated was ever ratified by the Senate); Yanukovich’s overthrow nullified Russia’s obligations, and hey, what about how the US got California and the Panama Canal?, etc. If anyone recognizes that for the smoke-and-mirrors that it is, they just scream Nuland/neoCons/Jews/gays/race-replacement/Soros-money over and over and insist that some combination of that was more than enough to void the Budapest Memorandum, and anyone who doesn’t agree is war-mongering Russophobe and Jew (except for pro-Putin boosters like Stephen Cohen – I guess they’re now as gentile as Israel Shamir himself, as long as they keep rooting for Putin.)

    Or something like that. It only gets weaker the closer you look, but all they can muster is shock and outrage when others don’t connect the dots in the same way.

    What’s weird is that even though they’ve recently been ranting about “Fabians”, they conspicuously omit mentioning Marxists, given that most everyone knows that it was the latter who for decades were pushing the destruction of the West and the promotion of homosexual and other anti-bourgeois measures that are now supposedly converging on Moscow – the very place where a good deal of their support originated. I guess criticizing Marxists would invite too many questions regarding Schadenfreude and chickens coming home to roost, or involve confusing segues into why exactly was the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the last century (according to their dear leader, anyway). Or maybe it would detract from the implicit claim that it was never Marxists or Soviets, it was always just the Jews. (Pity those poor Freemasons – so much carnage that they wrought, and now, they’re all but forgotten when it comes to taking credit for having messed up things.)

    Anyway, don’t worry – it’s not white right-wing Christian Ukrainians that are dying. That would be too obvious. No, they’re all just neo-fascist minions of the Jews (because we all know how much the latter love Ukrainian neo-fascists). Better they should all die than that NATO and Nuland and the gays be seen as winning another one.

    Read More
  74. Matra says:

    Cagey Beast

    I’ve done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue.

    How dare they hold grudges over millions of dead and deported, decades of oppression and occupation, and continued bullying to this day. I mean, seriously, it’s not like they really suffered the way poor Russia did in the 90s. Jeez, get over it!

    The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    Given that Russians themselves seem to be the only ex-Soviet nationality embracing the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy of the Soviet state that is hardly surprising.

    It was the Waspy Samuel Huntington who declared a “clash of civilizations” at the end of the Cold War, after all

    Huntingdon was merely guilty of noticing things. (His final book with its Waspy message didn’t exactly win over Jews in academia and media. They made him a pariah).

    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia…It’s a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    Pole-bashing Hitler apologists, Russia Firsters, and, sadly, paleocons, love taking offence on behalf of Czechs for the annexation. Yet the Czechs today are aware of it and totally unbothered by it. Even at the time they weren’t too bothered as they understood the situation. Ask a typical Czech today what resentments linger from the 20th century and you’ll hear plenty about Russia, followed by some distance Germany, and possibly even the British (ie Munich), but nothing about Poland and that Bohumín business. But I’m sure they really appreciate the empathy they are receiving from so many Americans and Russians at sites like this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    All that notwithstanding, the Czechs and the Slovaks are actually both very critical of the sanctions against Russia, and so's Hungary. So don't buy this 'all of eastern Europe hates Russia' meme. Obviously Serbia and Macedonia are pro-Russian too, but they're not EU member at the moment, unlike the other three I mentioned.
    , @annamaria
    "Given that Russians themselves seem to be the only ex-Soviet nationality embracing the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy of the Soviet state..."

    All nations tend to embrace "the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy" of their past. What about Churchill treatment of Indians, Johnson treatment of Japanese and Vietnamese, and Bush treatment of Afghans and Iraqis? Should the monuments to Churchill be immediately removed and the places named after Bushies be immediately renamed? These are the "symbols and trappings" of the past...

    "How Sir Winston Churchill Starved 4 Million Indians:" http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1396)

  75. annamaria says:
    @HLMunchkin
    Some of the players from the 'Not So Gay Nineties'

    who are the oligarchs?

    This is an 'Oldie' that I saved awhile back.

    Here are some of them.

    * Boris Berezovsky, 57, with a Ph. D. in mathematics, dabbled in a car dealership before creating a sophisticated get-rich-quick financial structure that appealed to the new Russia. He then set about penetrating the president’s inner circle, befriending Yeltsin’s ghost-writer and offering to publish his “autobiography.” Such generosity was well rewarded. In 1994, Yeltsin handed him control of the privatized ORT TV network and, soon after, Berezovsky took control of the state oil company Sibneft and the national carrier Aeroflot.

    * Vladimir Gusinsky, 53, parlayed his business in cabs, jeans and copper bracelets into real estate and construction. Then his eyes opened to the riches of banking. Through his friendship with Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, he made millions managing the city’s funds, while plowing his mounting profits into newspapers (including a stake in Ma’ariv), magazines and TV companies. His NTV TV network played a pivotal role in Yeltsin’s 1996 electoral victory over his Communist adversaries.

    * Mikhail Fridman, 39, graduated from cleaning windows to importing cigarettes and photo-copiers before moving into the oil business. By 1991, he was a millionaire. Then the privatization of Russia’s banks grabbed his attention. After recruiting Yeltsin’s trade minister, Pyotr Aven (himself an oligarch), he created the Alpha Group, which today controls Russia’s largest private bank, half of Tyumen, Russia’s fourth-largest oil company, and Crown Resources, a commodities trading company turning over some $5 billion a year.


    * Roman Abramovich, 37, was a protégé of Berezovsky, who parachuted him into the family. He rose from selling plastic ducks and second-hand car tires to acquiring the world’s richest aluminum company. He also bought Berezovsky’s shares in Aeroflot and Sibneft. Indulging his passion, he recently sank several hundred million dollars into Chelsea football club. Abramovich bought himself a slice of immunity when he became governor of Russia’s remote region of Chukotka.

    NOW, PUTIN has rung down the curtain on the final act of the drama and invited the Kremlin’s nomenklatura to return to their old ways of making up the law to suit themselves. Only now there is a difference. Russia’s integration in the West allows the Kremlin to try to use the international judicial system to cull its targets.

    Berezovsky was arrested on an international warrant in London earlier this year. He persuaded the British authorities that he faced persecution rather than prosecution if he was returned. Gusinsky, once head of Russia’s Jewish community, was arrested on an international warrant in Athens earlier this year but he, too, managed to persuade the Greek authorities that the charges against him were manifestly unjust. After walking free, he invoked his rights as an Israeli citizen and made aliya.

    Meanwhile, Abramovich’s immunity (by virtue of his governorship of Chukotka) appears increasingly fragile.

    Interesting…. in contradiction to many stories of vicious anti-Semitism in Russia, it seems that all the biggest money-makers in Russia were/are Jewish men

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Fran McA

    I asked a former ambassador to Moscow once whether all the oligarchs were Jewish and he said all but one were. Then a friend who runs a charity for Khodorkovsky (?spelling) told me that K was "Orthodox" meaning Russian O!!! Wouldn't have helped in Germany in the 30s....
  76. @Matra
    Cagey Beast

    I’ve done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue.

    How dare they hold grudges over millions of dead and deported, decades of oppression and occupation, and continued bullying to this day. I mean, seriously, it's not like they really suffered the way poor Russia did in the 90s. Jeez, get over it!

    The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    Given that Russians themselves seem to be the only ex-Soviet nationality embracing the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy of the Soviet state that is hardly surprising.

    It was the Waspy Samuel Huntington who declared a “clash of civilizations” at the end of the Cold War, after all

    Huntingdon was merely guilty of noticing things. (His final book with its Waspy message didn't exactly win over Jews in academia and media. They made him a pariah).

    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia...It’s a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    Pole-bashing Hitler apologists, Russia Firsters, and, sadly, paleocons, love taking offence on behalf of Czechs for the annexation. Yet the Czechs today are aware of it and totally unbothered by it. Even at the time they weren't too bothered as they understood the situation. Ask a typical Czech today what resentments linger from the 20th century and you'll hear plenty about Russia, followed by some distance Germany, and possibly even the British (ie Munich), but nothing about Poland and that Bohumín business. But I'm sure they really appreciate the empathy they are receiving from so many Americans and Russians at sites like this one.

    All that notwithstanding, the Czechs and the Slovaks are actually both very critical of the sanctions against Russia, and so’s Hungary. So don’t buy this ‘all of eastern Europe hates Russia’ meme. Obviously Serbia and Macedonia are pro-Russian too, but they’re not EU member at the moment, unlike the other three I mentioned.

    Read More
  77. @5371
    Don't pretend to be less capable of using a search engine than you are. Just for once, I'll give you a little help.
    2008 - Kosovo declares independence
    1992 - all USSR and Yugoslav constituent republics have declared independence
    1945 - some obscure events which you may or may not have heard of.

    Your mild dig about using a search engine would make sense if it was possible to put 1945 and0or 1992 and/or 2008 into Google (maybe with “5371′s present train of thought”) and get something.

    I am not sure whether you are saying that the Crimea was in the same category legally or by some other standard…. ??? It looks as though HA might know the answers if so….

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [It looks as though HA might know the answers if so….]

    Why don't you look in the mirror and ask him?
  78. @annamaria
    Interesting.... in contradiction to many stories of vicious anti-Semitism in Russia, it seems that all the biggest money-makers in Russia were/are Jewish men

    Fran McA

    I asked a former ambassador to Moscow once whether all the oligarchs were Jewish and he said all but one were. Then a friend who runs a charity for Khodorkovsky (?spelling) told me that K was “Orthodox” meaning Russian O!!! Wouldn’t have helped in Germany in the 30s….

    Read More
  79. @HA
    It’s not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin’s demonstratively muscular leadership.

    You must be new here – for the Putin-boosters, that’s more than enough. If you press further, things fall apart pretty rapidly. There was allegedly some sacred NATO agreement (“not one inch to the East”) that James Baker made (without, apparently, bothering to involve a single NATO official) that was supposed to last forever and ever that the "West" flagrantly violated (even though they not only got Gorbachev’s approval when NATO was expanded, but paid him off with economic benefits).

    Of course, Ukraine was trying to make an agreement with the EU, not NATO, when all this happened (its previous attempts to ready for NATO membership had been rejected, to the point where it had given up even trying). But apparently NATO is now indistinguishable from the EU/trans-Atlantic/Neo-Con/Zionist/gay/immigrationist agenda, so that's a minor technicality.

    If you point out that annexing Crimea and sending tanks to Lugansk are a clear and flagrant violation of the Budapest Memorandum, and that there were ways for Russia to get what it wanted without such violations, you get a range of hand-waving responses: big powers break agreements all the time so Russia can, too; the Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by the Senate (funny, no one bothers to ask if that fictitious NATO treaty Baker negotiated was ever ratified by the Senate); Yanukovich’s overthrow nullified Russia’s obligations, and hey, what about how the US got California and the Panama Canal?, etc. If anyone recognizes that for the smoke-and-mirrors that it is, they just scream Nuland/neoCons/Jews/gays/race-replacement/Soros-money over and over and insist that some combination of that was more than enough to void the Budapest Memorandum, and anyone who doesn’t agree is war-mongering Russophobe and Jew (except for pro-Putin boosters like Stephen Cohen – I guess they’re now as gentile as Israel Shamir himself, as long as they keep rooting for Putin.)

    Or something like that. It only gets weaker the closer you look, but all they can muster is shock and outrage when others don’t connect the dots in the same way.

    What a treasure. Someone on this blog who sounds reasonable and knows what he (?she) is talking about. I am sure that Ron U knows who I am, as would Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire so I invite you to get my email address from one of them and email me. You wouldn’t be the ghost of Jim Chapin I suppose. (He was a treasure. A very learned historian who was an Director of the Socialist International and American! And a bon viveur who took me to the Four Seasons in NYC and had someone else pay!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    ”Someone on this blog who sounds reasonable and knows what he (?she) is talking about.”

    I very much appreciate the plug, but I assure you, that is a minority opinion around here that will immediately get you marked as a sock puppet in a Hasbara disinformation campaign. As for emails, let’s swap those a bit later -- I have some upcoming trips to that part of the world that will likely happen before this mess is cleared up, and although I’m far too insignificant to warrant being fearful of any glitches, I know that those whose job it will be to troubleshoot my predicament, in the unlikely event that a glitch transpires, will have an easier time figuring out who did what and what needs to be done next if I lay low.

    Besides, although I have links to both factions in this mess, my primary interest is in how the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK) should respond in light of the Budapest Memorandum. It is their signatures, not those of the EU or NATO per se, that made it into that document, and those who would like them to quietly slink away and pretend they never signed anything are kidding themselves. (If Putin is naïve enough to be among those who hoped that would happen, that means we all have even more we need to worry about.) The fact that Ukraine has hired bureaucratic C- and D-listers from both countries (e.g., Tony Blair and Biden fils), imply that those obligations have not been forgotten by those most directly involved. (If there is anything else those two are good for, let’s just say I am not privy to it.) The problem now is figuring out what those obligations entail exactly, given that they were never detailed.
  80. iSteveFan says:
    @SFG
    They have the edge (the tanks are in Ukraine, not in Canada or Mexico) and think they can push it. Imagine if Putin was fomenting anti-American activity in Sonora...

    Imagine if Putin was fomenting anti-American activity in Sonora…

    You don’t have to imagine that the US is fomenting anti-Russian activity in their near abroad.

    Read More
  81. annamaria says:
    @Matra
    Cagey Beast

    I’ve done a 180-degree turn on this matter and am now sick to my back teeth of Poles, Balts and western Ukrainians on this issue.

    How dare they hold grudges over millions of dead and deported, decades of oppression and occupation, and continued bullying to this day. I mean, seriously, it's not like they really suffered the way poor Russia did in the 90s. Jeez, get over it!

    The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.

    Given that Russians themselves seem to be the only ex-Soviet nationality embracing the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy of the Soviet state that is hardly surprising.

    It was the Waspy Samuel Huntington who declared a “clash of civilizations” at the end of the Cold War, after all

    Huntingdon was merely guilty of noticing things. (His final book with its Waspy message didn't exactly win over Jews in academia and media. They made him a pariah).

    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia...It’s a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    Pole-bashing Hitler apologists, Russia Firsters, and, sadly, paleocons, love taking offence on behalf of Czechs for the annexation. Yet the Czechs today are aware of it and totally unbothered by it. Even at the time they weren't too bothered as they understood the situation. Ask a typical Czech today what resentments linger from the 20th century and you'll hear plenty about Russia, followed by some distance Germany, and possibly even the British (ie Munich), but nothing about Poland and that Bohumín business. But I'm sure they really appreciate the empathy they are receiving from so many Americans and Russians at sites like this one.

    “Given that Russians themselves seem to be the only ex-Soviet nationality embracing the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy of the Soviet state…”

    All nations tend to embrace “the symbols, trappings, and much of the legacy” of their past. What about Churchill treatment of Indians, Johnson treatment of Japanese and Vietnamese, and Bush treatment of Afghans and Iraqis? Should the monuments to Churchill be immediately removed and the places named after Bushies be immediately renamed? These are the “symbols and trappings” of the past…

    “How Sir Winston Churchill Starved 4 Million Indians:” http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=1396)

    Read More
  82. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact"

    Not at all to deny the cunning peasant Dzhugashvili his fiend's place in Hell, but as usual there's always more context than history revised to support present biases.

    The documented evidence shows Stalin and his ruling circle were tremendously afraid of Nazi Germany's reconstituted military and Hitler's already stated aims to destroy the Soviet Union. The Soviets repeatedly and desperately sought an alliance with the western powers, who finally rebuffed them. Only then did the Soviets turn to the expediency of a pact with Germany, which Stalin craftily thought to turn to advantage, since the Germans seemed so suddenly agreeable. We also know that in secret Hitler never intended to honor that pact, just use it to buy him useful time while he thought to wrap up his western conquests.

    Hitler’s already stated aims to destroy the Soviet Union.

    I wish he would have. The commies were intent on conquering the world. That was their stated goal. They used starvation to force people to submit or die. Just like the allies used starvation to force Germany to sign the Versailles treaty enslaving the German people who had trusted in Wilson’s fourteen points – (what folly and treachery is hidden under the historical rock!) – the legacy of which was WWII. The commies were trying to take over Germany when Hitler came to power. In fact the only reason Hitler came to power was as a consequence of the direct threat that the genocidal commies posed to Germany.

    The Soviets repeatedly and desperately sought an alliance with the western powers, who finally rebuffed them.

    the entire Soviet adventure was funded by NY bankers

    We also know that in secret Hitler never intended to honor that pact, just use it to buy him useful time while he thought to wrap up his western conquests.

    not sure but wouldn’t be surprised

    He was up against the worst evil mankind has ever known.

    Scores of millions of people were murdered by their own commie governments in the 20th century. It seems to me that it started in earnest with the Ukrainian peasant farmers and only waned out with the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. Would that the West would have helped Hitler put a stake in the heart of this demon when it was in its nascent larvae stage, the 20th century might not have been so barbarous and awful. Then once the Fiend was dispatched, the rest of the sane world could have dealt with Hitler.

    That’s just one man’s opinion. But what was done was done. My agenda is to try to help prevent this century from resembling the last one. It looks like we have our work cut out for us.

    Read More
  83. Seraphim says:
    @Szopen
    Cagey, Some facts:
    (1) Poland in 1930 constantly was demanding to be treated as an equal partner and was against any attempt of dividing states into powers and lesser states; it was against any proposal of "power concerts" (sorry, don't know english translation) which would decide the fate of smaller countries
    (2) Munich was example of what Poland was against to; however, since Munich happened, Poland then demanded to be included in Munich, to be a active participant, not an object about which powers will decide
    (3) The powers declared, that after solving German demands, there will be occassion to solve also demands of other nations. Poland interpreted this as a sign, that great powers will then organize another Munich, possibly without participation of Poland. As Germany already was starting making demands on Danzig (after years of assuring Poland, that Danzig is a provincial city and a non-issue), Poland was affraid that great powers will state that Danzig would go to Germany, and Zaolzie would be a compensation. All over Polish head.

    This was unacceptable for the Polish government at that time. That's why Poland issued ultimatum to Czech and took over Zaolzie. A bad move in a hindsight, and I think that we lost our moral rights for Zaolzie (and I think WE had right to Zaolzie before that). But it was essentially anti-German move, designed to show that Poland is not an object, but an active and independent power, which should be treated as a partner, and not as a pawn by great powers. Whether the objective was reached, is another thing, of course.

    A question nagging me for long time. In the context of the “revisionist” atmosphere that pervaded Europe in the lead to and in the wake of the the Munchen agreement, did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    ...did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?
     
    Yes, for a time, Polish ruler Pilsudski did indeed entertain an ambitious campaign of eastward expansion, often called 'Prometheism': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism. It was Lenin who put a stop to it.

    By the time of MR-Pact, however, the USSR was no longer threatened by Poland; Stalin's principal problem was Germany. As neither England nor France would consider an anti-German alliance with the Soviets, Stalin had little choice but to arrive at a compromise with Berlin that would buy Soviets more time to prepare, modernize their industry, and increase their defense production.
  84. “In fact the only reason Hitler came to power was as a consequence of the direct threat that the genocidal commies posed to Germany.”

    Actually it had to do with the ruinous war reparations imposed on Germany that wouldn’t have ended until 1989. Which Wall Street offered a supposed way out through egregious loans and impossible debt. Massive inflation wiped out the middle class and imposed misery and unemployment. Weimar’s politicians had no answer, no way out to offer. Wall Street triggered a worldwide depression. A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.
     
    impossible?

    He promised prosperity and a return to national pride. He fulfilled on all accounts and then some, until he was intrigued into war by the genocidal commies in the east and the Satanic capitalists in the west.

    In the 1930s Germany was being ripped asunder between communists and anti-communists. There were battles and fist fights in the streets of Berlin between these two mutually exclusive world views.

    Had there been no Bolshevik revolution and communist threat to Germany, there would have been no Nazi response. No Hitler. No war and no Holocaust. He would have lived his life in relative obscurity.

    But the commie (the Fiend) never relents. They never stop agitating for more power, Total power. 'Unipolar', unilateral, absolute power. Orwell was right about them. And today they're a bigger threat than ever, even as they cloak their nefarious agenda under the banner of NATO. They are operating in earnest today in the Ukraine. And Syria. And the only thing that stands between them and total global domination is Vlad Putin.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed Fran your summary list of factors leading to Hitler's taking power is much more accurate and closer to comprehensive.
  85. 5371 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    @5371

    Your mild dig about using a search engine would make sense if it was possible to put 1945 and0or 1992 and/or 2008 into Google (maybe with "5371's present train of thought") and get something.

    I am not sure whether you are saying that the Crimea was in the same category legally or by some other standard.... ??? It looks as though HA might know the answers if so....

    [It looks as though HA might know the answers if so….]

    Why don’t you look in the mirror and ask him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Wrong and trivial again 5371. Ron has said he doesn't allow sock-puppets and on the one occasion I tried substituting "Bemused" or such to make a harmless and good tempered response his software must have worked because it didn't appear. As to HA I see that he added another comment immediately afterwards which contained sentiments with which I disagree quite strongly.
  86. @Seraphim
    A question nagging me for long time. In the context of the "revisionist" atmosphere that pervaded Europe in the lead to and in the wake of the the Munchen agreement, did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?

    …did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?

    Yes, for a time, Polish ruler Pilsudski did indeed entertain an ambitious campaign of eastward expansion, often called ‘Prometheism’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism. It was Lenin who put a stop to it.

    By the time of MR-Pact, however, the USSR was no longer threatened by Poland; Stalin’s principal problem was Germany. As neither England nor France would consider an anti-German alliance with the Soviets, Stalin had little choice but to arrive at a compromise with Berlin that would buy Soviets more time to prepare, modernize their industry, and increase their defense production.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    From that article a key Piłsudski quote:

    "Poland's strength and importance among the constituent parts of the Russian state embolden us to set ourselves the political goal of breaking up the Russian state into its main constituents and emancipating the countries that have been forcibly incorporated into that empire. We regard this not only as the fulfilment of our country's cultural strivings for independent existence, but also as a guarantee of that existence, since a Russia divested of her conquests will be sufficiently weakened that she will cease to be a formidable and dangerous neighbor."

    This Piłsudski's memo from 1904 should be seen in the proper context: back then Russia was an imperial master to Poland, as it was for Finland, the Baltic states and Ukraine, and Poles were quite justifiably struggling against that rule. Plans to prevent the restoration of Russian rule by encouraging other non-Russian ethnicities made imperial subjects to break off (weakening Russia, making it incapable of threatening Poland again) would be a part of that struggle for independence. All in all this looks more like Ireland's (or even the United States') fight for independence than some nefarious Polish plot for Lebensraum in Russia's rightful territories. Piłsudski's plan certainly was not to absorb prospective fellow travellers like Latvia or Finland into Poland after they would break off Russia.
    , @szopen
    It's also worth remembering that Pilsudski vision lost. The another competing faction, national democrats, wanted to take only a territories with a sizeable Polish minority or majority. Soviets initially offered us even more territory, but Polish negotiator refused (!) and demanded LESS. If negotiators would follow Pilsudski vision, we would end up with Minsk inside Poland.
  87. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "In fact the only reason Hitler came to power was as a consequence of the direct threat that the genocidal commies posed to Germany."

    Actually it had to do with the ruinous war reparations imposed on Germany that wouldn't have ended until 1989. Which Wall Street offered a supposed way out through egregious loans and impossible debt. Massive inflation wiped out the middle class and imposed misery and unemployment. Weimar's politicians had no answer, no way out to offer. Wall Street triggered a worldwide depression. A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.

    A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.

    impossible?

    He promised prosperity and a return to national pride. He fulfilled on all accounts and then some, until he was intrigued into war by the genocidal commies in the east and the Satanic capitalists in the west.

    In the 1930s Germany was being ripped asunder between communists and anti-communists. There were battles and fist fights in the streets of Berlin between these two mutually exclusive world views.

    Had there been no Bolshevik revolution and communist threat to Germany, there would have been no Nazi response. No Hitler. No war and no Holocaust. He would have lived his life in relative obscurity.

    But the commie (the Fiend) never relents. They never stop agitating for more power, Total power. ‘Unipolar’, unilateral, absolute power. Orwell was right about them. And today they’re a bigger threat than ever, even as they cloak their nefarious agenda under the banner of NATO. They are operating in earnest today in the Ukraine. And Syria. And the only thing that stands between them and total global domination is Vlad Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Don't forget Kaiser Wilhelm's sealed train through Germany, Lenin onboard, to do damage to Bill's cousins in St. Pete's. You'd think they'd sell you the very rope to hang them with!

    Hitler "intrigued into war" by outsiders? Geez. The reasons for initial success had a lot to do with the audacious insanity of it unexpected by his opponents who didn't want war and thought the psychopath didn't either. Once the novelty of it wore off, there was sure to be the resistance that would spell doom. A bank robbery can look like a success until you're gunned down in the street outside.

    But he made the trains run on time, right? Including the ones to the gas chambers, on the tracks the allies never bombed.
    , @annamaria
    To sum: You profess that the Fiend is the Communists. Correct?
  88. Good news (at least from my nostalgic point of view):

    http://ria.ru/religion/20150701/1107648834.html

    Moscow city authorities decided against the placement
    of the monument of Prince Vladimir (980-1015) on Vorobyevy Hills.
    They discuss possible other places in Moscow to install that monument.
    Their reasoning exactly coincides with my (humble) opinion:
    “Отказались от этой идеи, так как привычная картинка МГУ изменится. Доминантой будет уже не здание университета, а сам монумент”.

    Read More
  89. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Seamus Padraig

    ...did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?
     
    Yes, for a time, Polish ruler Pilsudski did indeed entertain an ambitious campaign of eastward expansion, often called 'Prometheism': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism. It was Lenin who put a stop to it.

    By the time of MR-Pact, however, the USSR was no longer threatened by Poland; Stalin's principal problem was Germany. As neither England nor France would consider an anti-German alliance with the Soviets, Stalin had little choice but to arrive at a compromise with Berlin that would buy Soviets more time to prepare, modernize their industry, and increase their defense production.

    From that article a key Piłsudski quote:

    “Poland’s strength and importance among the constituent parts of the Russian state embolden us to set ourselves the political goal of breaking up the Russian state into its main constituents and emancipating the countries that have been forcibly incorporated into that empire. We regard this not only as the fulfilment of our country’s cultural strivings for independent existence, but also as a guarantee of that existence, since a Russia divested of her conquests will be sufficiently weakened that she will cease to be a formidable and dangerous neighbor.”

    This Piłsudski’s memo from 1904 should be seen in the proper context: back then Russia was an imperial master to Poland, as it was for Finland, the Baltic states and Ukraine, and Poles were quite justifiably struggling against that rule. Plans to prevent the restoration of Russian rule by encouraging other non-Russian ethnicities made imperial subjects to break off (weakening Russia, making it incapable of threatening Poland again) would be a part of that struggle for independence. All in all this looks more like Ireland’s (or even the United States’) fight for independence than some nefarious Polish plot for Lebensraum in Russia’s rightful territories. Piłsudski’s plan certainly was not to absorb prospective fellow travellers like Latvia or Finland into Poland after they would break off Russia.

    Read More
  90. HA says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    What a treasure. Someone on this blog who sounds reasonable and knows what he (?she) is talking about. I am sure that Ron U knows who I am, as would Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire so I invite you to get my email address from one of them and email me. You wouldn't be the ghost of Jim Chapin I suppose. (He was a treasure. A very learned historian who was an Director of the Socialist International and American! And a bon viveur who took me to the Four Seasons in NYC and had someone else pay!)

    ”Someone on this blog who sounds reasonable and knows what he (?she) is talking about.”

    I very much appreciate the plug, but I assure you, that is a minority opinion around here that will immediately get you marked as a sock puppet in a Hasbara disinformation campaign. As for emails, let’s swap those a bit later — I have some upcoming trips to that part of the world that will likely happen before this mess is cleared up, and although I’m far too insignificant to warrant being fearful of any glitches, I know that those whose job it will be to troubleshoot my predicament, in the unlikely event that a glitch transpires, will have an easier time figuring out who did what and what needs to be done next if I lay low.

    Besides, although I have links to both factions in this mess, my primary interest is in how the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK) should respond in light of the Budapest Memorandum. It is their signatures, not those of the EU or NATO per se, that made it into that document, and those who would like them to quietly slink away and pretend they never signed anything are kidding themselves. (If Putin is naïve enough to be among those who hoped that would happen, that means we all have even more we need to worry about.) The fact that Ukraine has hired bureaucratic C- and D-listers from both countries (e.g., Tony Blair and Biden fils), imply that those obligations have not been forgotten by those most directly involved. (If there is anything else those two are good for, let’s just say I am not privy to it.) The problem now is figuring out what those obligations entail exactly, given that they were never detailed.

    Read More
  91. @Rurik

    A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.
     
    impossible?

    He promised prosperity and a return to national pride. He fulfilled on all accounts and then some, until he was intrigued into war by the genocidal commies in the east and the Satanic capitalists in the west.

    In the 1930s Germany was being ripped asunder between communists and anti-communists. There were battles and fist fights in the streets of Berlin between these two mutually exclusive world views.

    Had there been no Bolshevik revolution and communist threat to Germany, there would have been no Nazi response. No Hitler. No war and no Holocaust. He would have lived his life in relative obscurity.

    But the commie (the Fiend) never relents. They never stop agitating for more power, Total power. 'Unipolar', unilateral, absolute power. Orwell was right about them. And today they're a bigger threat than ever, even as they cloak their nefarious agenda under the banner of NATO. They are operating in earnest today in the Ukraine. And Syria. And the only thing that stands between them and total global domination is Vlad Putin.

    Don’t forget Kaiser Wilhelm’s sealed train through Germany, Lenin onboard, to do damage to Bill’s cousins in St. Pete’s. You’d think they’d sell you the very rope to hang them with!

    Hitler “intrigued into war” by outsiders? Geez. The reasons for initial success had a lot to do with the audacious insanity of it unexpected by his opponents who didn’t want war and thought the psychopath didn’t either. Once the novelty of it wore off, there was sure to be the resistance that would spell doom. A bank robbery can look like a success until you’re gunned down in the street outside.

    But he made the trains run on time, right? Including the ones to the gas chambers, on the tracks the allies never bombed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    In the book
    "Icebreaker. WHO STARTED THE SECOND WORLD WAR?" ,
    Kindle in English:
    http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-WHO-STARTED-SECOND-WORLD-ebook/dp/B007WTZ372/
    authored by Viktor Suvorov, GRU spy turned to the West to become historian,
    Suvorov unambiguously shows that Stalin was eager to perpetrate war with Germany.

    Stalin has started complete mobilization of ALL Soviet Union: troops, industry, military equipment, for that war, around 1939.
    The start of the war was planned for 1942, but the development of the events on the Hitler's Western front (France etc.) made Stalin move the date of the invasion into Germany via Poland
    (divided between Germany and USSR as was decided by Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, 1939),
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact ,
    to earlier date: to July 6, 1941.
    Enormous losses of Soviet Army after first strike of Hitler's army 2 weeks _earlier_,
    June 22, 1941, were exactly connected with the disposition of great masses of Soviet troops prepared for the _attack_ on Germans, _not_ for the defense.
    Paperback edition of one of Suvorov's book in English: around $18.00,
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    , @annamaria
    There was a bouquet of financiers that had supported the leaders of Bolshevik revolution and ensured the destruction of Russian Empire and the extermination of Tsar's family.
    http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/wall-street-and-the-november-1917-bolshevik-revolution/
    http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/new-documents-reveal-trotsky-was-wall-street-collaborator/
    http://www.faem.com/david/trots-4.htm
    , @Rurik
    No, he didn't want war. Why would he. Germany was thriving like no tomorrow. He was loved as a hero and great statesman. Why would he want to see the whole thing brought to ruin?

    But he was making enemies

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ls5sb2u_Lb8/VCpkbZQQtrI/AAAAAAAACro/RMKgLszcEcs/s1600/judea_declares_war_on_germany.jpg

    yes, of course he was intrigued into war

    much like they're trying to do to Putin today
  92. @Fran Macadam
    Don't forget Kaiser Wilhelm's sealed train through Germany, Lenin onboard, to do damage to Bill's cousins in St. Pete's. You'd think they'd sell you the very rope to hang them with!

    Hitler "intrigued into war" by outsiders? Geez. The reasons for initial success had a lot to do with the audacious insanity of it unexpected by his opponents who didn't want war and thought the psychopath didn't either. Once the novelty of it wore off, there was sure to be the resistance that would spell doom. A bank robbery can look like a success until you're gunned down in the street outside.

    But he made the trains run on time, right? Including the ones to the gas chambers, on the tracks the allies never bombed.

    In the book
    “Icebreaker. WHO STARTED THE SECOND WORLD WAR?” ,
    Kindle in English:

    http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-WHO-STARTED-SECOND-WORLD-ebook/dp/B007WTZ372/

    authored by Viktor Suvorov, GRU spy turned to the West to become historian,
    Suvorov unambiguously shows that Stalin was eager to perpetrate war with Germany.

    Stalin has started complete mobilization of ALL Soviet Union: troops, industry, military equipment, for that war, around 1939.
    The start of the war was planned for 1942, but the development of the events on the Hitler’s Western front (France etc.) made Stalin move the date of the invasion into Germany via Poland
    (divided between Germany and USSR as was decided by Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, 1939),
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact ,
    to earlier date: to July 6, 1941.
    Enormous losses of Soviet Army after first strike of Hitler’s army 2 weeks _earlier_,
    June 22, 1941, were exactly connected with the disposition of great masses of Soviet troops prepared for the _attack_ on Germans, _not_ for the defense.
    Paperback edition of one of Suvorov’s book in English: around $18.00,

    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Looks like you don't get the message and continue refer to this creep Rezun constantly. I said it before, I will repeat it--Rezun IS NO historian, he never was. He, however, is a great falsifier. But then again, the level of кухарка in the issues of the WW II and ignoring the way world-class military history professionals view WW II is evidently your forte'. Reading Leavenworth Papers, admittedly, is a much more strenuous task than reading Rezun's BS, since requires actual knowledge of military history and facts.
    , @Ron Unz
    Well, when I stumbled across the Suvarov Hypothesis a few years ago, I was totally stunned.

    Since the 1990s I've been a subscriber to CHRONICLES, the paleoconservative opinion magazine, but rarely read a single article since I found it all pretty predictable. But in 2010, I happened to glance at a book review and that one piece justified my 20 years of subscription fees:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/April/34/4/magazine/article/13100/

    A couple of years later, I got around to actually ordering and reading the book and found the analysis and details it provided absolutely fascinating. The undeniable fact that Suvorov's books have sold FIVE MILLION copies around the world, mostly in Russia and Germany, but had never been republished in English and scarcely mentioned in our American MSM simply astonished me. He's by far the best-selling military historian in the history of the world and I'd never heard of him.

    I should note that when an English version did finally appear it was published by The Naval Institute Press in Annapolis, whose Board is filled with retired U.S. admirals, hardly a fly-by-night fringe operation. Furthermore, YouTube contains Suvorov's very lengthy presentation that same year to the U.S. Naval Academy. Apparently, some of America's senior military professionals decided to break the embargo of the NYT, WSJ, and all the NYC publishing houses.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7zVLfjWzmE

    Personally, I found the vast quantity of Suvorov's material highly persuasive and able to explain a huge number of the anomalies of Operation Barbarossa that had always puzzled me. And if Suvorov is right, then absolutely everything we know about World War II in Europe is wrong, completely upside-down and backwards, with virtually all of our mainstream narratives being merely being repeated lies and decades-old Stalinist propaganda.

    I honestly can't say that I'm certain about any of this, given my personal lack of professional expertise in WWII military history. I also haven't devoted any time to reading the various rebuttals and counters by Suvorov critics, very little of which is anyway available in English. But the fact that for more than twenty years Suvorov's books had sold in the millions, sparking an international scholarly debate, and our American MSM had never once brought this to my attention further indicates the total worthlessness of our American Pravda...
  93. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.
     
    impossible?

    He promised prosperity and a return to national pride. He fulfilled on all accounts and then some, until he was intrigued into war by the genocidal commies in the east and the Satanic capitalists in the west.

    In the 1930s Germany was being ripped asunder between communists and anti-communists. There were battles and fist fights in the streets of Berlin between these two mutually exclusive world views.

    Had there been no Bolshevik revolution and communist threat to Germany, there would have been no Nazi response. No Hitler. No war and no Holocaust. He would have lived his life in relative obscurity.

    But the commie (the Fiend) never relents. They never stop agitating for more power, Total power. 'Unipolar', unilateral, absolute power. Orwell was right about them. And today they're a bigger threat than ever, even as they cloak their nefarious agenda under the banner of NATO. They are operating in earnest today in the Ukraine. And Syria. And the only thing that stands between them and total global domination is Vlad Putin.

    To sum: You profess that the Fiend is the Communists. Correct?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    the Fiend is the Communists. Correct?
     
    not specifically

    communism is but one tool in the handbag of the Fiend

    to me the Fiend is the all too human proclivity for cruelty and domination of others

    especially sadistic cruelty for its own sake.

    it was the motivating principle of the Inner Party in Orwell's 1984

    it was what motivated Stalin to impose mass starvation of the most successful farmers of the time

    it is envy and avarice and hate

    it's what makes people drop white phosphorous on school children

    it's that demon inside men that will set a human being on fire to watch him burn to death, for the pleasure it gives them

    The people who have manifested the Fiend on earth are the ones whose hate and malice for human life and happiness are the ones who cause and prolong wars for fun and profit, the ones who build torture camps like the gulags and Gitmo and although many people are capable of becoming completely corrupt, today's version of yesterday's Caligulas are the International bankers. The ones who can hit a key on their computer and create a trillion dollars out of thin air. It is these gentlemen today and the last century who have wrought so much misery and human suffering that I refer to them as the Fiend. Many people are capable of being evil to the core, if given absolute power. This is a cliché by now. But if you can create and hand over a trillion or two to other men to bribe them to do your bidding, then you have absolute power over the breath of that money's reach.

    Sure, many of these men today are Jews, but in Armenia the Fiend was the Turks. In Nazi Germany the Fiend was Himmler and Hitler and the hate filled, murderous eisengruppen. It has taken many forms over the millenniums. From Genghis Khan to the Rothschild banking house, but it's always the same when it comes to power run amok and a contemptuous hatred for human happiness.

    I wish I could articulate myself better. I'm rather uneducated and I know my rhetoric is disjointed, but my motivations are simple and in earnest. I don't want to see this century look like the last one. I have studied history and a little of human nature and I fear for mankind and this world. It seems like everything that is said today, at least in the west, are lies intended to justify wars of aggression and torture and human rights atrocities and the ultimate ascendancy of the Fiend once and for all over all of mankind, and I tremble at what that would look like.

    Sorry, I tend to rant : )
  94. annamaria says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Don't forget Kaiser Wilhelm's sealed train through Germany, Lenin onboard, to do damage to Bill's cousins in St. Pete's. You'd think they'd sell you the very rope to hang them with!

    Hitler "intrigued into war" by outsiders? Geez. The reasons for initial success had a lot to do with the audacious insanity of it unexpected by his opponents who didn't want war and thought the psychopath didn't either. Once the novelty of it wore off, there was sure to be the resistance that would spell doom. A bank robbery can look like a success until you're gunned down in the street outside.

    But he made the trains run on time, right? Including the ones to the gas chambers, on the tracks the allies never bombed.

    There was a bouquet of financiers that had supported the leaders of Bolshevik revolution and ensured the destruction of Russian Empire and the extermination of Tsar’s family.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/wall-street-and-the-november-1917-bolshevik-revolution/

    http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/new-documents-reveal-trotsky-was-wall-street-collaborator/

    http://www.faem.com/david/trots-4.htm

    Read More
  95. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    In the book
    "Icebreaker. WHO STARTED THE SECOND WORLD WAR?" ,
    Kindle in English:
    http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-WHO-STARTED-SECOND-WORLD-ebook/dp/B007WTZ372/
    authored by Viktor Suvorov, GRU spy turned to the West to become historian,
    Suvorov unambiguously shows that Stalin was eager to perpetrate war with Germany.

    Stalin has started complete mobilization of ALL Soviet Union: troops, industry, military equipment, for that war, around 1939.
    The start of the war was planned for 1942, but the development of the events on the Hitler's Western front (France etc.) made Stalin move the date of the invasion into Germany via Poland
    (divided between Germany and USSR as was decided by Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, 1939),
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact ,
    to earlier date: to July 6, 1941.
    Enormous losses of Soviet Army after first strike of Hitler's army 2 weeks _earlier_,
    June 22, 1941, were exactly connected with the disposition of great masses of Soviet troops prepared for the _attack_ on Germans, _not_ for the defense.
    Paperback edition of one of Suvorov's book in English: around $18.00,
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    Looks like you don’t get the message and continue refer to this creep Rezun constantly. I said it before, I will repeat it–Rezun IS NO historian, he never was. He, however, is a great falsifier. But then again, the level of кухарка in the issues of the WW II and ignoring the way world-class military history professionals view WW II is evidently your forte’. Reading Leavenworth Papers, admittedly, is a much more strenuous task than reading Rezun’s BS, since requires actual knowledge of military history and facts.

    Read More
  96. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Don't forget Kaiser Wilhelm's sealed train through Germany, Lenin onboard, to do damage to Bill's cousins in St. Pete's. You'd think they'd sell you the very rope to hang them with!

    Hitler "intrigued into war" by outsiders? Geez. The reasons for initial success had a lot to do with the audacious insanity of it unexpected by his opponents who didn't want war and thought the psychopath didn't either. Once the novelty of it wore off, there was sure to be the resistance that would spell doom. A bank robbery can look like a success until you're gunned down in the street outside.

    But he made the trains run on time, right? Including the ones to the gas chambers, on the tracks the allies never bombed.

    No, he didn’t want war. Why would he. Germany was thriving like no tomorrow. He was loved as a hero and great statesman. Why would he want to see the whole thing brought to ruin?

    But he was making enemies

    yes, of course he was intrigued into war

    much like they’re trying to do to Putin today

    Read More
  97. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    To sum: You profess that the Fiend is the Communists. Correct?

    the Fiend is the Communists. Correct?

    not specifically

    communism is but one tool in the handbag of the Fiend

    to me the Fiend is the all too human proclivity for cruelty and domination of others

    especially sadistic cruelty for its own sake.

    it was the motivating principle of the Inner Party in Orwell’s 1984

    it was what motivated Stalin to impose mass starvation of the most successful farmers of the time

    it is envy and avarice and hate

    it’s what makes people drop white phosphorous on school children

    it’s that demon inside men that will set a human being on fire to watch him burn to death, for the pleasure it gives them

    The people who have manifested the Fiend on earth are the ones whose hate and malice for human life and happiness are the ones who cause and prolong wars for fun and profit, the ones who build torture camps like the gulags and Gitmo and although many people are capable of becoming completely corrupt, today’s version of yesterday’s Caligulas are the International bankers. The ones who can hit a key on their computer and create a trillion dollars out of thin air. It is these gentlemen today and the last century who have wrought so much misery and human suffering that I refer to them as the Fiend. Many people are capable of being evil to the core, if given absolute power. This is a cliché by now. But if you can create and hand over a trillion or two to other men to bribe them to do your bidding, then you have absolute power over the breath of that money’s reach.

    Sure, many of these men today are Jews, but in Armenia the Fiend was the Turks. In Nazi Germany the Fiend was Himmler and Hitler and the hate filled, murderous eisengruppen. It has taken many forms over the millenniums. From Genghis Khan to the Rothschild banking house, but it’s always the same when it comes to power run amok and a contemptuous hatred for human happiness.

    I wish I could articulate myself better. I’m rather uneducated and I know my rhetoric is disjointed, but my motivations are simple and in earnest. I don’t want to see this century look like the last one. I have studied history and a little of human nature and I fear for mankind and this world. It seems like everything that is said today, at least in the west, are lies intended to justify wars of aggression and torture and human rights atrocities and the ultimate ascendancy of the Fiend once and for all over all of mankind, and I tremble at what that would look like.

    Sorry, I tend to rant : )

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    True. Devil is the emptiness, indifference, and cowardice.
    Hate and greed are natural traits, but when left uncontrolled, they create an avalanche of murders and destruction. A strong system of accountability is the only protection for a human society. Money and power corrupt. This is why those in power must be held accountable, invariably. Otherwise, the power is for sale, the hatred and greed become unbounded, and the mass murder and destruction follow.
  98. Ron Unz says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    In the book
    "Icebreaker. WHO STARTED THE SECOND WORLD WAR?" ,
    Kindle in English:
    http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-WHO-STARTED-SECOND-WORLD-ebook/dp/B007WTZ372/
    authored by Viktor Suvorov, GRU spy turned to the West to become historian,
    Suvorov unambiguously shows that Stalin was eager to perpetrate war with Germany.

    Stalin has started complete mobilization of ALL Soviet Union: troops, industry, military equipment, for that war, around 1939.
    The start of the war was planned for 1942, but the development of the events on the Hitler's Western front (France etc.) made Stalin move the date of the invasion into Germany via Poland
    (divided between Germany and USSR as was decided by Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, 1939),
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact ,
    to earlier date: to July 6, 1941.
    Enormous losses of Soviet Army after first strike of Hitler's army 2 weeks _earlier_,
    June 22, 1941, were exactly connected with the disposition of great masses of Soviet troops prepared for the _attack_ on Germans, _not_ for the defense.
    Paperback edition of one of Suvorov's book in English: around $18.00,
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    Well, when I stumbled across the Suvarov Hypothesis a few years ago, I was totally stunned.

    Since the 1990s I’ve been a subscriber to CHRONICLES, the paleoconservative opinion magazine, but rarely read a single article since I found it all pretty predictable. But in 2010, I happened to glance at a book review and that one piece justified my 20 years of subscription fees:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/April/34/4/magazine/article/13100/

    A couple of years later, I got around to actually ordering and reading the book and found the analysis and details it provided absolutely fascinating. The undeniable fact that Suvorov’s books have sold FIVE MILLION copies around the world, mostly in Russia and Germany, but had never been republished in English and scarcely mentioned in our American MSM simply astonished me. He’s by far the best-selling military historian in the history of the world and I’d never heard of him.

    I should note that when an English version did finally appear it was published by The Naval Institute Press in Annapolis, whose Board is filled with retired U.S. admirals, hardly a fly-by-night fringe operation. Furthermore, YouTube contains Suvorov’s very lengthy presentation that same year to the U.S. Naval Academy. Apparently, some of America’s senior military professionals decided to break the embargo of the NYT, WSJ, and all the NYC publishing houses.

    Personally, I found the vast quantity of Suvorov’s material highly persuasive and able to explain a huge number of the anomalies of Operation Barbarossa that had always puzzled me. And if Suvorov is right, then absolutely everything we know about World War II in Europe is wrong, completely upside-down and backwards, with virtually all of our mainstream narratives being merely being repeated lies and decades-old Stalinist propaganda.

    I honestly can’t say that I’m certain about any of this, given my personal lack of professional expertise in WWII military history. I also haven’t devoted any time to reading the various rebuttals and counters by Suvorov critics, very little of which is anyway available in English. But the fact that for more than twenty years Suvorov’s books had sold in the millions, sparking an international scholarly debate, and our American MSM had never once brought this to my attention further indicates the total worthlessness of our American Pravda…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you, Mr. Unz,
    first of all, for creating this remarkable web-site, and
    second, for your brave non-orthodox comments on this particular touchy question.
    I.f.f.U.
  99. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Steve you may start with David Glantz if you want to start to study (if, I underscore) the issue. As for persuasion–Rezun doesn’t have access to Russian archives, real scholars, including international ones–do. As per “scholarly debate”, it has been over for over decade, after most Soviet archives were opened. As for millions copies sold, sure, National Enquirer sells even more.

    US, its “elites” and general public, has no concept of scale and scope of events of WW II. As per MSM–why so limited, most US media (with rare exception) is a sewer populated with hacks with “degrees” in nothing and having no touch with the reality. Events of the last 15 years show perfectly correctness of one of the major Clausewitz’s dictums.

    P.S. I have advanced naval engineering degree and a considerable operational experience–I can sell not one but as many bridges to anyone, other than senior military professionals, as I want simply on my ability to formulate complex geopolitical, operational, military-historical and tactical issues in simple and….you have guessed it by now…persuasive terms. I just don’t do that, because I am honest to myself and to people who are not my peers in these specific issues.
    You may start with this:

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

    In some countries, particularly in Russia, Germany, and Israel, Suvorov’s thesis has jumped the bonds of academic discourse and captured the imagination of the public.[2] Among the noted critics of Suvorov’s work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz,[9] and Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev, Lev Bezymensky, and perhaps his most vehement Russian critic, Alexei Isayev,[10] the author of Anti-Suvorov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks,[2] Derek Watson,[11] Hugh Ragsdale,[12] Roger Reese,[13] Stephen Blank,[14] Robin Edmonds,[15] agree that the major part of Suvorov’s writings rest on circumstantial evidence,[16] or even on “virtually no evidentiary base”.[2][17] According to Jonathan Haslam, Suvorov’s claim that “Germany frustrated Stalin’s war”[18] “would be comical were it not taken so seriously”.[19] Soviet-emigre historian Alexandr Nekrich (extremely critical of Stalin in other contexts) also rejected Suvorov’s ideas as unsubstantiated and contrary to Stalin’s broader policy.[20] Some of Suvorov’s claims have been shown to simply be inaccurate, such as his claim regarding Soviet conscription only starting in 1939, when in fact, conscription existed in the RKKA since 1925 [21]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Well, maybe I'll take a look at the Glantz book when I have a chance. But although Wikipedia tends to be ultra-conventional in all its presentations of "touchy" subjects, and hence generally unreliable, in this particular case the article you linked seems to indicate a fairly balanced division of expert opinion: a large number of historians generally favoring the Suvorov Hypothesis and a (perhaps somewhat larger) number of historians opposing it. This had exactly been my existing impression.

    The point is if the balance of expert opinion is 60-40 against Suvorov while the American MSM has totally ignored the worldwide scholarly controversy for 25 years and is 100-0 in favor of the orthodox view, the MSM is proven to be just as worthless as I was claiming.

    Regarding Suvorov, he seems to provide something like 30-40 independently powerful pieces of evidence strongly supporting his astonishing theory. Even if 10-15 of them are disproved or effectively rebutted, the remainder are still quite powerful.
    , @Ron Unz
    Well, I actually went ahead and ordered the Glantz book from Amazon. But for such a supposedly established and mainstream scholar, the reviews seemed remarkably mixed, with some of the reviewers emphasizing the presentation of endless technical details without a strong general discussion. Another critic was surprised that Glantz refused to directly rebut Suvorov's claims, but mostly seemed to ignore or avoid them.

    As I said, even if Glantz et al demolish 15 of Suvorov's 40 points, the remainder might still be quite enough to reasonably persuade me.

    Offhand, I think the only real reason everyone always has believed that Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that's what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years. But once you begin to realize that the American media and history books are totally worthless as sources of reliable information on anything "touchy" you then evaluate the actual factual evidence in a very different light...
  100. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Steve you may start with David Glantz if you want to start to study (if, I underscore) the issue. As for persuasion--Rezun doesn't have access to Russian archives, real scholars, including international ones--do. As per "scholarly debate", it has been over for over decade, after most Soviet archives were opened. As for millions copies sold, sure, National Enquirer sells even more.

    US, its "elites" and general public, has no concept of scale and scope of events of WW II. As per MSM--why so limited, most US media (with rare exception) is a sewer populated with hacks with "degrees" in nothing and having no touch with the reality. Events of the last 15 years show perfectly correctness of one of the major Clausewitz's dictums.

    P.S. I have advanced naval engineering degree and a considerable operational experience--I can sell not one but as many bridges to anyone, other than senior military professionals, as I want simply on my ability to formulate complex geopolitical, operational, military-historical and tactical issues in simple and....you have guessed it by now...persuasive terms. I just don't do that, because I am honest to myself and to people who are not my peers in these specific issues.
    You may start with this:

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

    In some countries, particularly in Russia, Germany, and Israel, Suvorov's thesis has jumped the bonds of academic discourse and captured the imagination of the public.[2] Among the noted critics of Suvorov's work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz,[9] and Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev, Lev Bezymensky, and perhaps his most vehement Russian critic, Alexei Isayev,[10] the author of Anti-Suvorov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks,[2] Derek Watson,[11] Hugh Ragsdale,[12] Roger Reese,[13] Stephen Blank,[14] Robin Edmonds,[15] agree that the major part of Suvorov's writings rest on circumstantial evidence,[16] or even on "virtually no evidentiary base".[2][17] According to Jonathan Haslam, Suvorov's claim that "Germany frustrated Stalin's war"[18] "would be comical were it not taken so seriously".[19] Soviet-emigre historian Alexandr Nekrich (extremely critical of Stalin in other contexts) also rejected Suvorov's ideas as unsubstantiated and contrary to Stalin's broader policy.[20] Some of Suvorov's claims have been shown to simply be inaccurate, such as his claim regarding Soviet conscription only starting in 1939, when in fact, conscription existed in the RKKA since 1925 [21]
     

    Well, maybe I’ll take a look at the Glantz book when I have a chance. But although Wikipedia tends to be ultra-conventional in all its presentations of “touchy” subjects, and hence generally unreliable, in this particular case the article you linked seems to indicate a fairly balanced division of expert opinion: a large number of historians generally favoring the Suvorov Hypothesis and a (perhaps somewhat larger) number of historians opposing it. This had exactly been my existing impression.

    The point is if the balance of expert opinion is 60-40 against Suvorov while the American MSM has totally ignored the worldwide scholarly controversy for 25 years and is 100-0 in favor of the orthodox view, the MSM is proven to be just as worthless as I was claiming.

    Regarding Suvorov, he seems to provide something like 30-40 independently powerful pieces of evidence strongly supporting his astonishing theory. Even if 10-15 of them are disproved or effectively rebutted, the remainder are still quite powerful.

    Read More
  101. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    the Fiend is the Communists. Correct?
     
    not specifically

    communism is but one tool in the handbag of the Fiend

    to me the Fiend is the all too human proclivity for cruelty and domination of others

    especially sadistic cruelty for its own sake.

    it was the motivating principle of the Inner Party in Orwell's 1984

    it was what motivated Stalin to impose mass starvation of the most successful farmers of the time

    it is envy and avarice and hate

    it's what makes people drop white phosphorous on school children

    it's that demon inside men that will set a human being on fire to watch him burn to death, for the pleasure it gives them

    The people who have manifested the Fiend on earth are the ones whose hate and malice for human life and happiness are the ones who cause and prolong wars for fun and profit, the ones who build torture camps like the gulags and Gitmo and although many people are capable of becoming completely corrupt, today's version of yesterday's Caligulas are the International bankers. The ones who can hit a key on their computer and create a trillion dollars out of thin air. It is these gentlemen today and the last century who have wrought so much misery and human suffering that I refer to them as the Fiend. Many people are capable of being evil to the core, if given absolute power. This is a cliché by now. But if you can create and hand over a trillion or two to other men to bribe them to do your bidding, then you have absolute power over the breath of that money's reach.

    Sure, many of these men today are Jews, but in Armenia the Fiend was the Turks. In Nazi Germany the Fiend was Himmler and Hitler and the hate filled, murderous eisengruppen. It has taken many forms over the millenniums. From Genghis Khan to the Rothschild banking house, but it's always the same when it comes to power run amok and a contemptuous hatred for human happiness.

    I wish I could articulate myself better. I'm rather uneducated and I know my rhetoric is disjointed, but my motivations are simple and in earnest. I don't want to see this century look like the last one. I have studied history and a little of human nature and I fear for mankind and this world. It seems like everything that is said today, at least in the west, are lies intended to justify wars of aggression and torture and human rights atrocities and the ultimate ascendancy of the Fiend once and for all over all of mankind, and I tremble at what that would look like.

    Sorry, I tend to rant : )

    True. Devil is the emptiness, indifference, and cowardice.
    Hate and greed are natural traits, but when left uncontrolled, they create an avalanche of murders and destruction. A strong system of accountability is the only protection for a human society. Money and power corrupt. This is why those in power must be held accountable, invariably. Otherwise, the power is for sale, the hatred and greed become unbounded, and the mass murder and destruction follow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Otherwise, the power is for sale, the hatred and greed become unbounded, and the mass murder and destruction follow.
     
    we are at that stage

    Over a million innocent Iraqis and Afghans and Libyans and Syrians have been slaughtered. Millions more maimed or displaced. All for the crime of being inconvenient to the Fiend.

    Not one of those people died because they had something to do with terrorism or 911, but that is the lie that being told. What's fascinating is that a man who knew 911 was going to happen, (because he had his Mossad there to film the first plane hitting the tower) comes to the US to lecture our leaders on their reluctance to slaughter even more innocent people in Iran. And he's treated like the greatest statesman that ever lived and greatest friend that the American people could have. This is a man who when asked about 911 blurted out that "it's very good", before walking those comments back. This is a man whose psychiatrist committed suicide because he couldn't abide living in a world that included a man so singularly vile as Benjamin Netanyahu. And this is the man who today calls the shots in the putative, occupied West.

    In fact from my seat, the entire conflict between Russia and the "West" is due to Putin's perceived obstruction of the plans to do to Syria what was done to Libya.

    We are witness to an unfolding of global savagery as the id of the Fiend is unleashed.

    And all we hear 24/7 are Orwellian lies.


    BTW, My Unz, if you stumble across this comment, I'd like to thank for making this oasis of truth in a desert of lies available to those of us who are trying to get a better handle on things. One of the reasons I post comments to sites like this is to be shown where I'm in error. It's how I learn. Thank you.
  102. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Steve you may start with David Glantz if you want to start to study (if, I underscore) the issue. As for persuasion--Rezun doesn't have access to Russian archives, real scholars, including international ones--do. As per "scholarly debate", it has been over for over decade, after most Soviet archives were opened. As for millions copies sold, sure, National Enquirer sells even more.

    US, its "elites" and general public, has no concept of scale and scope of events of WW II. As per MSM--why so limited, most US media (with rare exception) is a sewer populated with hacks with "degrees" in nothing and having no touch with the reality. Events of the last 15 years show perfectly correctness of one of the major Clausewitz's dictums.

    P.S. I have advanced naval engineering degree and a considerable operational experience--I can sell not one but as many bridges to anyone, other than senior military professionals, as I want simply on my ability to formulate complex geopolitical, operational, military-historical and tactical issues in simple and....you have guessed it by now...persuasive terms. I just don't do that, because I am honest to myself and to people who are not my peers in these specific issues.
    You may start with this:

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

    In some countries, particularly in Russia, Germany, and Israel, Suvorov's thesis has jumped the bonds of academic discourse and captured the imagination of the public.[2] Among the noted critics of Suvorov's work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz,[9] and Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev, Lev Bezymensky, and perhaps his most vehement Russian critic, Alexei Isayev,[10] the author of Anti-Suvorov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks,[2] Derek Watson,[11] Hugh Ragsdale,[12] Roger Reese,[13] Stephen Blank,[14] Robin Edmonds,[15] agree that the major part of Suvorov's writings rest on circumstantial evidence,[16] or even on "virtually no evidentiary base".[2][17] According to Jonathan Haslam, Suvorov's claim that "Germany frustrated Stalin's war"[18] "would be comical were it not taken so seriously".[19] Soviet-emigre historian Alexandr Nekrich (extremely critical of Stalin in other contexts) also rejected Suvorov's ideas as unsubstantiated and contrary to Stalin's broader policy.[20] Some of Suvorov's claims have been shown to simply be inaccurate, such as his claim regarding Soviet conscription only starting in 1939, when in fact, conscription existed in the RKKA since 1925 [21]
     

    Well, I actually went ahead and ordered the Glantz book from Amazon. But for such a supposedly established and mainstream scholar, the reviews seemed remarkably mixed, with some of the reviewers emphasizing the presentation of endless technical details without a strong general discussion. Another critic was surprised that Glantz refused to directly rebut Suvorov’s claims, but mostly seemed to ignore or avoid them.

    As I said, even if Glantz et al demolish 15 of Suvorov’s 40 points, the remainder might still be quite enough to reasonably persuade me.

    Offhand, I think the only real reason everyone always has believed that Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that’s what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years. But once you begin to realize that the American media and history books are totally worthless as sources of reliable information on anything “touchy” you then evaluate the actual factual evidence in a very different light…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Matra
    Well, I actually went ahead and ordered the Glantz book from Amazon. But for such a supposedly established and mainstream scholar, the reviews seemed remarkably mixed

    My guess is that people with non-mainstream views - including Suvorov fans - are more likely to review books online than those whose views are already well represented in more prestigious, and thus, influential mainstream forums. A lot of the critics who (rightly) caution us to be sceptical about believing everything mainstream historians and media tell us are often just knee-jerk contrarians who want to believe the most outlandish versions of events. They are in some respects as sheep-like as the masses parked in front of the BBC/CNN/FOX.
  103. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have some questions which the virulence of the anti-Semitism amongst the comments should guarantee can be answered with the energy needed for well researched credible responses.

    1. What was the population of Jews in areas occupied by German forces during WW2 before the war and what was it at the end of the war or any subsequent date you like to use? How do you account for the loss in numbers? How does that proportionate loss compare with the losses of any other ethnic group?
    2. How do you dispute the findings in the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case and deny that there was an organised plan to achieve a "Final Solution" known to and approved by Hitler, largely pushed by and organised under Himmler and administered by the likes of Eichmann?
    3. While it may be true that some Westerners gave some Russians reason to believe that NATO would not include some Eastern European countries, was that ever formalised, and, by contrast did not Russia guarantee the Ukraine's national integrity within the boundaries established within the USSR as a matter of formal treaty in return for the Ukraine giving up all the nuclear weapons on its soil?
    4. As Russia is clearly in breach of the latter treaty is it appropriate for any country to ignore it as if it didn't happen? If so, or indeed if not, where should the line be drawn and on what reasoning?

    It's not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin's demonstratively muscular leadership. What's the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?

    Didn’t Crimea follow the US written script in Kosovo to the letter? The government declared independence. They had a popular referendum and were officially independent. They just went one step farther and voted to be annexed by Mother Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Certainly a good debating point to equate the Crimean and Kosovo cases but I don't know enough to agree that they are the identical "to the letter".

    To deploy a popular modern cliché I'm sure "the devil is in the detail". HA seems to have a good grasp of some relevant detail. My h-bd sympathies are not with the establishment of a country whose population became substantially Albanian speaking and Muslim while it was part of Serbia because of their primitive premodern tribal breeding habits.
  104. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Offhand, I think the only real reason everyone always has believed that Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that’s what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years.

    The reason everyone believed it is because it is true. The reason it is true is because all archives were opened and with that all those “edgy” conspiracy voices were silenced. Corelli Barnett beautifully explained it all in his seminal “The Collapse Of British Power” as early as 1970s. True academe and scholarship will always have fewer and not that “good” of the reviews for a simple reason–it is hard, as any true professionalism and competence are. I wrote a lot on the issue of knowledge and OODA in my blog, granted, that it is written in large part in Runglish. Knowledge and information are not the same, knowledge operates with more complex calculus than merely 15 out of 40 or even 25 out of 100. The history of the 20th Century have not been written yet completely, certainly not in the US, it is being written though. “Western” history generally tends to omit any references to the facts such as that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

    Obviously you should also be aware that Western powers HAD separate non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany much earlier than USSR had. Sabotage by the Western powers of Collective Security Initiative of Litvinov is brilliantly described in Alexander Werth’s “Russia In War” and, yet again, by Barnett. Reading Rezun about WWII is the same as reading…Tom Clancy about Soviet Navy. In general, it is colossal issue which has immense geopolitical ramifications and it is not for this kind of discussion boards (famous for regurgitation of the same beaten to death fringe cliches). Let’s put it this way–these are all those things which blow American exceptionalist narrative out of the water. It is not about USSR (which is gone) anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Well, I emphasized that I was a non-specialist and also hadn't done any significant investigation into the topic. But the Wikipedia article you linked indicates that a long list of seemingly expert specialists have supported the Suvorov Hypothesis, so I can't see how things could be as clearcut as you suggest. I'm not saying Suvorov is certainly correct, but I'd put the odds at better than 50-50, maybe 60-40, that some of his major points are basically correct.

    Given my reasonable (non-specialist) familiarity with WWII military issues here are a few of the Suvorov points I remember sticking most in my mind:

    (1) The Soviet deployments on the map were *exactly* what you'd expect for an offensive preparation and exactly contrary to what you'd expect for a defensive arrangment. That has been noted by everyone for 70 years and always cited as a great "puzzle." Basically, it was the exact mirror-image of the German deployments, but Hitler struck first. If the Soviets had attacked first, the German forces would have had the exact same deployment problems and been similarly crushed.

    (2) In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality. Apparently, millions of Gulag prisoners had been freed, given arms, and positioned behind the front as second-line forces for the occupation of Western Europe once the German armies had been smashed. The Soviets even built huge numbers of "fast tanks" which could only operate effectively on Central/Western European roads.

    (3) The captured/killed Soviet troops had maps of Germany and German phrase-books, which had been printed in vast numbers, all geared towards dealing with German civilians and occupation issues. These were very similar to the German phrase-books oriented towards Russian civilians.

    (4) If the Soviets hadn't signed the Pact of Moscow with Hitler, Poland would have remained a buffer state and a German invasion of Russia would have been much more difficult. But a Soviet invasion of Germany would also have been much more difficult. Obviously, Stalin (and everyone else) had expected the German-Allied conflict to drag out like WWI and exhaust both sides, allowing him an easy victory, and the quick German triumph surprised him. But if Hitler had sent his best troops on an invasion of England, Stalin would have had a much easier time.

    (5) Apparently, at the time Hitler and the Germans all announced to the world that they'd forestalled a gigantic planned Soviet invasion of Europe, just like they later told the world they'd found the mass graves at Katyn and lots of other things. But naturally the Western media merely ignored and ridiculed this.

    (6) Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs. Even while Suvorov's books were selling in the many millions and sparking a decades-long scholarly/public debate in Russia, Germany, and many other countries, no English-language press published them and they were never mentioned in the MSM, so outside specialist academic circles no one here knew about it. Suppose a nuclear warhead accidentally exploded and Cleveland were totally destroyed, but the MSM never reported it, and no one found out. How reliable would we regard anything else the MSM henceforth told us?

    P.S. Actually, I don't need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:

    http://www.unz.com/article/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/

    , @Rurik


    Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that’s what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years.

    >>><<<

    The reason everyone believed it is because it is true.
     
    I think the bone of contention is whether or not Hitler wanted war, or was he forced into it by Stalin in the East and enemies in the West, who were cynically giving Poland guarantees in order to foment the war. It seems clear that Churchill and FDR wanted war. So was Hitler a tragic dupe or a genocidal, maniacal fiend hell bent on world domination?

    (I know it's more nuanced than that, but that seems like sort of the crux that people have been debating all these years)
  105. @Ron Unz
    Well, when I stumbled across the Suvarov Hypothesis a few years ago, I was totally stunned.

    Since the 1990s I've been a subscriber to CHRONICLES, the paleoconservative opinion magazine, but rarely read a single article since I found it all pretty predictable. But in 2010, I happened to glance at a book review and that one piece justified my 20 years of subscription fees:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/April/34/4/magazine/article/13100/

    A couple of years later, I got around to actually ordering and reading the book and found the analysis and details it provided absolutely fascinating. The undeniable fact that Suvorov's books have sold FIVE MILLION copies around the world, mostly in Russia and Germany, but had never been republished in English and scarcely mentioned in our American MSM simply astonished me. He's by far the best-selling military historian in the history of the world and I'd never heard of him.

    I should note that when an English version did finally appear it was published by The Naval Institute Press in Annapolis, whose Board is filled with retired U.S. admirals, hardly a fly-by-night fringe operation. Furthermore, YouTube contains Suvorov's very lengthy presentation that same year to the U.S. Naval Academy. Apparently, some of America's senior military professionals decided to break the embargo of the NYT, WSJ, and all the NYC publishing houses.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7zVLfjWzmE

    Personally, I found the vast quantity of Suvorov's material highly persuasive and able to explain a huge number of the anomalies of Operation Barbarossa that had always puzzled me. And if Suvorov is right, then absolutely everything we know about World War II in Europe is wrong, completely upside-down and backwards, with virtually all of our mainstream narratives being merely being repeated lies and decades-old Stalinist propaganda.

    I honestly can't say that I'm certain about any of this, given my personal lack of professional expertise in WWII military history. I also haven't devoted any time to reading the various rebuttals and counters by Suvorov critics, very little of which is anyway available in English. But the fact that for more than twenty years Suvorov's books had sold in the millions, sparking an international scholarly debate, and our American MSM had never once brought this to my attention further indicates the total worthlessness of our American Pravda...

    Thank you, Mr. Unz,
    first of all, for creating this remarkable web-site, and
    second, for your brave non-orthodox comments on this particular touchy question.
    I.f.f.U.

    Read More
  106. szopen says:
    @5371
    In short, Poland was the bullfrog which was determined to show it was as big as any bull, and kept blowing itself up and blowing itself up ... until it burst.

    Not really. Poland was a state which demanded to be treated as a sovereign state. Are you Russian? because from my experience Russians seem to have problems with understanding that demanding to be treated equally does not mean megalomania.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    "Don't let your mouth write any checks your ass can't cash" is a wise American saying.
  107. szopen says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    ...did Poland entertained the idea of recovering territories lost in the East to Russia, knowledge of it prompting the conclusion of the Soviet-Nazi Non Aggression Pact of 1939?
     
    Yes, for a time, Polish ruler Pilsudski did indeed entertain an ambitious campaign of eastward expansion, often called 'Prometheism': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism. It was Lenin who put a stop to it.

    By the time of MR-Pact, however, the USSR was no longer threatened by Poland; Stalin's principal problem was Germany. As neither England nor France would consider an anti-German alliance with the Soviets, Stalin had little choice but to arrive at a compromise with Berlin that would buy Soviets more time to prepare, modernize their industry, and increase their defense production.

    It’s also worth remembering that Pilsudski vision lost. The another competing faction, national democrats, wanted to take only a territories with a sizeable Polish minority or majority. Soviets initially offered us even more territory, but Polish negotiator refused (!) and demanded LESS. If negotiators would follow Pilsudski vision, we would end up with Minsk inside Poland.

    Read More
  108. 5371 says:
    @szopen
    Not really. Poland was a state which demanded to be treated as a sovereign state. Are you Russian? because from my experience Russians seem to have problems with understanding that demanding to be treated equally does not mean megalomania.

    “Don’t let your mouth write any checks your ass can’t cash” is a wise American saying.

    Read More
  109. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Offhand, I think the only real reason everyone always has believed that Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that’s what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years.
     
    The reason everyone believed it is because it is true. The reason it is true is because all archives were opened and with that all those "edgy" conspiracy voices were silenced. Corelli Barnett beautifully explained it all in his seminal "The Collapse Of British Power" as early as 1970s. True academe and scholarship will always have fewer and not that "good" of the reviews for a simple reason--it is hard, as any true professionalism and competence are. I wrote a lot on the issue of knowledge and OODA in my blog, granted, that it is written in large part in Runglish. Knowledge and information are not the same, knowledge operates with more complex calculus than merely 15 out of 40 or even 25 out of 100. The history of the 20th Century have not been written yet completely, certainly not in the US, it is being written though. "Western" history generally tends to omit any references to the facts such as that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

    Obviously you should also be aware that Western powers HAD separate non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany much earlier than USSR had. Sabotage by the Western powers of Collective Security Initiative of Litvinov is brilliantly described in Alexander Werth's "Russia In War" and, yet again, by Barnett. Reading Rezun about WWII is the same as reading...Tom Clancy about Soviet Navy. In general, it is colossal issue which has immense geopolitical ramifications and it is not for this kind of discussion boards (famous for regurgitation of the same beaten to death fringe cliches). Let's put it this way--these are all those things which blow American exceptionalist narrative out of the water. It is not about USSR (which is gone) anymore.

    Well, I emphasized that I was a non-specialist and also hadn’t done any significant investigation into the topic. But the Wikipedia article you linked indicates that a long list of seemingly expert specialists have supported the Suvorov Hypothesis, so I can’t see how things could be as clearcut as you suggest. I’m not saying Suvorov is certainly correct, but I’d put the odds at better than 50-50, maybe 60-40, that some of his major points are basically correct.

    Given my reasonable (non-specialist) familiarity with WWII military issues here are a few of the Suvorov points I remember sticking most in my mind:

    (1) The Soviet deployments on the map were *exactly* what you’d expect for an offensive preparation and exactly contrary to what you’d expect for a defensive arrangment. That has been noted by everyone for 70 years and always cited as a great “puzzle.” Basically, it was the exact mirror-image of the German deployments, but Hitler struck first. If the Soviets had attacked first, the German forces would have had the exact same deployment problems and been similarly crushed.

    (2) In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality. Apparently, millions of Gulag prisoners had been freed, given arms, and positioned behind the front as second-line forces for the occupation of Western Europe once the German armies had been smashed. The Soviets even built huge numbers of “fast tanks” which could only operate effectively on Central/Western European roads.

    (3) The captured/killed Soviet troops had maps of Germany and German phrase-books, which had been printed in vast numbers, all geared towards dealing with German civilians and occupation issues. These were very similar to the German phrase-books oriented towards Russian civilians.

    (4) If the Soviets hadn’t signed the Pact of Moscow with Hitler, Poland would have remained a buffer state and a German invasion of Russia would have been much more difficult. But a Soviet invasion of Germany would also have been much more difficult. Obviously, Stalin (and everyone else) had expected the German-Allied conflict to drag out like WWI and exhaust both sides, allowing him an easy victory, and the quick German triumph surprised him. But if Hitler had sent his best troops on an invasion of England, Stalin would have had a much easier time.

    (5) Apparently, at the time Hitler and the Germans all announced to the world that they’d forestalled a gigantic planned Soviet invasion of Europe, just like they later told the world they’d found the mass graves at Katyn and lots of other things. But naturally the Western media merely ignored and ridiculed this.

    (6) Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs. Even while Suvorov’s books were selling in the many millions and sparking a decades-long scholarly/public debate in Russia, Germany, and many other countries, no English-language press published them and they were never mentioned in the MSM, so outside specialist academic circles no one here knew about it. Suppose a nuclear warhead accidentally exploded and Cleveland were totally destroyed, but the MSM never reported it, and no one found out. How reliable would we regard anything else the MSM henceforth told us?

    P.S. Actually, I don’t need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:

    http://www.unz.com/article/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality.
     
    Dear Ron,

    1. THERE IS NO such thing as defensive and offensive weapons as indicated by Rezun in his Icebreaker (forget about ultimately unreadable language which targets amateurs), NONE, zilch. Ground attack planes, the same as some some "specific" design of tanks ARE not indicators of anything--only (pre-deployment) posture and mobilization plans can give some insight, limited as it is, into some "plans". I give you an example: right now, this very moment US Armed Forces DO have plans on invading Russia, they are in place, elements of those plans are drilled etc. Does it mean that US will invade Russia? Unless it wants to commit suicide, no. And so is Russia--she DOES have plans of what would be considered deep operations into Eastern Europe but does it mean that Russia will launch those operations? NO. All this is called Contingency Planning and, in fact, if those plans (and there are many of those) wouldn't be in place, General Staffs, who are responsible for the development of such plans should be fired without benefits. USSR, prior to WW II, went, as did Germany (for her it started with Von Seeckt and ended with creation of Wehrmacht, albeit the roots are with Schlieffen), through several phases of the doctrinal development starting from large paratroop units and mechanized warfare. The design of the weapon systems also went through several technological phases as did operational requirements. ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to. Here is an example: the role of ground attack airplanes during Kursk battle can not be underestimated--they, mostly Il-2 Sturmovicks, played, as part of a combined arms effort, a crucial role in stopping both Model's 9th and Hoth's 4th Armies respectively at Northern and Southern faces of the Kursk Bulge. Here is a question--were those "offensive" or "defensive" actions? Of course it was defensive and how design of these planes influenced that? It didn't, they were created to destroy enemy armor and positions. Again, answers ARE NOT just in what system is per se, it is HOW it is used. This, plus I never heard of any "halt" to "defensive" weapons, because it never happened.

    2. Furthermore, framing any analysis in, however important, purely force structure terms is a folly for any military professional but, evidently, not for Rezun and his alternative "history". Now, a bit about wiki, here is what wiki says (i just want to clarify):


    Suvorov's view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.
     
    Some of Rezun's statements are so preposterous, such as reference to some magical matrices describing logistics, which, supposedly, prove some "offensive" posture of the Red Army (of course he never produced those "matrices") that after that any serious talk about professionalism loses any meaning. The whole thing was written for comprehension (and persuasion) of the wide masses in the time of the massive struggle with Soviet "heritage" in USSR. Rezun's opuses were just another element in a huge stream of "revelations" in mid-1980s early 1990s, which since then were debunked and relegated to the trash bin. Reason? Opening of the archives. As Glantz and House wrote in 1996 "Rezun's views have gained wide acceptance, for understandable reasons, in the German historical community. They are now being accepted, primarily for political reasons, by growing circle of Russian scholars, most of whom are reformers who accept as true anything that discredits the former regime"(c) Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, page 327. Basically, the situation here is next, if to draw an analogy: professional surgeons are trying to tell patients (some of them) that auto-mechanic whom they like since he tells them what they want to hear is not qualified to operate on them but professional arguments are falling on deaf years. Indeed, it is very difficult to explain to most people that, actually, serious military history requires very deep knowledge of number of disciplines which are in the foundation of understanding the facts.

    Since I don't have much time to write thesis here (I do part of this job in my blog) I will respond to this:


    Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs.
     
    While I agree with your assessment, I approach it from totally different angle. The dishonesty is not in the fact of being silent on Katyn tragedy (as an example), which since 1992 was made public. Nope, the dishonesty is in unstoppable massive attempts to rewrite the history of WW II and of the 20th Century, they continue even today and on a massive scale. It is very relevant. While doing so, US "academe" and elites failed miserably in understanding the world outside US, which, the events of the last 15+ years demonstrated fully. And that is the world which was forged in WW II and in which we still live today.

    “The real gap between two camps is one of knowledge….Irresponsible criticism is generally self-confident: but no one cares to be told:”I am holier than thou”, especially by anyone who does not know their facts….And knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly won. To no country does this apply more than to Russia. This gap has to be filled or it will cost us dear.”

    Bernard Pares. “A History Of Russia”, pages 571-573, New York, Alfred Knopf (AMS Press), 1966.

    I will omit Orwell's classic quote here, about who controls what--everyone knows it.

    And the jury is, finally, in.

    , @JohnnyWalker123

    P.S. Actually, I don’t need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:
     
    1. A physician-led study conservatively estimated that over 1.3 million people have died in the "War on Terror", of which 1.1 million died in Iraq. When the public was polled on how many Iraqis had died, the median estimate was 10,000. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    2. 42% of Americans believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Only 49% of Americans believe WMDs weren't found. http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/false/

    It's utterly shocking that the public knows so little about the most important US military conflict since Vietnam. Of course, when you consider how much war propaganda was pumped out by the media and how little coverage there's been of the war's costs & errors, maybe not that shocking.

    The point is that our MSM is capable of selling govt propaganda and engaging in a massive cover up. So I find it entirely plausible that they could be lying about any number of other issues.

    Heck, Bill O'Reilly did extensive reporting on the conspiracy behind the JFK assassination from the 70s through the 90s. Then a few years ago, he made a film called "Killing Kennedy" in which he blamed the assassination solely on Oswald.

  110. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    True. Devil is the emptiness, indifference, and cowardice.
    Hate and greed are natural traits, but when left uncontrolled, they create an avalanche of murders and destruction. A strong system of accountability is the only protection for a human society. Money and power corrupt. This is why those in power must be held accountable, invariably. Otherwise, the power is for sale, the hatred and greed become unbounded, and the mass murder and destruction follow.

    Otherwise, the power is for sale, the hatred and greed become unbounded, and the mass murder and destruction follow.

    we are at that stage

    Over a million innocent Iraqis and Afghans and Libyans and Syrians have been slaughtered. Millions more maimed or displaced. All for the crime of being inconvenient to the Fiend.

    Not one of those people died because they had something to do with terrorism or 911, but that is the lie that being told. What’s fascinating is that a man who knew 911 was going to happen, (because he had his Mossad there to film the first plane hitting the tower) comes to the US to lecture our leaders on their reluctance to slaughter even more innocent people in Iran. And he’s treated like the greatest statesman that ever lived and greatest friend that the American people could have. This is a man who when asked about 911 blurted out that “it’s very good”, before walking those comments back. This is a man whose psychiatrist committed suicide because he couldn’t abide living in a world that included a man so singularly vile as Benjamin Netanyahu. And this is the man who today calls the shots in the putative, occupied West.

    In fact from my seat, the entire conflict between Russia and the “West” is due to Putin’s perceived obstruction of the plans to do to Syria what was done to Libya.

    We are witness to an unfolding of global savagery as the id of the Fiend is unleashed.

    And all we hear 24/7 are Orwellian lies.

    BTW, My Unz, if you stumble across this comment, I’d like to thank for making this oasis of truth in a desert of lies available to those of us who are trying to get a better handle on things. One of the reasons I post comments to sites like this is to be shown where I’m in error. It’s how I learn. Thank you.

    Read More
  111. annamaria says:

    “…the entire conflict between Russia and the “West” is due to Putin’s perceived obstruction of the plans to do to Syria what was done to Libya.”
    You should not neglect the Wolfowitz Doctrine that advises to crush any potential threat to the unipolarity chaired by the Federal Reserve and main war profiteers. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42357.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    The Federal Reserve Bank is the root of it all.

    No way out for humanity but through the Fed.
  112. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Offhand, I think the only real reason everyone always has believed that Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that’s what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years.
     
    The reason everyone believed it is because it is true. The reason it is true is because all archives were opened and with that all those "edgy" conspiracy voices were silenced. Corelli Barnett beautifully explained it all in his seminal "The Collapse Of British Power" as early as 1970s. True academe and scholarship will always have fewer and not that "good" of the reviews for a simple reason--it is hard, as any true professionalism and competence are. I wrote a lot on the issue of knowledge and OODA in my blog, granted, that it is written in large part in Runglish. Knowledge and information are not the same, knowledge operates with more complex calculus than merely 15 out of 40 or even 25 out of 100. The history of the 20th Century have not been written yet completely, certainly not in the US, it is being written though. "Western" history generally tends to omit any references to the facts such as that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

    Obviously you should also be aware that Western powers HAD separate non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany much earlier than USSR had. Sabotage by the Western powers of Collective Security Initiative of Litvinov is brilliantly described in Alexander Werth's "Russia In War" and, yet again, by Barnett. Reading Rezun about WWII is the same as reading...Tom Clancy about Soviet Navy. In general, it is colossal issue which has immense geopolitical ramifications and it is not for this kind of discussion boards (famous for regurgitation of the same beaten to death fringe cliches). Let's put it this way--these are all those things which blow American exceptionalist narrative out of the water. It is not about USSR (which is gone) anymore.

    Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that’s what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years.

    >>><<<

    The reason everyone believed it is because it is true.

    I think the bone of contention is whether or not Hitler wanted war, or was he forced into it by Stalin in the East and enemies in the West, who were cynically giving Poland guarantees in order to foment the war. It seems clear that Churchill and FDR wanted war. So was Hitler a tragic dupe or a genocidal, maniacal fiend hell bent on world domination?

    (I know it’s more nuanced than that, but that seems like sort of the crux that people have been debating all these years)

    Read More
  113. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I emphasized that I was a non-specialist and also hadn't done any significant investigation into the topic. But the Wikipedia article you linked indicates that a long list of seemingly expert specialists have supported the Suvorov Hypothesis, so I can't see how things could be as clearcut as you suggest. I'm not saying Suvorov is certainly correct, but I'd put the odds at better than 50-50, maybe 60-40, that some of his major points are basically correct.

    Given my reasonable (non-specialist) familiarity with WWII military issues here are a few of the Suvorov points I remember sticking most in my mind:

    (1) The Soviet deployments on the map were *exactly* what you'd expect for an offensive preparation and exactly contrary to what you'd expect for a defensive arrangment. That has been noted by everyone for 70 years and always cited as a great "puzzle." Basically, it was the exact mirror-image of the German deployments, but Hitler struck first. If the Soviets had attacked first, the German forces would have had the exact same deployment problems and been similarly crushed.

    (2) In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality. Apparently, millions of Gulag prisoners had been freed, given arms, and positioned behind the front as second-line forces for the occupation of Western Europe once the German armies had been smashed. The Soviets even built huge numbers of "fast tanks" which could only operate effectively on Central/Western European roads.

    (3) The captured/killed Soviet troops had maps of Germany and German phrase-books, which had been printed in vast numbers, all geared towards dealing with German civilians and occupation issues. These were very similar to the German phrase-books oriented towards Russian civilians.

    (4) If the Soviets hadn't signed the Pact of Moscow with Hitler, Poland would have remained a buffer state and a German invasion of Russia would have been much more difficult. But a Soviet invasion of Germany would also have been much more difficult. Obviously, Stalin (and everyone else) had expected the German-Allied conflict to drag out like WWI and exhaust both sides, allowing him an easy victory, and the quick German triumph surprised him. But if Hitler had sent his best troops on an invasion of England, Stalin would have had a much easier time.

    (5) Apparently, at the time Hitler and the Germans all announced to the world that they'd forestalled a gigantic planned Soviet invasion of Europe, just like they later told the world they'd found the mass graves at Katyn and lots of other things. But naturally the Western media merely ignored and ridiculed this.

    (6) Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs. Even while Suvorov's books were selling in the many millions and sparking a decades-long scholarly/public debate in Russia, Germany, and many other countries, no English-language press published them and they were never mentioned in the MSM, so outside specialist academic circles no one here knew about it. Suppose a nuclear warhead accidentally exploded and Cleveland were totally destroyed, but the MSM never reported it, and no one found out. How reliable would we regard anything else the MSM henceforth told us?

    P.S. Actually, I don't need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:

    http://www.unz.com/article/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/

    In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality.

    Dear Ron,

    1. THERE IS NO such thing as defensive and offensive weapons as indicated by Rezun in his Icebreaker (forget about ultimately unreadable language which targets amateurs), NONE, zilch. Ground attack planes, the same as some some “specific” design of tanks ARE not indicators of anything–only (pre-deployment) posture and mobilization plans can give some insight, limited as it is, into some “plans”. I give you an example: right now, this very moment US Armed Forces DO have plans on invading Russia, they are in place, elements of those plans are drilled etc. Does it mean that US will invade Russia? Unless it wants to commit suicide, no. And so is Russia–she DOES have plans of what would be considered deep operations into Eastern Europe but does it mean that Russia will launch those operations? NO. All this is called Contingency Planning and, in fact, if those plans (and there are many of those) wouldn’t be in place, General Staffs, who are responsible for the development of such plans should be fired without benefits. USSR, prior to WW II, went, as did Germany (for her it started with Von Seeckt and ended with creation of Wehrmacht, albeit the roots are with Schlieffen), through several phases of the doctrinal development starting from large paratroop units and mechanized warfare. The design of the weapon systems also went through several technological phases as did operational requirements. ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to. Here is an example: the role of ground attack airplanes during Kursk battle can not be underestimated–they, mostly Il-2 Sturmovicks, played, as part of a combined arms effort, a crucial role in stopping both Model’s 9th and Hoth’s 4th Armies respectively at Northern and Southern faces of the Kursk Bulge. Here is a question–were those “offensive” or “defensive” actions? Of course it was defensive and how design of these planes influenced that? It didn’t, they were created to destroy enemy armor and positions. Again, answers ARE NOT just in what system is per se, it is HOW it is used. This, plus I never heard of any “halt” to “defensive” weapons, because it never happened.

    2. Furthermore, framing any analysis in, however important, purely force structure terms is a folly for any military professional but, evidently, not for Rezun and his alternative “history”. Now, a bit about wiki, here is what wiki says (i just want to clarify):

    Suvorov’s view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.

    Some of Rezun’s statements are so preposterous, such as reference to some magical matrices describing logistics, which, supposedly, prove some “offensive” posture of the Red Army (of course he never produced those “matrices”) that after that any serious talk about professionalism loses any meaning. The whole thing was written for comprehension (and persuasion) of the wide masses in the time of the massive struggle with Soviet “heritage” in USSR. Rezun’s opuses were just another element in a huge stream of “revelations” in mid-1980s early 1990s, which since then were debunked and relegated to the trash bin. Reason? Opening of the archives. As Glantz and House wrote in 1996 “Rezun’s views have gained wide acceptance, for understandable reasons, in the German historical community. They are now being accepted, primarily for political reasons, by growing circle of Russian scholars, most of whom are reformers who accept as true anything that discredits the former regime“(c) Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, page 327. Basically, the situation here is next, if to draw an analogy: professional surgeons are trying to tell patients (some of them) that auto-mechanic whom they like since he tells them what they want to hear is not qualified to operate on them but professional arguments are falling on deaf years. Indeed, it is very difficult to explain to most people that, actually, serious military history requires very deep knowledge of number of disciplines which are in the foundation of understanding the facts.

    Since I don’t have much time to write thesis here (I do part of this job in my blog) I will respond to this:

    Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs.

    While I agree with your assessment, I approach it from totally different angle. The dishonesty is not in the fact of being silent on Katyn tragedy (as an example), which since 1992 was made public. Nope, the dishonesty is in unstoppable massive attempts to rewrite the history of WW II and of the 20th Century, they continue even today and on a massive scale. It is very relevant. While doing so, US “academe” and elites failed miserably in understanding the world outside US, which, the events of the last 15+ years demonstrated fully. And that is the world which was forged in WW II and in which we still live today.

    “The real gap between two camps is one of knowledge….Irresponsible criticism is generally self-confident: but no one cares to be told:”I am holier than thou”, especially by anyone who does not know their facts….And knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly won. To no country does this apply more than to Russia. This gap has to be filled or it will cost us dear.”

    Bernard Pares. “A History Of Russia”, pages 571-573, New York, Alfred Knopf (AMS Press), 1966.

    I will omit Orwell’s classic quote here, about who controls what–everyone knows it.

    And the jury is, finally, in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to.
     
    S-300 ?
    , @5371
    Smoothie, beyond the Rezun thing (not a fan either), I'd be interested in your broader thoughts about where the blame lies for Germany's being able to achieve operational surprise, despite plenty of good intelligence (along with some bad, but when was that absent?) about what was going to happen. If you'd prefer to discuss it on your blog, I can promise you at least one reader.
    , @Fran Macadam
    It's also clear from published archival material, that the Soviets held up their end of the bargain with Germany, delivering the required supplies in support of the German war machine right up until the attack on the Soviet Union was launched. Excuses were proffered by the Germans to the Soviets about certain signs that could mean mobilization against them. The archives of diplomats show the genuine shock and consternation. As for archives from Germany, Hitler's intentions and his duplicity are all on display as he vacillated about the date to launch the attack, which was pushed well back from the dates where weather issues would have been favorable for him.

    And it is the reality, again, that the Soviets were rebuffed in their seeking a protective alliance with the western powers, before Ribbentrop/Molotov. So Stalin sought to make alliance, thinking to join the criminal conspiracy as protection and for advantage, but naturally there is no honor among thieves like Hitler and his gang of criminals. No doubt Stalin thought it would be preferable to deal with the west, than another dangerous personality. Despite his seminary experience and winning poetry contests, he was after all himself a master criminal and practical terrorist who carried out bank robbery and train expropriations.
  114. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    "...the entire conflict between Russia and the “West” is due to Putin’s perceived obstruction of the plans to do to Syria what was done to Libya."
    You should not neglect the Wolfowitz Doctrine that advises to crush any potential threat to the unipolarity chaired by the Federal Reserve and main war profiteers. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42357.htm

    The Federal Reserve Bank is the root of it all.

    No way out for humanity but through the Fed.

    Read More
  115. Ace says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The US Military=A Global Force for Social and Cultural Filth!!!!!!!!...see your Military Recruiter Today!!!!!!!!!

    What's happening these days on the USS Ronnie Reagan?

    Easy, boy! Eaaaaasy now!

    Read More
  116. Ace says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Partly true, except that they really did want Crimea. If NATO could have successfully grabbed Sevastopol, that would have been a major coup. Russia's surface fleet would have all but ceased to exist. Sevastopol is really their only port that is not frozen half the year.

    The U.S. was dabbling in Ukrainian regime change politics and gave zero public assurances to the Russians on their Black Sea fleet. Ergo, you’re probably right about our having some kind of designs on Crimea or, at least, cutting Russia off from it. Oops. So sorry. We forgot to tell you.

    When that didn’t work out all that well, we got into a snit and ramped up the cry baby/sanctions nonsense. There’s some kind of Zbig push against the Russians afoot as evidenced by this pathetic demonization of Putin and Russia. Crimea would be part of Ukraine at this very moment if the U.S. and the E.U. hadn’t decided to have a little fun and play Junior Jeostrategist.

    Read More
  117. Ace says:
    @Rurik

    The Russian nation itself was one of the greatest victims of Soviet communism but that never seems to be mentioned.
     
    you are SO right!

    but what they need to do is stop with all the 'heroic red army' bs

    they need to allow the Pols and Baltics and Ukrainians to honor the memory of their fallen heroes without calling them Nazis and fascists.

    There is blame to go around. I just with the Russian people felt the same way about the NKVD that Iranians feel about SAVAK or I feel about Gitmo. Disgust at least.

    If Russia stops demanding everyone celebrate the "victory" of the Soviets over Eastern Europe, and stop calling it a 'liberation", then the healing can begin, and perhaps another catastrophic banker's war can be avoided.

    >> Iranians feel about SAVAK <<

    What came after Savak was far worse.

    Gitmo is Club Med by any reasonable standard. Too bad that those jihadi scum have to stay locked up. Those whom Obama hasn't sent back to the battlefield, of course.

    Otherwise, very interesting comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Ace, the Afghans in Gitmo were innocent of 911. All they were doing was defending their homeland from an aggressive and unprovoked attack. I suspect you'd do the same. At least I'd hope so.

    The reasons for the war on Afghanistan (and all the rest) were lies.

    As for Gitmo, I'm ashamed to be an American when I consider we are running a torture camp for freedom fighters defending their land. Those men are so ravaged by sinister cruelty that they're trying to starve themselves to death, an excruciatingly slow way to die. But rather then even let them dispatch themselves with the dignity of death, our government sadists subject them to a humiliating torture called “rectal rehydration and feeding”.

    Charming.

    This they do to men whose only crime is that they resisted a criminal invasion of their country by an unaccountable and brutal regime that rapes their daughters and murders their citizens with near impunity and imposes a quisling government universally considered so corrupt that it's off the charts.

    here's an heroic American soldier talking about all the stuff the CIA showed them how to do

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9p6kXIVxNw

    I guess there are some men who deserve living in a place like Gitmo
  118. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality.
     
    Dear Ron,

    1. THERE IS NO such thing as defensive and offensive weapons as indicated by Rezun in his Icebreaker (forget about ultimately unreadable language which targets amateurs), NONE, zilch. Ground attack planes, the same as some some "specific" design of tanks ARE not indicators of anything--only (pre-deployment) posture and mobilization plans can give some insight, limited as it is, into some "plans". I give you an example: right now, this very moment US Armed Forces DO have plans on invading Russia, they are in place, elements of those plans are drilled etc. Does it mean that US will invade Russia? Unless it wants to commit suicide, no. And so is Russia--she DOES have plans of what would be considered deep operations into Eastern Europe but does it mean that Russia will launch those operations? NO. All this is called Contingency Planning and, in fact, if those plans (and there are many of those) wouldn't be in place, General Staffs, who are responsible for the development of such plans should be fired without benefits. USSR, prior to WW II, went, as did Germany (for her it started with Von Seeckt and ended with creation of Wehrmacht, albeit the roots are with Schlieffen), through several phases of the doctrinal development starting from large paratroop units and mechanized warfare. The design of the weapon systems also went through several technological phases as did operational requirements. ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to. Here is an example: the role of ground attack airplanes during Kursk battle can not be underestimated--they, mostly Il-2 Sturmovicks, played, as part of a combined arms effort, a crucial role in stopping both Model's 9th and Hoth's 4th Armies respectively at Northern and Southern faces of the Kursk Bulge. Here is a question--were those "offensive" or "defensive" actions? Of course it was defensive and how design of these planes influenced that? It didn't, they were created to destroy enemy armor and positions. Again, answers ARE NOT just in what system is per se, it is HOW it is used. This, plus I never heard of any "halt" to "defensive" weapons, because it never happened.

    2. Furthermore, framing any analysis in, however important, purely force structure terms is a folly for any military professional but, evidently, not for Rezun and his alternative "history". Now, a bit about wiki, here is what wiki says (i just want to clarify):


    Suvorov's view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.
     
    Some of Rezun's statements are so preposterous, such as reference to some magical matrices describing logistics, which, supposedly, prove some "offensive" posture of the Red Army (of course he never produced those "matrices") that after that any serious talk about professionalism loses any meaning. The whole thing was written for comprehension (and persuasion) of the wide masses in the time of the massive struggle with Soviet "heritage" in USSR. Rezun's opuses were just another element in a huge stream of "revelations" in mid-1980s early 1990s, which since then were debunked and relegated to the trash bin. Reason? Opening of the archives. As Glantz and House wrote in 1996 "Rezun's views have gained wide acceptance, for understandable reasons, in the German historical community. They are now being accepted, primarily for political reasons, by growing circle of Russian scholars, most of whom are reformers who accept as true anything that discredits the former regime"(c) Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, page 327. Basically, the situation here is next, if to draw an analogy: professional surgeons are trying to tell patients (some of them) that auto-mechanic whom they like since he tells them what they want to hear is not qualified to operate on them but professional arguments are falling on deaf years. Indeed, it is very difficult to explain to most people that, actually, serious military history requires very deep knowledge of number of disciplines which are in the foundation of understanding the facts.

    Since I don't have much time to write thesis here (I do part of this job in my blog) I will respond to this:


    Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs.
     
    While I agree with your assessment, I approach it from totally different angle. The dishonesty is not in the fact of being silent on Katyn tragedy (as an example), which since 1992 was made public. Nope, the dishonesty is in unstoppable massive attempts to rewrite the history of WW II and of the 20th Century, they continue even today and on a massive scale. It is very relevant. While doing so, US "academe" and elites failed miserably in understanding the world outside US, which, the events of the last 15+ years demonstrated fully. And that is the world which was forged in WW II and in which we still live today.

    “The real gap between two camps is one of knowledge….Irresponsible criticism is generally self-confident: but no one cares to be told:”I am holier than thou”, especially by anyone who does not know their facts….And knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly won. To no country does this apply more than to Russia. This gap has to be filled or it will cost us dear.”

    Bernard Pares. “A History Of Russia”, pages 571-573, New York, Alfred Knopf (AMS Press), 1966.

    I will omit Orwell's classic quote here, about who controls what--everyone knows it.

    And the jury is, finally, in.

    ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to.

    S-300 ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive.
  119. Matra says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I actually went ahead and ordered the Glantz book from Amazon. But for such a supposedly established and mainstream scholar, the reviews seemed remarkably mixed, with some of the reviewers emphasizing the presentation of endless technical details without a strong general discussion. Another critic was surprised that Glantz refused to directly rebut Suvorov's claims, but mostly seemed to ignore or avoid them.

    As I said, even if Glantz et al demolish 15 of Suvorov's 40 points, the remainder might still be quite enough to reasonably persuade me.

    Offhand, I think the only real reason everyone always has believed that Hitler launched a sneak attack against the Stalin is that's what 100% of the American media and history books have always said for 70 years. But once you begin to realize that the American media and history books are totally worthless as sources of reliable information on anything "touchy" you then evaluate the actual factual evidence in a very different light...

    Well, I actually went ahead and ordered the Glantz book from Amazon. But for such a supposedly established and mainstream scholar, the reviews seemed remarkably mixed

    My guess is that people with non-mainstream views – including Suvorov fans – are more likely to review books online than those whose views are already well represented in more prestigious, and thus, influential mainstream forums. A lot of the critics who (rightly) caution us to be sceptical about believing everything mainstream historians and media tell us are often just knee-jerk contrarians who want to believe the most outlandish versions of events. They are in some respects as sheep-like as the masses parked in front of the BBC/CNN/FOX.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed all sheep need a flock even if they have some monkey genes which make them enjoy poking their tongues out at anyone looking at the cage. Some of the more eccentric extroverts don't mind switching flocks while competing for occasional applause as the most striking lone ranger act.
  120. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Rurik

    ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to.
     
    S-300 ?

    If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    "If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive."

    There are those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense, even a pre-emptive one. And not just in movies like Dr. Strangelove.

    This will be hazardous to our precious bodily fluids.
    , @Rurik
    I only mention that weapon because Israel has objected to them being deployed in Syria and Iran and Russia has said they're only defensive weapons.

    What sir do you suppose is the end game with the Ukraine adventure?

    I've always suspected it was a maneuver to pressure Putin to give the green light (or at least get out of the way) as they take out Assad. No?
  121. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have some questions which the virulence of the anti-Semitism amongst the comments should guarantee can be answered with the energy needed for well researched credible responses.

    1. What was the population of Jews in areas occupied by German forces during WW2 before the war and what was it at the end of the war or any subsequent date you like to use? How do you account for the loss in numbers? How does that proportionate loss compare with the losses of any other ethnic group?
    2. How do you dispute the findings in the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case and deny that there was an organised plan to achieve a "Final Solution" known to and approved by Hitler, largely pushed by and organised under Himmler and administered by the likes of Eichmann?
    3. While it may be true that some Westerners gave some Russians reason to believe that NATO would not include some Eastern European countries, was that ever formalised, and, by contrast did not Russia guarantee the Ukraine's national integrity within the boundaries established within the USSR as a matter of formal treaty in return for the Ukraine giving up all the nuclear weapons on its soil?
    4. As Russia is clearly in breach of the latter treaty is it appropriate for any country to ignore it as if it didn't happen? If so, or indeed if not, where should the line be drawn and on what reasoning?

    It's not enough to rant about clodhopping US diplomacy and policy or to wet and weak at the knees over Putin's demonstratively muscular leadership. What's the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?

    “What’s the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?”

    You guys are all the same. You expect the other guy to bend over and take it in the ass, but when it’s your turn to bend over you get all huffy and particular and start enumerating your version (bullshjt) of the “facts” about why the other guy is wrong and you’re right.

    When the neoconservatives and the neoliberals start behaving principled and pragmatic then get back to me about principled and pragmatic. As long as the neo-cons and the neo-liberals are all about regime change and proxy wars and the Wolfowitz Doctrine of world domination, then the proper response is what I call the Putin Doctrine: the calm and steady stare that says, “We have tanks and we have nukes — tell that to your sphincter.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You quote a small part of my non-rhetorical questions and then explode as if there some obvious complete explanation in the evils of the "Wolfawitz doctrine" as if it was a proven active and dominant ingredient in US policy that anyone with eyes and ears connected to brain should know about and accept your view of. Not constructive or helpful to discussion I think. And I am at a loss to know why you are bracketing "neo cons" and "neo liberals". Is that because some misguided or overenthusiastic free market enthusiasts selling lessons in capitalism to the ex USSR states encouraged a big bang approach which has, arguably, proven disastrous economically as well as socially and therefore politically?
  122. @Fran Macadam
    Andrew, tovarisch against war, good quotations on your blog – and thanks for the long hair Omega rock.

    “Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet,
    I’m off to join the Development Set”

    That’s about it. To realize more lost in one day by one ally in Siege of Stalingrad than all of technological war dilettantism is startling to the cherished illusions of old narratives that are turned to support for new delusions.

    I was aware, not just from A.S., but also works like “The Unknown War” series by Hollywood’s Burt Lancaster.

    It is vulture warfare, following the unprinciples of vulture capitalism. Let others do the work and sacrifice, then swoop in to profit with the least effort.

    Fine, but then to not even show up at the memorial to the vast dead who made your commanding heights even possible.

    Pretending to ride the moral high horse while actually sitting under the horse’s ass in a pile of s— is conveyed by what our J.Q. Adams wrote, appropriate to all times when this hubris occurs:

    “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    Love your stuff Fran. Always classy.

    Read More
  123. 5371 says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality.
     
    Dear Ron,

    1. THERE IS NO such thing as defensive and offensive weapons as indicated by Rezun in his Icebreaker (forget about ultimately unreadable language which targets amateurs), NONE, zilch. Ground attack planes, the same as some some "specific" design of tanks ARE not indicators of anything--only (pre-deployment) posture and mobilization plans can give some insight, limited as it is, into some "plans". I give you an example: right now, this very moment US Armed Forces DO have plans on invading Russia, they are in place, elements of those plans are drilled etc. Does it mean that US will invade Russia? Unless it wants to commit suicide, no. And so is Russia--she DOES have plans of what would be considered deep operations into Eastern Europe but does it mean that Russia will launch those operations? NO. All this is called Contingency Planning and, in fact, if those plans (and there are many of those) wouldn't be in place, General Staffs, who are responsible for the development of such plans should be fired without benefits. USSR, prior to WW II, went, as did Germany (for her it started with Von Seeckt and ended with creation of Wehrmacht, albeit the roots are with Schlieffen), through several phases of the doctrinal development starting from large paratroop units and mechanized warfare. The design of the weapon systems also went through several technological phases as did operational requirements. ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to. Here is an example: the role of ground attack airplanes during Kursk battle can not be underestimated--they, mostly Il-2 Sturmovicks, played, as part of a combined arms effort, a crucial role in stopping both Model's 9th and Hoth's 4th Armies respectively at Northern and Southern faces of the Kursk Bulge. Here is a question--were those "offensive" or "defensive" actions? Of course it was defensive and how design of these planes influenced that? It didn't, they were created to destroy enemy armor and positions. Again, answers ARE NOT just in what system is per se, it is HOW it is used. This, plus I never heard of any "halt" to "defensive" weapons, because it never happened.

    2. Furthermore, framing any analysis in, however important, purely force structure terms is a folly for any military professional but, evidently, not for Rezun and his alternative "history". Now, a bit about wiki, here is what wiki says (i just want to clarify):


    Suvorov's view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.
     
    Some of Rezun's statements are so preposterous, such as reference to some magical matrices describing logistics, which, supposedly, prove some "offensive" posture of the Red Army (of course he never produced those "matrices") that after that any serious talk about professionalism loses any meaning. The whole thing was written for comprehension (and persuasion) of the wide masses in the time of the massive struggle with Soviet "heritage" in USSR. Rezun's opuses were just another element in a huge stream of "revelations" in mid-1980s early 1990s, which since then were debunked and relegated to the trash bin. Reason? Opening of the archives. As Glantz and House wrote in 1996 "Rezun's views have gained wide acceptance, for understandable reasons, in the German historical community. They are now being accepted, primarily for political reasons, by growing circle of Russian scholars, most of whom are reformers who accept as true anything that discredits the former regime"(c) Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, page 327. Basically, the situation here is next, if to draw an analogy: professional surgeons are trying to tell patients (some of them) that auto-mechanic whom they like since he tells them what they want to hear is not qualified to operate on them but professional arguments are falling on deaf years. Indeed, it is very difficult to explain to most people that, actually, serious military history requires very deep knowledge of number of disciplines which are in the foundation of understanding the facts.

    Since I don't have much time to write thesis here (I do part of this job in my blog) I will respond to this:


    Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs.
     
    While I agree with your assessment, I approach it from totally different angle. The dishonesty is not in the fact of being silent on Katyn tragedy (as an example), which since 1992 was made public. Nope, the dishonesty is in unstoppable massive attempts to rewrite the history of WW II and of the 20th Century, they continue even today and on a massive scale. It is very relevant. While doing so, US "academe" and elites failed miserably in understanding the world outside US, which, the events of the last 15+ years demonstrated fully. And that is the world which was forged in WW II and in which we still live today.

    “The real gap between two camps is one of knowledge….Irresponsible criticism is generally self-confident: but no one cares to be told:”I am holier than thou”, especially by anyone who does not know their facts….And knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly won. To no country does this apply more than to Russia. This gap has to be filled or it will cost us dear.”

    Bernard Pares. “A History Of Russia”, pages 571-573, New York, Alfred Knopf (AMS Press), 1966.

    I will omit Orwell's classic quote here, about who controls what--everyone knows it.

    And the jury is, finally, in.

    Smoothie, beyond the Rezun thing (not a fan either), I’d be interested in your broader thoughts about where the blame lies for Germany’s being able to achieve operational surprise, despite plenty of good intelligence (along with some bad, but when was that absent?) about what was going to happen. If you’d prefer to discuss it on your blog, I can promise you at least one reader.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    There were operations ongoing in buffer states between Germany and the Soviet Union that could credibly be interpreted differently than as signs of imminent invasion, especially when it was beyond audacious to believe Hitler had entered into the agreement in completely bad faith.

    Look at how much doubt about matters there is in the Middle East right now, about who's fighting for whom.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    In this particular matter, I think, both Glantz and Isaev are the best. The answer, at least large part of it, is not even so much in the surprise itself (the attack was expected) but in the fact of how devastatingly efficient was the application of Blitzkrieg by Wehrmacht and allies, fresh from the triumphs in Europe and having huge operational experience. Even if to imagine that no purges happened in RKKA (Red Army), that all necessary mobilization measures were taken in timely manner, that doctrinally RKKA would have more flexibility, especially in its defensive operations prior to commencement of Barbarossa, even then, the result of the first months of the war would have been approximately the same. In other words, Germans were too damn good and that is the simple truth--by 22 June 1941 it was the mightiest military machine in the history of humanity. I hope I answered your question, at least part of it.
  124. @Andrei Martyanov

    In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality.
     
    Dear Ron,

    1. THERE IS NO such thing as defensive and offensive weapons as indicated by Rezun in his Icebreaker (forget about ultimately unreadable language which targets amateurs), NONE, zilch. Ground attack planes, the same as some some "specific" design of tanks ARE not indicators of anything--only (pre-deployment) posture and mobilization plans can give some insight, limited as it is, into some "plans". I give you an example: right now, this very moment US Armed Forces DO have plans on invading Russia, they are in place, elements of those plans are drilled etc. Does it mean that US will invade Russia? Unless it wants to commit suicide, no. And so is Russia--she DOES have plans of what would be considered deep operations into Eastern Europe but does it mean that Russia will launch those operations? NO. All this is called Contingency Planning and, in fact, if those plans (and there are many of those) wouldn't be in place, General Staffs, who are responsible for the development of such plans should be fired without benefits. USSR, prior to WW II, went, as did Germany (for her it started with Von Seeckt and ended with creation of Wehrmacht, albeit the roots are with Schlieffen), through several phases of the doctrinal development starting from large paratroop units and mechanized warfare. The design of the weapon systems also went through several technological phases as did operational requirements. ANY, I underscore, any weapon system could be misconstrued as whatever one wants to. Here is an example: the role of ground attack airplanes during Kursk battle can not be underestimated--they, mostly Il-2 Sturmovicks, played, as part of a combined arms effort, a crucial role in stopping both Model's 9th and Hoth's 4th Armies respectively at Northern and Southern faces of the Kursk Bulge. Here is a question--were those "offensive" or "defensive" actions? Of course it was defensive and how design of these planes influenced that? It didn't, they were created to destroy enemy armor and positions. Again, answers ARE NOT just in what system is per se, it is HOW it is used. This, plus I never heard of any "halt" to "defensive" weapons, because it never happened.

    2. Furthermore, framing any analysis in, however important, purely force structure terms is a folly for any military professional but, evidently, not for Rezun and his alternative "history". Now, a bit about wiki, here is what wiki says (i just want to clarify):


    Suvorov's view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.
     
    Some of Rezun's statements are so preposterous, such as reference to some magical matrices describing logistics, which, supposedly, prove some "offensive" posture of the Red Army (of course he never produced those "matrices") that after that any serious talk about professionalism loses any meaning. The whole thing was written for comprehension (and persuasion) of the wide masses in the time of the massive struggle with Soviet "heritage" in USSR. Rezun's opuses were just another element in a huge stream of "revelations" in mid-1980s early 1990s, which since then were debunked and relegated to the trash bin. Reason? Opening of the archives. As Glantz and House wrote in 1996 "Rezun's views have gained wide acceptance, for understandable reasons, in the German historical community. They are now being accepted, primarily for political reasons, by growing circle of Russian scholars, most of whom are reformers who accept as true anything that discredits the former regime"(c) Glantz and House, When Titans Clashed, page 327. Basically, the situation here is next, if to draw an analogy: professional surgeons are trying to tell patients (some of them) that auto-mechanic whom they like since he tells them what they want to hear is not qualified to operate on them but professional arguments are falling on deaf years. Indeed, it is very difficult to explain to most people that, actually, serious military history requires very deep knowledge of number of disciplines which are in the foundation of understanding the facts.

    Since I don't have much time to write thesis here (I do part of this job in my blog) I will respond to this:


    Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs.
     
    While I agree with your assessment, I approach it from totally different angle. The dishonesty is not in the fact of being silent on Katyn tragedy (as an example), which since 1992 was made public. Nope, the dishonesty is in unstoppable massive attempts to rewrite the history of WW II and of the 20th Century, they continue even today and on a massive scale. It is very relevant. While doing so, US "academe" and elites failed miserably in understanding the world outside US, which, the events of the last 15+ years demonstrated fully. And that is the world which was forged in WW II and in which we still live today.

    “The real gap between two camps is one of knowledge….Irresponsible criticism is generally self-confident: but no one cares to be told:”I am holier than thou”, especially by anyone who does not know their facts….And knowledge alone is not enough without understanding, which is much more hardly won. To no country does this apply more than to Russia. This gap has to be filled or it will cost us dear.”

    Bernard Pares. “A History Of Russia”, pages 571-573, New York, Alfred Knopf (AMS Press), 1966.

    I will omit Orwell's classic quote here, about who controls what--everyone knows it.

    And the jury is, finally, in.

    It’s also clear from published archival material, that the Soviets held up their end of the bargain with Germany, delivering the required supplies in support of the German war machine right up until the attack on the Soviet Union was launched. Excuses were proffered by the Germans to the Soviets about certain signs that could mean mobilization against them. The archives of diplomats show the genuine shock and consternation. As for archives from Germany, Hitler’s intentions and his duplicity are all on display as he vacillated about the date to launch the attack, which was pushed well back from the dates where weather issues would have been favorable for him.

    And it is the reality, again, that the Soviets were rebuffed in their seeking a protective alliance with the western powers, before Ribbentrop/Molotov. So Stalin sought to make alliance, thinking to join the criminal conspiracy as protection and for advantage, but naturally there is no honor among thieves like Hitler and his gang of criminals. No doubt Stalin thought it would be preferable to deal with the west, than another dangerous personality. Despite his seminary experience and winning poetry contests, he was after all himself a master criminal and practical terrorist who carried out bank robbery and train expropriations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Some "rebuff"... The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines.

    That the Soviet Union was afraid of the Nazis is of course true. Hence the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But that was only to buy time for the Soviets own armaments program scheduled for completion in 1942. Stalin was happy in the meantime to give a free hand to Hitler to rampage in Europe. What he did not expect was the swift fall of France. He had expected the Germans to slug it out with France and Britain, and later stepping in like Fortinbras to pick up the pieces. Hardly anyone expected France to fall as fast as she did.

    Stalin having been caught flat-flooted then strove mightily to allay any suspicions that Hitler had. Thus he didn't he didn't act on the numerous reports from everyone including Churchill that Barbarossa was scheduled for June 22, 1941. He still thought he could double-cross Hitler. The Soviet Union was proceeding on the Marxist-Leninist theory that the major wars all signal the death-knells of the "imperialist" powers. They had a theory that seemed to fit the phenomena. The disposition of the Soviet forces - all of them at the frontline, ready to move up to the new lines of control with the Nazis, with no reserves (since they were being built up), already showed the aggressive intentions of the Soviets. This accounts for the swift collapse of the Soviets when the Nazis struck.

    Like it is said, the Soviets would probably have lost the war without Stalin, but then without him they would not have needed to fight it in the first place.

  125. @5371
    Smoothie, beyond the Rezun thing (not a fan either), I'd be interested in your broader thoughts about where the blame lies for Germany's being able to achieve operational surprise, despite plenty of good intelligence (along with some bad, but when was that absent?) about what was going to happen. If you'd prefer to discuss it on your blog, I can promise you at least one reader.

    There were operations ongoing in buffer states between Germany and the Soviet Union that could credibly be interpreted differently than as signs of imminent invasion, especially when it was beyond audacious to believe Hitler had entered into the agreement in completely bad faith.

    Look at how much doubt about matters there is in the Middle East right now, about who’s fighting for whom.

    Read More
  126. @Andrei Martyanov
    If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive.

    “If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive.”

    There are those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense, even a pre-emptive one. And not just in movies like Dr. Strangelove.

    This will be hazardous to our precious bodily fluids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    There are those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense, even a pre-emptive one. And not just in movies like Dr. Strangelove.

    This will be hazardous to our precious bodily fluids.
     
    Love Dr.Strangelove (own DVD)--George C.Scott there is incomparable, as he usually was in everything he did. As per defense, US "elites" are not conditio0ned to think in this framework, they also tend to hugely overestimate their "strong offense" defensive capabilities. The results are all around us now and the picture is not pretty at all, politely speaking.
  127. Rurik says:
    @Ace
    >> Iranians feel about SAVAK <<

    What came after Savak was far worse.

    Gitmo is Club Med by any reasonable standard. Too bad that those jihadi scum have to stay locked up. Those whom Obama hasn't sent back to the battlefield, of course.

    Otherwise, very interesting comments.

    Ace, the Afghans in Gitmo were innocent of 911. All they were doing was defending their homeland from an aggressive and unprovoked attack. I suspect you’d do the same. At least I’d hope so.

    The reasons for the war on Afghanistan (and all the rest) were lies.

    As for Gitmo, I’m ashamed to be an American when I consider we are running a torture camp for freedom fighters defending their land. Those men are so ravaged by sinister cruelty that they’re trying to starve themselves to death, an excruciatingly slow way to die. But rather then even let them dispatch themselves with the dignity of death, our government sadists subject them to a humiliating torture called “rectal rehydration and feeding”.

    Charming.

    This they do to men whose only crime is that they resisted a criminal invasion of their country by an unaccountable and brutal regime that rapes their daughters and murders their citizens with near impunity and imposes a quisling government universally considered so corrupt that it’s off the charts.

    here’s an heroic American soldier talking about all the stuff the CIA showed them how to do

    I guess there are some men who deserve living in a place like Gitmo

    Read More
  128. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive.

    I only mention that weapon because Israel has objected to them being deployed in Syria and Iran and Russia has said they’re only defensive weapons.

    What sir do you suppose is the end game with the Ukraine adventure?

    I’ve always suspected it was a maneuver to pressure Putin to give the green light (or at least get out of the way) as they take out Assad. No?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    What sir do you suppose is the end game with the Ukraine adventure?
     
    For Russia, Ukraine is not an adventure. The end game, however, is the whole of Ukraine, possibly without Galicia.
  129. @5371
    [It looks as though HA might know the answers if so….]

    Why don't you look in the mirror and ask him?

    Wrong and trivial again 5371. Ron has said he doesn’t allow sock-puppets and on the one occasion I tried substituting “Bemused” or such to make a harmless and good tempered response his software must have worked because it didn’t appear. As to HA I see that he added another comment immediately afterwards which contained sentiments with which I disagree quite strongly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I am not sure that I do strongly disagree with something HA wrote now that I have checked.....

    I note that he used the expression "hasbara" which I had not come across before reading the Unz Review. I think I've come across plenty of patiotic or otherwise tendentious blog comments over recent years by (almost always young) Jews, Indians and Chinese who didn't need to be organised by governments - and in the case of the Indians I would guess never were.
    , @5371
    If you really aren't him, you no longer have the excuse of calculated deceit to palliate your banal stupidity, and perhaps should have remained silent.
  130. @Anonymous
    “What’s the principled and pragmatic response to major breaches of territorial integrity?”

    You guys are all the same. You expect the other guy to bend over and take it in the ass, but when it's your turn to bend over you get all huffy and particular and start enumerating your version (bullshjt) of the "facts" about why the other guy is wrong and you're right.

    When the neoconservatives and the neoliberals start behaving principled and pragmatic then get back to me about principled and pragmatic. As long as the neo-cons and the neo-liberals are all about regime change and proxy wars and the Wolfowitz Doctrine of world domination, then the proper response is what I call the Putin Doctrine: the calm and steady stare that says, “We have tanks and we have nukes -- tell that to your sphincter.”

    You quote a small part of my non-rhetorical questions and then explode as if there some obvious complete explanation in the evils of the “Wolfawitz doctrine” as if it was a proven active and dominant ingredient in US policy that anyone with eyes and ears connected to brain should know about and accept your view of. Not constructive or helpful to discussion I think. And I am at a loss to know why you are bracketing “neo cons” and “neo liberals”. Is that because some misguided or overenthusiastic free market enthusiasts selling lessons in capitalism to the ex USSR states encouraged a big bang approach which has, arguably, proven disastrous economically as well as socially and therefore politically?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    the evils of the “Wolfawitz doctrine” as if it was a proven active and dominant ingredient in US policy
     
    do you doubt it?
  131. @Matra
    Well, I actually went ahead and ordered the Glantz book from Amazon. But for such a supposedly established and mainstream scholar, the reviews seemed remarkably mixed

    My guess is that people with non-mainstream views - including Suvorov fans - are more likely to review books online than those whose views are already well represented in more prestigious, and thus, influential mainstream forums. A lot of the critics who (rightly) caution us to be sceptical about believing everything mainstream historians and media tell us are often just knee-jerk contrarians who want to believe the most outlandish versions of events. They are in some respects as sheep-like as the masses parked in front of the BBC/CNN/FOX.

    Indeed all sheep need a flock even if they have some monkey genes which make them enjoy poking their tongues out at anyone looking at the cage. Some of the more eccentric extroverts don’t mind switching flocks while competing for occasional applause as the most striking lone ranger act.

    Read More
  132. @Fran Macadam
    "In fact the only reason Hitler came to power was as a consequence of the direct threat that the genocidal commies posed to Germany."

    Actually it had to do with the ruinous war reparations imposed on Germany that wouldn't have ended until 1989. Which Wall Street offered a supposed way out through egregious loans and impossible debt. Massive inflation wiped out the middle class and imposed misery and unemployment. Weimar's politicians had no answer, no way out to offer. Wall Street triggered a worldwide depression. A demagogue took advantage and made impossible promises of hope and provided ready scapegoats.

    Indeed Fran your summary list of factors leading to Hitler’s taking power is much more accurate and closer to comprehensive.

    Read More
  133. Ivan says:
    @Fran Macadam
    It's also clear from published archival material, that the Soviets held up their end of the bargain with Germany, delivering the required supplies in support of the German war machine right up until the attack on the Soviet Union was launched. Excuses were proffered by the Germans to the Soviets about certain signs that could mean mobilization against them. The archives of diplomats show the genuine shock and consternation. As for archives from Germany, Hitler's intentions and his duplicity are all on display as he vacillated about the date to launch the attack, which was pushed well back from the dates where weather issues would have been favorable for him.

    And it is the reality, again, that the Soviets were rebuffed in their seeking a protective alliance with the western powers, before Ribbentrop/Molotov. So Stalin sought to make alliance, thinking to join the criminal conspiracy as protection and for advantage, but naturally there is no honor among thieves like Hitler and his gang of criminals. No doubt Stalin thought it would be preferable to deal with the west, than another dangerous personality. Despite his seminary experience and winning poetry contests, he was after all himself a master criminal and practical terrorist who carried out bank robbery and train expropriations.

    Some “rebuff”… The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines.

    That the Soviet Union was afraid of the Nazis is of course true. Hence the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But that was only to buy time for the Soviets own armaments program scheduled for completion in 1942. Stalin was happy in the meantime to give a free hand to Hitler to rampage in Europe. What he did not expect was the swift fall of France. He had expected the Germans to slug it out with France and Britain, and later stepping in like Fortinbras to pick up the pieces. Hardly anyone expected France to fall as fast as she did.

    Stalin having been caught flat-flooted then strove mightily to allay any suspicions that Hitler had. Thus he didn’t he didn’t act on the numerous reports from everyone including Churchill that Barbarossa was scheduled for June 22, 1941. He still thought he could double-cross Hitler. The Soviet Union was proceeding on the Marxist-Leninist theory that the major wars all signal the death-knells of the “imperialist” powers. They had a theory that seemed to fit the phenomena. The disposition of the Soviet forces – all of them at the frontline, ready to move up to the new lines of control with the Nazis, with no reserves (since they were being built up), already showed the aggressive intentions of the Soviets. This accounts for the swift collapse of the Soviets when the Nazis struck.

    Like it is said, the Soviets would probably have lost the war without Stalin, but then without him they would not have needed to fight it in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    "The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines."

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.

    The westerners themselves at that point had proven somewhat accommodating to Hitler. And ideologically, they were opponents of the Soviet system. It was even a matter of some wishful thinking that it would be a good thing if Germany were to destroy the Soviet Union, which would mean less German resources as well to fight in the the west. An alliance was not thought to be in the western interest - perhaps the two dictatorships would be fatally weakened. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Litvinov, a Jew who had sought the collective-security agreement with the west, was replaced with Molotov after the effort failed, when the Soviet Union was faced with opposing German aggression in the east alone. Hitler was interested for obvious strategic, temporary reasons, and took the measure of Stalin better than the latter did him. Stalin's own personality, always opportunistic and given to both concocting conspiracies (and suspecting them) considered the unexpected change of direction somewhat of a personal coup. The greed of successful conquest and what appeared shared objectives blinded him, something that was fatal eventually to Hitler as well, a believer in his own inevitable conquests by the virtue of initial ones. Megalomania is both the virtue that propels authoritarian personalities and the vice that is their eventual undoing. In some ways, the corollary of "bullshit can get you to the top, but it can't keep you there."

    Let's hope that works for inverted totalitarianisms, as well.
  134. @Wizard of Oz
    Wrong and trivial again 5371. Ron has said he doesn't allow sock-puppets and on the one occasion I tried substituting "Bemused" or such to make a harmless and good tempered response his software must have worked because it didn't appear. As to HA I see that he added another comment immediately afterwards which contained sentiments with which I disagree quite strongly.

    I am not sure that I do strongly disagree with something HA wrote now that I have checked…..

    I note that he used the expression “hasbara” which I had not come across before reading the Unz Review. I think I’ve come across plenty of patiotic or otherwise tendentious blog comments over recent years by (almost always young) Jews, Indians and Chinese who didn’t need to be organised by governments – and in the case of the Indians I would guess never were.

    Read More
  135. 5371 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Wrong and trivial again 5371. Ron has said he doesn't allow sock-puppets and on the one occasion I tried substituting "Bemused" or such to make a harmless and good tempered response his software must have worked because it didn't appear. As to HA I see that he added another comment immediately afterwards which contained sentiments with which I disagree quite strongly.

    If you really aren’t him, you no longer have the excuse of calculated deceit to palliate your banal stupidity, and perhaps should have remained silent.

    Read More
  136. @Ron Unz
    Well, I emphasized that I was a non-specialist and also hadn't done any significant investigation into the topic. But the Wikipedia article you linked indicates that a long list of seemingly expert specialists have supported the Suvorov Hypothesis, so I can't see how things could be as clearcut as you suggest. I'm not saying Suvorov is certainly correct, but I'd put the odds at better than 50-50, maybe 60-40, that some of his major points are basically correct.

    Given my reasonable (non-specialist) familiarity with WWII military issues here are a few of the Suvorov points I remember sticking most in my mind:

    (1) The Soviet deployments on the map were *exactly* what you'd expect for an offensive preparation and exactly contrary to what you'd expect for a defensive arrangment. That has been noted by everyone for 70 years and always cited as a great "puzzle." Basically, it was the exact mirror-image of the German deployments, but Hitler struck first. If the Soviets had attacked first, the German forces would have had the exact same deployment problems and been similarly crushed.

    (2) In the years leading up to the war, Soviet military production was overwhelmingly of offensive weapons and units (e.g. vast numbers of ground attack planes and paratroops) and production of defensive weapons was halted. Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Germans and were probably better in quality. Apparently, millions of Gulag prisoners had been freed, given arms, and positioned behind the front as second-line forces for the occupation of Western Europe once the German armies had been smashed. The Soviets even built huge numbers of "fast tanks" which could only operate effectively on Central/Western European roads.

    (3) The captured/killed Soviet troops had maps of Germany and German phrase-books, which had been printed in vast numbers, all geared towards dealing with German civilians and occupation issues. These were very similar to the German phrase-books oriented towards Russian civilians.

    (4) If the Soviets hadn't signed the Pact of Moscow with Hitler, Poland would have remained a buffer state and a German invasion of Russia would have been much more difficult. But a Soviet invasion of Germany would also have been much more difficult. Obviously, Stalin (and everyone else) had expected the German-Allied conflict to drag out like WWI and exhaust both sides, allowing him an easy victory, and the quick German triumph surprised him. But if Hitler had sent his best troops on an invasion of England, Stalin would have had a much easier time.

    (5) Apparently, at the time Hitler and the Germans all announced to the world that they'd forestalled a gigantic planned Soviet invasion of Europe, just like they later told the world they'd found the mass graves at Katyn and lots of other things. But naturally the Western media merely ignored and ridiculed this.

    (6) Anyway, all of this happened almost 75 years ago and is hardly relevant today except as proof of the total dishonesty and worthlessness of our Anglo-American propaganda organs. Even while Suvorov's books were selling in the many millions and sparking a decades-long scholarly/public debate in Russia, Germany, and many other countries, no English-language press published them and they were never mentioned in the MSM, so outside specialist academic circles no one here knew about it. Suppose a nuclear warhead accidentally exploded and Cleveland were totally destroyed, but the MSM never reported it, and no one found out. How reliable would we regard anything else the MSM henceforth told us?

    P.S. Actually, I don't need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:

    http://www.unz.com/article/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/

    P.S. Actually, I don’t need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:

    1. A physician-led study conservatively estimated that over 1.3 million people have died in the “War on Terror”, of which 1.1 million died in Iraq. When the public was polled on how many Iraqis had died, the median estimate was 10,000. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    2. 42% of Americans believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Only 49% of Americans believe WMDs weren’t found. http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/false/

    It’s utterly shocking that the public knows so little about the most important US military conflict since Vietnam. Of course, when you consider how much war propaganda was pumped out by the media and how little coverage there’s been of the war’s costs & errors, maybe not that shocking.

    The point is that our MSM is capable of selling govt propaganda and engaging in a massive cover up. So I find it entirely plausible that they could be lying about any number of other issues.

    Heck, Bill O’Reilly did extensive reporting on the conspiracy behind the JFK assassination from the 70s through the 90s. Then a few years ago, he made a film called “Killing Kennedy” in which he blamed the assassination solely on Oswald.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    "The point is that our MSM is capable of selling govt propaganda and engaging in a massive cover up."

    Error in thinking, the main purpose of MSM is to sell government, lobby group and media owner's propaganda (instead of "capable of"). But, the so called, government propaganda is the propaganda of the banking, pharmaceutical, military-industrial etc elite. You just showed that propaganda works!!! The Vioxx example of Mr Unz is from the pharma and yours is an example from the military-industrial. Both are good case studies in the public opinion shaped far away from reality.

    The propaganda formula is based on ROI (Return on Investment) - the bigger the pot of money behind something, the more intense is the shaping. Pretty basic, is it not?

  137. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It would be “calculated deceit” to be HA and to pretend to be someone unknown to him. But, if you couldn’t tell one way or the other, who’s “stupid”? In fact I would be interested to know if there is anyone commenting who could read what I have written and what HA has written and make a serious case for a single source. You are obviously, on your own say-so, not up to it but I invite others, especially if they also care to examine my view that you have offered very little reason to suppose that you are someone whose judgment of who or what is stupid carries any weight at all.

    I give you the credit of not using words totally randomly. “Banal” unfortunately has so many near but not-quite synonyms that it is probably easier to divine what you intended to convey by consulting your state of mind and emotions.

    I hope you are not an academic or even primary school teacher given the uphill task of providing the West with decent education of its future adult researchers, taxpayers and rulers. On the assumption that you are merely a choleric emitter of bile on blogs of the general description “Disappointed in Life” I presume that you are conveying something like “I wouldn’t bother to read, understand and analyse what you have said with any care at all because you seem to me on my superficial, and perfectly justifiably superficial, glance at your expressed (ah, yes, I now see, purportedly disinterested and sceptical) Comments to hold views so different from mine that I call them ‘stupid’ eo ipso. And I add ‘banal’ just to show how little I care to treat your ideas seriously or your expression of them courteously.”

    Does “5371″ stand for “sad and embittered”. After your earlier silly gibe I tried Googling and all I got was the postcode of a windfarm but you would be on the wrong end if that was a clue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I apologise for confusing your ovine bleatings with the malicious and malodorous spewings from the sockpuppeteer's scent glands. You have my blessing to ramble on rejoicing, to whatever aimless length you prefer.
  138. @Ivan
    Some "rebuff"... The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines.

    That the Soviet Union was afraid of the Nazis is of course true. Hence the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But that was only to buy time for the Soviets own armaments program scheduled for completion in 1942. Stalin was happy in the meantime to give a free hand to Hitler to rampage in Europe. What he did not expect was the swift fall of France. He had expected the Germans to slug it out with France and Britain, and later stepping in like Fortinbras to pick up the pieces. Hardly anyone expected France to fall as fast as she did.

    Stalin having been caught flat-flooted then strove mightily to allay any suspicions that Hitler had. Thus he didn't he didn't act on the numerous reports from everyone including Churchill that Barbarossa was scheduled for June 22, 1941. He still thought he could double-cross Hitler. The Soviet Union was proceeding on the Marxist-Leninist theory that the major wars all signal the death-knells of the "imperialist" powers. They had a theory that seemed to fit the phenomena. The disposition of the Soviet forces - all of them at the frontline, ready to move up to the new lines of control with the Nazis, with no reserves (since they were being built up), already showed the aggressive intentions of the Soviets. This accounts for the swift collapse of the Soviets when the Nazis struck.

    Like it is said, the Soviets would probably have lost the war without Stalin, but then without him they would not have needed to fight it in the first place.

    “The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines.”

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.

    The westerners themselves at that point had proven somewhat accommodating to Hitler. And ideologically, they were opponents of the Soviet system. It was even a matter of some wishful thinking that it would be a good thing if Germany were to destroy the Soviet Union, which would mean less German resources as well to fight in the the west. An alliance was not thought to be in the western interest – perhaps the two dictatorships would be fatally weakened. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Litvinov, a Jew who had sought the collective-security agreement with the west, was replaced with Molotov after the effort failed, when the Soviet Union was faced with opposing German aggression in the east alone. Hitler was interested for obvious strategic, temporary reasons, and took the measure of Stalin better than the latter did him. Stalin’s own personality, always opportunistic and given to both concocting conspiracies (and suspecting them) considered the unexpected change of direction somewhat of a personal coup. The greed of successful conquest and what appeared shared objectives blinded him, something that was fatal eventually to Hitler as well, a believer in his own inevitable conquests by the virtue of initial ones. Megalomania is both the virtue that propels authoritarian personalities and the vice that is their eventual undoing. In some ways, the corollary of “bullshit can get you to the top, but it can’t keep you there.”

    Let’s hope that works for inverted totalitarianisms, as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    The pact was excellent business for the USSR; it avoided imminent alternatives that were far less favourable (either the conquest of all Poland by Germany, with the western powers either not going to war or going to war but not doing anything useful to help Poland - or Poland surrendering to the German demands and reduced without war into a satellite of Germany).
    , @Rurik

    “.. Stalin wanted ... ... the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe..”

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.
     
    The appetite certainly seems to have been there.
    , @Ivan
    Fran Macadam,

    Offhand I am not able to provide any citations. The traditional method of containing the German behemoth on the continent, had always involved the Russians in the East. The Westerners would definitely have countenanced an alliance had the Soviet Union not been greedy. This is standard balance of power play, and did not really require either side to like each other.
  139. 5371 says:
    @Anonymous
    It would be "calculated deceit" to be HA and to pretend to be someone unknown to him. But, if you couldn't tell one way or the other, who's "stupid"? In fact I would be interested to know if there is anyone commenting who could read what I have written and what HA has written and make a serious case for a single source. You are obviously, on your own say-so, not up to it but I invite others, especially if they also care to examine my view that you have offered very little reason to suppose that you are someone whose judgment of who or what is stupid carries any weight at all.

    I give you the credit of not using words totally randomly. "Banal" unfortunately has so many near but not-quite synonyms that it is probably easier to divine what you intended to convey by consulting your state of mind and emotions.

    I hope you are not an academic or even primary school teacher given the uphill task of providing the West with decent education of its future adult researchers, taxpayers and rulers. On the assumption that you are merely a choleric emitter of bile on blogs of the general description "Disappointed in Life" I presume that you are conveying something like "I wouldn't bother to read, understand and analyse what you have said with any care at all because you seem to me on my superficial, and perfectly justifiably superficial, glance at your expressed (ah, yes, I now see, purportedly disinterested and sceptical) Comments to hold views so different from mine that I call them 'stupid' eo ipso. And I add 'banal' just to show how little I care to treat your ideas seriously or your expression of them courteously."

    Does "5371" stand for "sad and embittered". After your earlier silly gibe I tried Googling and all I got was the postcode of a windfarm but you would be on the wrong end if that was a clue.

    I apologise for confusing your ovine bleatings with the malicious and malodorous spewings from the sockpuppeteer’s scent glands. You have my blessing to ramble on rejoicing, to whatever aimless length you prefer.

    Read More
  140. 5371 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines."

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.

    The westerners themselves at that point had proven somewhat accommodating to Hitler. And ideologically, they were opponents of the Soviet system. It was even a matter of some wishful thinking that it would be a good thing if Germany were to destroy the Soviet Union, which would mean less German resources as well to fight in the the west. An alliance was not thought to be in the western interest - perhaps the two dictatorships would be fatally weakened. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Litvinov, a Jew who had sought the collective-security agreement with the west, was replaced with Molotov after the effort failed, when the Soviet Union was faced with opposing German aggression in the east alone. Hitler was interested for obvious strategic, temporary reasons, and took the measure of Stalin better than the latter did him. Stalin's own personality, always opportunistic and given to both concocting conspiracies (and suspecting them) considered the unexpected change of direction somewhat of a personal coup. The greed of successful conquest and what appeared shared objectives blinded him, something that was fatal eventually to Hitler as well, a believer in his own inevitable conquests by the virtue of initial ones. Megalomania is both the virtue that propels authoritarian personalities and the vice that is their eventual undoing. In some ways, the corollary of "bullshit can get you to the top, but it can't keep you there."

    Let's hope that works for inverted totalitarianisms, as well.

    The pact was excellent business for the USSR; it avoided imminent alternatives that were far less favourable (either the conquest of all Poland by Germany, with the western powers either not going to war or going to war but not doing anything useful to help Poland – or Poland surrendering to the German demands and reduced without war into a satellite of Germany).

    Read More
  141. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You quote a small part of my non-rhetorical questions and then explode as if there some obvious complete explanation in the evils of the "Wolfawitz doctrine" as if it was a proven active and dominant ingredient in US policy that anyone with eyes and ears connected to brain should know about and accept your view of. Not constructive or helpful to discussion I think. And I am at a loss to know why you are bracketing "neo cons" and "neo liberals". Is that because some misguided or overenthusiastic free market enthusiasts selling lessons in capitalism to the ex USSR states encouraged a big bang approach which has, arguably, proven disastrous economically as well as socially and therefore politically?

    the evils of the “Wolfawitz doctrine” as if it was a proven active and dominant ingredient in US policy

    do you doubt it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I understand that Wolfawitz wrote stuff known by some as the Wolfawitz doctrine about 1992 which seems to have either been influential or expressed common ideas amongst neo-cons and I would accept, without having given any particular study to the matter, that some of the more hubristic neo-cons including PW had undue influence on the hapless George the Lesser's administration, what is the evidence to take firm belief beyond that?
  142. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines."

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.

    The westerners themselves at that point had proven somewhat accommodating to Hitler. And ideologically, they were opponents of the Soviet system. It was even a matter of some wishful thinking that it would be a good thing if Germany were to destroy the Soviet Union, which would mean less German resources as well to fight in the the west. An alliance was not thought to be in the western interest - perhaps the two dictatorships would be fatally weakened. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Litvinov, a Jew who had sought the collective-security agreement with the west, was replaced with Molotov after the effort failed, when the Soviet Union was faced with opposing German aggression in the east alone. Hitler was interested for obvious strategic, temporary reasons, and took the measure of Stalin better than the latter did him. Stalin's own personality, always opportunistic and given to both concocting conspiracies (and suspecting them) considered the unexpected change of direction somewhat of a personal coup. The greed of successful conquest and what appeared shared objectives blinded him, something that was fatal eventually to Hitler as well, a believer in his own inevitable conquests by the virtue of initial ones. Megalomania is both the virtue that propels authoritarian personalities and the vice that is their eventual undoing. In some ways, the corollary of "bullshit can get you to the top, but it can't keep you there."

    Let's hope that works for inverted totalitarianisms, as well.

    “.. Stalin wanted … … the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe..”

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.

    The appetite certainly seems to have been there.

    Read More
  143. @Rurik

    the evils of the “Wolfawitz doctrine” as if it was a proven active and dominant ingredient in US policy
     
    do you doubt it?

    I understand that Wolfawitz wrote stuff known by some as the Wolfawitz doctrine about 1992 which seems to have either been influential or expressed common ideas amongst neo-cons and I would accept, without having given any particular study to the matter, that some of the more hubristic neo-cons including PW had undue influence on the hapless George the Lesser’s administration, what is the evidence to take firm belief beyond that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    It's like The Protocols

    who cares if they were a forgery

    They read like an absolute blueprint.

    Like a recipe that was followed to the very grain of salt, just like the WD or the PNAC

    Just as I recently wrote about Stalin's alleged designs on Europe. Who cares if there is proof he said he wanted it before the war. After the war it was very clear he wanted it. We can divine things with pretty good certainly as Monday morning quarterbacks, so to speak. Or for another trite bromide, hindsight is 20/20
  144. @MarkinLA
    Didn't Crimea follow the US written script in Kosovo to the letter? The government declared independence. They had a popular referendum and were officially independent. They just went one step farther and voted to be annexed by Mother Russia.

    Certainly a good debating point to equate the Crimean and Kosovo cases but I don’t know enough to agree that they are the identical “to the letter”.

    To deploy a popular modern cliché I’m sure “the devil is in the detail”. HA seems to have a good grasp of some relevant detail. My h-bd sympathies are not with the establishment of a country whose population became substantially Albanian speaking and Muslim while it was part of Serbia because of their primitive premodern tribal breeding habits.

    Read More
  145. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I understand that Wolfawitz wrote stuff known by some as the Wolfawitz doctrine about 1992 which seems to have either been influential or expressed common ideas amongst neo-cons and I would accept, without having given any particular study to the matter, that some of the more hubristic neo-cons including PW had undue influence on the hapless George the Lesser's administration, what is the evidence to take firm belief beyond that?

    It’s like The Protocols

    who cares if they were a forgery

    They read like an absolute blueprint.

    Like a recipe that was followed to the very grain of salt, just like the WD or the PNAC

    Just as I recently wrote about Stalin’s alleged designs on Europe. Who cares if there is proof he said he wanted it before the war. After the war it was very clear he wanted it. We can divine things with pretty good certainly as Monday morning quarterbacks, so to speak. Or for another trite bromide, hindsight is 20/20

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    After the war it was very clear he wanted it
     
    Sure, the fact that USSR sustained a trauma without parallels in human history-27 million dead, most of the country devastated--doesn't matter. Really, what's the big deal, right? As per "wanted", number of very well enlightened English-language sources exist on how Sir Winston was the one who was deep into this business of wanting things. He was the guy who was passing notes to Stalin, not the other way around, with percentages on Europe. The only thing USSR wanted after the war was to be left alone to rebuild. Meanwhile, Western Allies' strategic discussion on the issue of the Second Front provided an ample food for suspicions on the Soviet side. But then again, the answers are on the battlefields and getting them requires a fairly extensive study.
  146. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @5371
    Smoothie, beyond the Rezun thing (not a fan either), I'd be interested in your broader thoughts about where the blame lies for Germany's being able to achieve operational surprise, despite plenty of good intelligence (along with some bad, but when was that absent?) about what was going to happen. If you'd prefer to discuss it on your blog, I can promise you at least one reader.

    In this particular matter, I think, both Glantz and Isaev are the best. The answer, at least large part of it, is not even so much in the surprise itself (the attack was expected) but in the fact of how devastatingly efficient was the application of Blitzkrieg by Wehrmacht and allies, fresh from the triumphs in Europe and having huge operational experience. Even if to imagine that no purges happened in RKKA (Red Army), that all necessary mobilization measures were taken in timely manner, that doctrinally RKKA would have more flexibility, especially in its defensive operations prior to commencement of Barbarossa, even then, the result of the first months of the war would have been approximately the same. In other words, Germans were too damn good and that is the simple truth–by 22 June 1941 it was the mightiest military machine in the history of humanity. I hope I answered your question, at least part of it.

    Read More
  147. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Rurik
    I only mention that weapon because Israel has objected to them being deployed in Syria and Iran and Russia has said they're only defensive weapons.

    What sir do you suppose is the end game with the Ukraine adventure?

    I've always suspected it was a maneuver to pressure Putin to give the green light (or at least get out of the way) as they take out Assad. No?

    What sir do you suppose is the end game with the Ukraine adventure?

    For Russia, Ukraine is not an adventure. The end game, however, is the whole of Ukraine, possibly without Galicia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The end game, however, is the whole of Ukraine
     
    Is this conflict, in your estimation, created by Russia in order to gain more ground, (literally and figuratively) or one foisted on Ukraine and Russia by the West?

    What about MH17?

    more on this

    Russia then will provide financing to the pro-Russian eastern regions which have a larger population and more economic infrastructure, which will exceed anything the EU or U.S. would want to give to any western region, and therewith gradually bring them into Russia’s economic and political orbit, including its customs union.

    Ishchenko argues that Russia could use the same strategy with the western provinces like Galicia, and that even they intrinsically have greater economic interest in being part of the Russian economic space than integrating into Europe.


    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russias-strategy-beginning-has-been-win-all-ukraine/ri8467
  148. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Fran Macadam
    "If one puts S-300 or S-400 next to the US shores, this forward deployment is obviously more than just defensive."

    There are those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense, even a pre-emptive one. And not just in movies like Dr. Strangelove.

    This will be hazardous to our precious bodily fluids.

    There are those who believe that the best defense is a strong offense, even a pre-emptive one. And not just in movies like Dr. Strangelove.

    This will be hazardous to our precious bodily fluids.

    Love Dr.Strangelove (own DVD)–George C.Scott there is incomparable, as he usually was in everything he did. As per defense, US “elites” are not conditio0ned to think in this framework, they also tend to hugely overestimate their “strong offense” defensive capabilities. The results are all around us now and the picture is not pretty at all, politely speaking.

    Read More
  149. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    What sir do you suppose is the end game with the Ukraine adventure?
     
    For Russia, Ukraine is not an adventure. The end game, however, is the whole of Ukraine, possibly without Galicia.

    The end game, however, is the whole of Ukraine

    Is this conflict, in your estimation, created by Russia in order to gain more ground, (literally and figuratively) or one foisted on Ukraine and Russia by the West?

    What about MH17?

    more on this

    Russia then will provide financing to the pro-Russian eastern regions which have a larger population and more economic infrastructure, which will exceed anything the EU or U.S. would want to give to any western region, and therewith gradually bring them into Russia’s economic and political orbit, including its customs union.

    Ishchenko argues that Russia could use the same strategy with the western provinces like Galicia, and that even they intrinsically have greater economic interest in being part of the Russian economic space than integrating into Europe.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russias-strategy-beginning-has-been-win-all-ukraine/ri8467

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Is this conflict, in your estimation, created by Russia in order to gain more ground, (literally and figuratively) or one foisted on Ukraine and Russia by the West?
     
    This conflict is largely the result of 2 strategic factors:

    1. US (and Europe) fomenting it;
    2. Ukraine's failure as a nation.

    Add this together and one gets an explosive mixture. As per Ischenko--a brilliant observer who uses correct methodology, he is also a trained historian and is very competent in the issues of warfare.

  150. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Rurik

    The end game, however, is the whole of Ukraine
     
    Is this conflict, in your estimation, created by Russia in order to gain more ground, (literally and figuratively) or one foisted on Ukraine and Russia by the West?

    What about MH17?

    more on this

    Russia then will provide financing to the pro-Russian eastern regions which have a larger population and more economic infrastructure, which will exceed anything the EU or U.S. would want to give to any western region, and therewith gradually bring them into Russia’s economic and political orbit, including its customs union.

    Ishchenko argues that Russia could use the same strategy with the western provinces like Galicia, and that even they intrinsically have greater economic interest in being part of the Russian economic space than integrating into Europe.


    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russias-strategy-beginning-has-been-win-all-ukraine/ri8467

    Is this conflict, in your estimation, created by Russia in order to gain more ground, (literally and figuratively) or one foisted on Ukraine and Russia by the West?

    This conflict is largely the result of 2 strategic factors:

    1. US (and Europe) fomenting it;
    2. Ukraine’s failure as a nation.

    Add this together and one gets an explosive mixture. As per Ischenko–a brilliant observer who uses correct methodology, he is also a trained historian and is very competent in the issues of warfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    This conflict is largely the result of 2 strategic factors:

    1. US (and Europe) fomenting it;
    2. Ukraine’s failure as a nation.

     

    Thanks for the reply.

    What about lingering angst over the war? Does that play into it? I have always supposed that the 'West' (as I call it, seeing it as being occupied IMO, much like I see Russia was occupied after the revolution and only breathing a breath of free air since Putin's rule) had cynically used that festering angst to incite this conflict.

    You obviously have a wealth of knowledge of the subject so I appreciate your patience since I'm interesting in trying to get a bit of a handle on some of this.
  151. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Rurik
    It's like The Protocols

    who cares if they were a forgery

    They read like an absolute blueprint.

    Like a recipe that was followed to the very grain of salt, just like the WD or the PNAC

    Just as I recently wrote about Stalin's alleged designs on Europe. Who cares if there is proof he said he wanted it before the war. After the war it was very clear he wanted it. We can divine things with pretty good certainly as Monday morning quarterbacks, so to speak. Or for another trite bromide, hindsight is 20/20

    After the war it was very clear he wanted it

    Sure, the fact that USSR sustained a trauma without parallels in human history-27 million dead, most of the country devastated–doesn’t matter. Really, what’s the big deal, right? As per “wanted”, number of very well enlightened English-language sources exist on how Sir Winston was the one who was deep into this business of wanting things. He was the guy who was passing notes to Stalin, not the other way around, with percentages on Europe. The only thing USSR wanted after the war was to be left alone to rebuild. Meanwhile, Western Allies’ strategic discussion on the issue of the Second Front provided an ample food for suspicions on the Soviet side. But then again, the answers are on the battlefields and getting them requires a fairly extensive study.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Sure, the fact that USSR sustained a trauma without parallels in human history-27 million dead, most of the country devastated–doesn’t matter. Really, what’s the big deal, right?
     
    Where you say USSR I think of Russia. In fact I've always more or less considered the USSR as coming into full fruition after the war was over. But the suffering that was imposed on the people of Russia and all the satellite states of the USSR are nothing that I for one would ever disparage. Quite the contrary. But from everything I've read, Hitler was nothing compared to the suffering that all of those people endured under Lenin, Stalin, Yezhov, Kaganovich or Beria. Or the ever charming Bela Kun in Hungary for instance. Compare Hitler's occupation of France or Norway (admittedly appalling) with the rein of Kun in Hungary or Kaganovich in Ukraine. There's no comparison.

    The only thing USSR wanted after the war was to be left alone to rebuild.
     
    You aren't an apologist for the Soviet regime are you? Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact it'd be fascinating to find someone who would try to make that case. Being as the USSR seems to suffer a complete and total repudiation from every corner these days.

    Meanwhile, Western Allies’ strategic discussion on the issue of the Second Front provided an ample food for suspicions on the Soviet side.
     
    The old 'All quiet on the Western Front' meme?

    There again, it seems to me, when I consider the way they bombed Dresden at the waning end of the war, and in particular, the particulars of the Morgenthau plan, that the 'West' (and Churchill especially), had it in for Germany even as much or more so than Stalin did when he was starving East Berlin into submission.
  152. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Is this conflict, in your estimation, created by Russia in order to gain more ground, (literally and figuratively) or one foisted on Ukraine and Russia by the West?
     
    This conflict is largely the result of 2 strategic factors:

    1. US (and Europe) fomenting it;
    2. Ukraine's failure as a nation.

    Add this together and one gets an explosive mixture. As per Ischenko--a brilliant observer who uses correct methodology, he is also a trained historian and is very competent in the issues of warfare.

    This conflict is largely the result of 2 strategic factors:

    1. US (and Europe) fomenting it;
    2. Ukraine’s failure as a nation.

    Thanks for the reply.

    What about lingering angst over the war? Does that play into it? I have always supposed that the ‘West’ (as I call it, seeing it as being occupied IMO, much like I see Russia was occupied after the revolution and only breathing a breath of free air since Putin’s rule) had cynically used that festering angst to incite this conflict.

    You obviously have a wealth of knowledge of the subject so I appreciate your patience since I’m interesting in trying to get a bit of a handle on some of this.

    Read More
  153. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    What about lingering angst over the war? Does that play into it?

    If you are talking about WW II (aka Great patriotic War), this is the factor (centuries old warfare in general too) which defines Russian psyche and culture. You may take a look at this:

    Modern US media cannot anymore ignore this or lie about it (like that it is supposedly Putin’s propaganda) without consequences. For Russians, meanwhile, it is a part of cultural DNA or, as they say today–cultural code.

    P.S. What revolution are you talking about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Russian Revolution
    , @Rurik
    Awesome video, thanks.

    Wish I could have been there!

    How much of that is due to Putin having given the Russian people pride in their heritage and pride in being Russian (and also a resurgent middle class)?

    He's allowed them to return to their beloved Russian Orthodox church. He's stopped the looting of Russia by the uber-criminal oligarchs. He imprisoned one of the worst uber-criminals of all, and only recently let him out as a gesture to his tribe occupying the "West". Imprisoning Khodorkovsky must have felt to the Russian people like we Americans would feel if Obama were to have Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein arrested and imprisoned. An impossible dream. I suspect that we too would march in the streets in a similar manor if we too had a leader like Putin who cared about our nation and our people.
  154. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    After the war it was very clear he wanted it
     
    Sure, the fact that USSR sustained a trauma without parallels in human history-27 million dead, most of the country devastated--doesn't matter. Really, what's the big deal, right? As per "wanted", number of very well enlightened English-language sources exist on how Sir Winston was the one who was deep into this business of wanting things. He was the guy who was passing notes to Stalin, not the other way around, with percentages on Europe. The only thing USSR wanted after the war was to be left alone to rebuild. Meanwhile, Western Allies' strategic discussion on the issue of the Second Front provided an ample food for suspicions on the Soviet side. But then again, the answers are on the battlefields and getting them requires a fairly extensive study.

    Sure, the fact that USSR sustained a trauma without parallels in human history-27 million dead, most of the country devastated–doesn’t matter. Really, what’s the big deal, right?

    Where you say USSR I think of Russia. In fact I’ve always more or less considered the USSR as coming into full fruition after the war was over. But the suffering that was imposed on the people of Russia and all the satellite states of the USSR are nothing that I for one would ever disparage. Quite the contrary. But from everything I’ve read, Hitler was nothing compared to the suffering that all of those people endured under Lenin, Stalin, Yezhov, Kaganovich or Beria. Or the ever charming Bela Kun in Hungary for instance. Compare Hitler’s occupation of France or Norway (admittedly appalling) with the rein of Kun in Hungary or Kaganovich in Ukraine. There’s no comparison.

    The only thing USSR wanted after the war was to be left alone to rebuild.

    You aren’t an apologist for the Soviet regime are you? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. In fact it’d be fascinating to find someone who would try to make that case. Being as the USSR seems to suffer a complete and total repudiation from every corner these days.

    Meanwhile, Western Allies’ strategic discussion on the issue of the Second Front provided an ample food for suspicions on the Soviet side.

    The old ‘All quiet on the Western Front’ meme?

    There again, it seems to me, when I consider the way they bombed Dresden at the waning end of the war, and in particular, the particulars of the Morgenthau plan, that the ‘West’ (and Churchill especially), had it in for Germany even as much or more so than Stalin did when he was starving East Berlin into submission.

    Read More
  155. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    What about lingering angst over the war? Does that play into it?
     
    If you are talking about WW II (aka Great patriotic War), this is the factor (centuries old warfare in general too) which defines Russian psyche and culture. You may take a look at this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tmji_2Q3w

    Modern US media cannot anymore ignore this or lie about it (like that it is supposedly Putin's propaganda) without consequences. For Russians, meanwhile, it is a part of cultural DNA or, as they say today--cultural code.

    P.S. What revolution are you talking about?

    Russian Revolution

    Read More
  156. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    But from everything I’ve read, Hitler was nothing compared to the suffering that all of those people endured under Lenin, Stalin, Yezhov, Kaganovich or Beria. Or the ever charming Bela Kun in Hungary for instance. Compare Hitler’s occupation of France or Norway (admittedly appalling) with the rein of Kun in Hungary or Kaganovich in Ukraine. There’s no comparison.

    Sure, my two grandfathers killed by Wehrmacht (as well as my wife’s–both of them), as well as most of Russian families’, yeah, sure. As none other than Richard Pipes, US foremost anti-Soviet ideologue and anti-communist noted in 1977:

    “Such figures are beyond comprehension of most Americans”(c)

    Continue to read US “right wing” views on history, it will get you far.

    You aren’t an apologist for the Soviet regime are you?

    Or, I am, together with George F. Kennan, US Army’s Colonels Glantz and House, Corelli Barnett and many others. In fact, we all are secret members of US Communist Party–it is good anyway, since allows me to fight off Jehovah Witnesses really well. Carry on, good luck with your “research”.

    Read More
  157. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    What about lingering angst over the war? Does that play into it?
     
    If you are talking about WW II (aka Great patriotic War), this is the factor (centuries old warfare in general too) which defines Russian psyche and culture. You may take a look at this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tmji_2Q3w

    Modern US media cannot anymore ignore this or lie about it (like that it is supposedly Putin's propaganda) without consequences. For Russians, meanwhile, it is a part of cultural DNA or, as they say today--cultural code.

    P.S. What revolution are you talking about?

    Awesome video, thanks.

    Wish I could have been there!

    How much of that is due to Putin having given the Russian people pride in their heritage and pride in being Russian (and also a resurgent middle class)?

    He’s allowed them to return to their beloved Russian Orthodox church. He’s stopped the looting of Russia by the uber-criminal oligarchs. He imprisoned one of the worst uber-criminals of all, and only recently let him out as a gesture to his tribe occupying the “West”. Imprisoning Khodorkovsky must have felt to the Russian people like we Americans would feel if Obama were to have Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein arrested and imprisoned. An impossible dream. I suspect that we too would march in the streets in a similar manor if we too had a leader like Putin who cared about our nation and our people.

    Read More
  158. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    How much of that is due to Putin having given the Russian people pride in their heritage and pride in being Russian (and also a resurgent middle class)?

    Read War And Peace–many questions will be answered. You also may watch Bondarchuk’s cinematographic masterpiece of the same title.

    P.S. Orthodox Church is just a nuance.

    P.P.S. Us “view” of Soviet history is basically one huge propaganda cliche (or booklet) or, we can state that US has no idea about Soviet history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    P.P.S. Us “view” of Soviet history is basically one huge propaganda cliche (or booklet) or, we can state that US has no idea about Soviet history.
     
    I don't doubt it. That's why I treasure opposing views that are beyond and outside the iron matrix information dome we in the US (and west in general) remain sequestered in. Nothing gets in. That's why I periodically visit ultra-nationalistic Russian/Serbian sites like
    www.network54.com/Forum/84302
    to get a glimpse from a different viewpoint. I was appalled when Clinton bombed Serbia, and violated every notion of International Law. I'm convinced Milosevic was murdered for humiliating Carla Del Ponte and the ICC at the Hague. I want to understand these nuanced realities and things that are completely verboten from the western, Hollywood script.

    I'm humbled by the vastness of what I don't know, and take great pleasure in having my eyes opened.

    It's true I've read a lot of rightwing stuff, just as I've been exposed to massive quantities of leftist stuff my entire life.

    My difficulty with the Soviet period could be summed up with one man's body of work and what he's said. A one Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Was he off base?


    PS. I tried to read War and Peace. I didn't have the tenacity of temperament at the time. I loved Dostoevsky's stuff and his work is easy to read, but War and Peace was too plodding for me at the time. Perhaps I'll give it another go.

    Thanks
  159. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    How much of that is due to Putin having given the Russian people pride in their heritage and pride in being Russian (and also a resurgent middle class)?
     
    Read War And Peace--many questions will be answered. You also may watch Bondarchuk's cinematographic masterpiece of the same title.

    P.S. Orthodox Church is just a nuance.

    P.P.S. Us "view" of Soviet history is basically one huge propaganda cliche (or booklet) or, we can state that US has no idea about Soviet history.

    P.P.S. Us “view” of Soviet history is basically one huge propaganda cliche (or booklet) or, we can state that US has no idea about Soviet history.

    I don’t doubt it. That’s why I treasure opposing views that are beyond and outside the iron matrix information dome we in the US (and west in general) remain sequestered in. Nothing gets in. That’s why I periodically visit ultra-nationalistic Russian/Serbian sites like
    http://www.network54.com/Forum/84302
    to get a glimpse from a different viewpoint. I was appalled when Clinton bombed Serbia, and violated every notion of International Law. I’m convinced Milosevic was murdered for humiliating Carla Del Ponte and the ICC at the Hague. I want to understand these nuanced realities and things that are completely verboten from the western, Hollywood script.

    I’m humbled by the vastness of what I don’t know, and take great pleasure in having my eyes opened.

    It’s true I’ve read a lot of rightwing stuff, just as I’ve been exposed to massive quantities of leftist stuff my entire life.

    My difficulty with the Soviet period could be summed up with one man’s body of work and what he’s said. A one Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Was he off base?

    PS. I tried to read War and Peace. I didn’t have the tenacity of temperament at the time. I loved Dostoevsky’s stuff and his work is easy to read, but War and Peace was too plodding for me at the time. Perhaps I’ll give it another go.

    Thanks

    Read More
  160. Kiza says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    P.S. Actually, I don’t need to cite a Cleveland hypothetical. About a decade ago, tens or very likely hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Vioxx, but the MSM ignored it, so almost no one remembers:
     
    1. A physician-led study conservatively estimated that over 1.3 million people have died in the "War on Terror", of which 1.1 million died in Iraq. When the public was polled on how many Iraqis had died, the median estimate was 10,000. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    2. 42% of Americans believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Only 49% of Americans believe WMDs weren't found. http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/false/

    It's utterly shocking that the public knows so little about the most important US military conflict since Vietnam. Of course, when you consider how much war propaganda was pumped out by the media and how little coverage there's been of the war's costs & errors, maybe not that shocking.

    The point is that our MSM is capable of selling govt propaganda and engaging in a massive cover up. So I find it entirely plausible that they could be lying about any number of other issues.

    Heck, Bill O'Reilly did extensive reporting on the conspiracy behind the JFK assassination from the 70s through the 90s. Then a few years ago, he made a film called "Killing Kennedy" in which he blamed the assassination solely on Oswald.

    “The point is that our MSM is capable of selling govt propaganda and engaging in a massive cover up.”

    Error in thinking, the main purpose of MSM is to sell government, lobby group and media owner’s propaganda (instead of “capable of”). But, the so called, government propaganda is the propaganda of the banking, pharmaceutical, military-industrial etc elite. You just showed that propaganda works!!! The Vioxx example of Mr Unz is from the pharma and yours is an example from the military-industrial. Both are good case studies in the public opinion shaped far away from reality.

    The propaganda formula is based on ROI (Return on Investment) – the bigger the pot of money behind something, the more intense is the shaping. Pretty basic, is it not?

    Read More
  161. Ivan says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "The price Stalin wanted for an alliance with the Western powers to contain Hitler was the Baltic states and large swathes of Eastern Europe. Decent men such as Chamberlain and Dedalier could not abide such bargains, selling the peoples of Eastern Europe to a Communist tyranny responsible for the Gulags and the famines."

    Interested in the evidence for and references to material supporting this assertion.

    The westerners themselves at that point had proven somewhat accommodating to Hitler. And ideologically, they were opponents of the Soviet system. It was even a matter of some wishful thinking that it would be a good thing if Germany were to destroy the Soviet Union, which would mean less German resources as well to fight in the the west. An alliance was not thought to be in the western interest - perhaps the two dictatorships would be fatally weakened. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Litvinov, a Jew who had sought the collective-security agreement with the west, was replaced with Molotov after the effort failed, when the Soviet Union was faced with opposing German aggression in the east alone. Hitler was interested for obvious strategic, temporary reasons, and took the measure of Stalin better than the latter did him. Stalin's own personality, always opportunistic and given to both concocting conspiracies (and suspecting them) considered the unexpected change of direction somewhat of a personal coup. The greed of successful conquest and what appeared shared objectives blinded him, something that was fatal eventually to Hitler as well, a believer in his own inevitable conquests by the virtue of initial ones. Megalomania is both the virtue that propels authoritarian personalities and the vice that is their eventual undoing. In some ways, the corollary of "bullshit can get you to the top, but it can't keep you there."

    Let's hope that works for inverted totalitarianisms, as well.

    Fran Macadam,

    Offhand I am not able to provide any citations. The traditional method of containing the German behemoth on the continent, had always involved the Russians in the East. The Westerners would definitely have countenanced an alliance had the Soviet Union not been greedy. This is standard balance of power play, and did not really require either side to like each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Western capitalist leaders were ideologically opposed to alliance with a communist state. Things had to get desperate before it could happen. Having the shock of the unexpected Soviet/German pact helped. The western leaders thought the Soviets had nowhere to go.
  162. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    My difficulty with the Soviet period could be summed up with one man’s body of work and what he’s said. A one Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Was he off base?

    Solzhenitsyn IS NOT representative of Russian culture, in fact, he was oblivious, for a number of reasons, including exile one, to the actual Soviet culture of 1970s and 1980s. In fact, Russian history narrative in the West was solzhenitsified to the point of being unrecognizable. The US on its own volition (for the reasons I will omit describing here) chose to follow what it wanted to hear not what it was, mostly through the so called “dissidents” and anyone who would fit American concept of the outside world–the final act of this folly we are observing today. To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)–to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin. Learning REAL Russian history and, especially, its 20th Century part is dangerous for the US–it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Solzhenitsin had fallen out of favor after publishing the history of Jewish people in Russia. The presented facts were so offensive for the political establishment in the US, that the English translation of the book was banished and it is still not available here. The book's greatest offense is in presenting the irrefutable facts of the disproportionate involvement of Jewish men and women in fomenting the Bolshevik Revolution and then occupying the high-level positions in the security apparatus and Soviet Government. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/200_Years_Together
    Here is a sample of one of the revolutionaries: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Rozaliia_Zemliachka
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalia_Zemlyachka
    , @Rurik

    To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)–to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin.
     
    My research into Russian began with reading about the Viking expeditions at the end of the first millennium and the beginning of the second. With the fascinating persona of King Sviatoslav, who was the kind of king I myself might have followed into battle. Then the struggles and triumphs. The wars with the Mongols and the tragedy of the Russian prince's hubris, when they ended up being used to support a Mongol dinner party served on a platform supported by defeated Russian princes. (The Mongols had their way with parts of Russia at one time). There were all the amazing leaders like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The courageous Cossacks. The Hermitage. The Winter Palace. The Tsars and the ties to Byzantium and Rome and the Catholic Church. The wars with Europe. The Tartars of Crimea and their raids to capture so many millions of Russian slaves over the centuries to sell to the Muslims.

    And on to the Napoleonic war and more recent history with the tragic war with Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. Then the terrible tragedy as I see it of Tsar Nicolas II and his being too feeble in his Christian kindness to handle the problems of the day. (that's why I don't like hereditary rule) The amazing Rasputin. The genocidal Jewish Bolsheviks who would so tragically murder the Tsar and his family in that basement

    http://www.charonboat.com/2007/11/charonboat_dot_com_nicholas_ii_17.jpg

    and then go on to impose a reign of terror so chilling the details of which have hardened my heart at humanity.

    Those are the surface reflections I have of Russia. Who can ever forget The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment?

    So much more, but I don't want to write a book here. Anyways, I wouldn't call it aspirin exactly.

    –it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.
     
    The US had as much to do with winning WWII as it did winning WWI. They came in at the end after all the carnage and horrors and then demanded to be treated like conquering heroes.

    It was Russia the defeated the Nazis. But then Hitler only wanted peace with the west. Hitler's enemy was communism, and we may have to agree to disagree on this point, but had there been no Bolshevik victory over the Tsar and the Russian people, there would have been no WWII. There would have been no Hitler, because Hitler's raison d'etre was to crush the very real communist threat. IMHO.

    There is almost no mantra more sickening to me than that of "American exceptionalism", unless you take it at it's literal interpretation and see that exceptionalism for what it is today; The Fiend unleashed on a hapless world. An exceptional fiend who tortures and butchers innocents and rapes and robs his way across the globe. In that way we are exceptional indeed.

    And I say that on the Fourth of July with a bitter taste of irony in my mouth. (soon to be replaced with cold beer ; )

    Would that the spirit of the men who wrote that Declaration of Independence were still surging through the veins of enough Americans today.

    Anyways that's just one American's partial view of Russia. One day I'd like to go there and see it for myself. To smell it and live it and taste it. With a reverence that people who have a slight appreciation for a place like Russia must certainly feel.
    , @Fran Macadam
    You may be aware Solzhenitsyn was not popular in the U.S. due to his criticisms of its failings. He was never invited to the White House. As a symbol of dissidence from the Soviet, he was useful for the western propaganda war waged in simplistic slogans. As the actual writer and critic, he posed a problem for propagandists and his views are therefore mostly unknown. He was useful for lending "celebrity" to the Cold War cause, but lived almost completely in exile at his remote farm, returning to Russia rather than becoming the typical emigre.

    America was not wanting to hear, "the line between good and evil is not drawn between peoples, but through every human heart." Or "bless you prison, bless you for being in my life, because there, lying on the rotting prison straw, I came to understand that the object of life is not materialism as we are taught, but the maturing of the human soul."

    As for Jehovah's Witnesses, if nothing else they have been brave in refusing to fight in wars. They have been imprisoned for that and famously some were tortured to death at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas military prison, and elsewhere, rather than do what they believed immoral. I always make a point to give this praise where it is due when they come to the door, before telling them I can't otherwise join.

  163. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    My difficulty with the Soviet period could be summed up with one man’s body of work and what he’s said. A one Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Was he off base?
     
    Solzhenitsyn IS NOT representative of Russian culture, in fact, he was oblivious, for a number of reasons, including exile one, to the actual Soviet culture of 1970s and 1980s. In fact, Russian history narrative in the West was solzhenitsified to the point of being unrecognizable. The US on its own volition (for the reasons I will omit describing here) chose to follow what it wanted to hear not what it was, mostly through the so called "dissidents" and anyone who would fit American concept of the outside world--the final act of this folly we are observing today. To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)--to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin. Learning REAL Russian history and, especially, its 20th Century part is dangerous for the US--it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.

    Solzhenitsin had fallen out of favor after publishing the history of Jewish people in Russia. The presented facts were so offensive for the political establishment in the US, that the English translation of the book was banished and it is still not available here. The book’s greatest offense is in presenting the irrefutable facts of the disproportionate involvement of Jewish men and women in fomenting the Bolshevik Revolution and then occupying the high-level positions in the security apparatus and Soviet Government. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/200_Years_Together
    Here is a sample of one of the revolutionaries: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Rozaliia_Zemliachka

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

    Read More
  164. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Solzhenitsin had fallen out of favor after publishing the history of Jewish people in Russia.

    Solzhenitsyn published 200 Years Together BECAUSE he faded into obscurity WAY BEFORE he published his opus about Jews. In other words–it was the other way around. Try harder, I noticed that there is a huge issue with causality on these boards . If you have any questions, as it is expected on these boards from all kinds of internet “scholars” in Russia, Jews what have you–I am 100% purebred ethnic Russian. Again. The field of Soviet/Russian Studies in English-speaking world (especially in US) is dead, period. Also, information and knowledge are not the same, if you getting my drift.

    Read More
  165. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    My difficulty with the Soviet period could be summed up with one man’s body of work and what he’s said. A one Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Was he off base?
     
    Solzhenitsyn IS NOT representative of Russian culture, in fact, he was oblivious, for a number of reasons, including exile one, to the actual Soviet culture of 1970s and 1980s. In fact, Russian history narrative in the West was solzhenitsified to the point of being unrecognizable. The US on its own volition (for the reasons I will omit describing here) chose to follow what it wanted to hear not what it was, mostly through the so called "dissidents" and anyone who would fit American concept of the outside world--the final act of this folly we are observing today. To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)--to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin. Learning REAL Russian history and, especially, its 20th Century part is dangerous for the US--it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.

    To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)–to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin.

    My research into Russian began with reading about the Viking expeditions at the end of the first millennium and the beginning of the second. With the fascinating persona of King Sviatoslav, who was the kind of king I myself might have followed into battle. Then the struggles and triumphs. The wars with the Mongols and the tragedy of the Russian prince’s hubris, when they ended up being used to support a Mongol dinner party served on a platform supported by defeated Russian princes. (The Mongols had their way with parts of Russia at one time). There were all the amazing leaders like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The courageous Cossacks. The Hermitage. The Winter Palace. The Tsars and the ties to Byzantium and Rome and the Catholic Church. The wars with Europe. The Tartars of Crimea and their raids to capture so many millions of Russian slaves over the centuries to sell to the Muslims.

    And on to the Napoleonic war and more recent history with the tragic war with Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. Then the terrible tragedy as I see it of Tsar Nicolas II and his being too feeble in his Christian kindness to handle the problems of the day. (that’s why I don’t like hereditary rule) The amazing Rasputin. The genocidal Jewish Bolsheviks who would so tragically murder the Tsar and his family in that basement

    and then go on to impose a reign of terror so chilling the details of which have hardened my heart at humanity.

    Those are the surface reflections I have of Russia. Who can ever forget The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment?

    So much more, but I don’t want to write a book here. Anyways, I wouldn’t call it aspirin exactly.

    –it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.

    The US had as much to do with winning WWII as it did winning WWI. They came in at the end after all the carnage and horrors and then demanded to be treated like conquering heroes.

    It was Russia the defeated the Nazis. But then Hitler only wanted peace with the west. Hitler’s enemy was communism, and we may have to agree to disagree on this point, but had there been no Bolshevik victory over the Tsar and the Russian people, there would have been no WWII. There would have been no Hitler, because Hitler’s raison d’etre was to crush the very real communist threat. IMHO.

    There is almost no mantra more sickening to me than that of “American exceptionalism”, unless you take it at it’s literal interpretation and see that exceptionalism for what it is today; The Fiend unleashed on a hapless world. An exceptional fiend who tortures and butchers innocents and rapes and robs his way across the globe. In that way we are exceptional indeed.

    And I say that on the Fourth of July with a bitter taste of irony in my mouth. (soon to be replaced with cold beer ; )

    Would that the spirit of the men who wrote that Declaration of Independence were still surging through the veins of enough Americans today.

    Anyways that’s just one American’s partial view of Russia. One day I’d like to go there and see it for myself. To smell it and live it and taste it. With a reverence that people who have a slight appreciation for a place like Russia must certainly feel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    One day I’d like to go there and see it for myself.
     
    As you should. As per agree to disagree-it is not about it, it is about what constitutes the truth. The truth is knowable. As per WW II--it is a global civilization's singularity, the new world emerged from it.
  166. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    Solzhenitsin had fallen out of favor after publishing the history of Jewish people in Russia. The presented facts were so offensive for the political establishment in the US, that the English translation of the book was banished and it is still not available here. The book's greatest offense is in presenting the irrefutable facts of the disproportionate involvement of Jewish men and women in fomenting the Bolshevik Revolution and then occupying the high-level positions in the security apparatus and Soviet Government. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/200_Years_Together
    Here is a sample of one of the revolutionaries: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Rozaliia_Zemliachka
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalia_Zemlyachka

    Read More
  167. Sean T says:
    @Cagey Beast
    The Poles took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. They took area #2 on the map here in the "Resolution" section at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

    It's a small piece of territory but the point is the Poles got the boot in when everyone else was ganging up on the Czechoslovaks.

    Carroll Quigley seemed to suggest that the motive behind the sellout of Czechoslovakia was to get the Czechs to fight Hitler, which they had the army to do. After the war, when the Czech president was asked why he didn’t, he responded that he feared he would have to rely on Stalin’s help to win. Stalin entering the war would then have allowed Britain and France to openly back Germany. After that, Germany divided Poland with Stalin, and Chamberlain’s scheme was foiled. Appeasement? Hardly, the British then did an about face and went with Churchill and Plan B.

    Read More
  168. @Ivan
    Fran Macadam,

    Offhand I am not able to provide any citations. The traditional method of containing the German behemoth on the continent, had always involved the Russians in the East. The Westerners would definitely have countenanced an alliance had the Soviet Union not been greedy. This is standard balance of power play, and did not really require either side to like each other.

    Western capitalist leaders were ideologically opposed to alliance with a communist state. Things had to get desperate before it could happen. Having the shock of the unexpected Soviet/German pact helped. The western leaders thought the Soviets had nowhere to go.

    Read More
  169. @Andrei Martyanov

    My difficulty with the Soviet period could be summed up with one man’s body of work and what he’s said. A one Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Was he off base?
     
    Solzhenitsyn IS NOT representative of Russian culture, in fact, he was oblivious, for a number of reasons, including exile one, to the actual Soviet culture of 1970s and 1980s. In fact, Russian history narrative in the West was solzhenitsified to the point of being unrecognizable. The US on its own volition (for the reasons I will omit describing here) chose to follow what it wanted to hear not what it was, mostly through the so called "dissidents" and anyone who would fit American concept of the outside world--the final act of this folly we are observing today. To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)--to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin. Learning REAL Russian history and, especially, its 20th Century part is dangerous for the US--it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.

    You may be aware Solzhenitsyn was not popular in the U.S. due to his criticisms of its failings. He was never invited to the White House. As a symbol of dissidence from the Soviet, he was useful for the western propaganda war waged in simplistic slogans. As the actual writer and critic, he posed a problem for propagandists and his views are therefore mostly unknown. He was useful for lending “celebrity” to the Cold War cause, but lived almost completely in exile at his remote farm, returning to Russia rather than becoming the typical emigre.

    America was not wanting to hear, “the line between good and evil is not drawn between peoples, but through every human heart.” Or “bless you prison, bless you for being in my life, because there, lying on the rotting prison straw, I came to understand that the object of life is not materialism as we are taught, but the maturing of the human soul.”

    As for Jehovah’s Witnesses, if nothing else they have been brave in refusing to fight in wars. They have been imprisoned for that and famously some were tortured to death at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas military prison, and elsewhere, rather than do what they believed immoral. I always make a point to give this praise where it is due when they come to the door, before telling them I can’t otherwise join.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    You may be aware Solzhenitsyn was not popular in the U.S. due to his criticisms of its failings. He was never invited to the White House.
     
    Solzh gladly supported US Vietnam War. He also stated that the difference between Stalin and Hitler was only in mustache. Most of US "intellectual" elite never read his geopolitical rants--I love talking with US Ph.Ds. on this issue--I get the kick out of it. Again, Solzh's interpretation of WW II is a case of schizophrenia. Other than that, sure, he is so good. I wonder why Russians fight his writings being the part of Russian Literature studies. As per "being invited to White House", Reagan surely thought that Mujaheddin were "equivalent" of US Founding Fathers. I guess ISIS are the direct derivative of Jeffersonian Democracy.

    P.S. The idiocy of US East Coast "academe" is legendary.

  170. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Fran Macadam
    You may be aware Solzhenitsyn was not popular in the U.S. due to his criticisms of its failings. He was never invited to the White House. As a symbol of dissidence from the Soviet, he was useful for the western propaganda war waged in simplistic slogans. As the actual writer and critic, he posed a problem for propagandists and his views are therefore mostly unknown. He was useful for lending "celebrity" to the Cold War cause, but lived almost completely in exile at his remote farm, returning to Russia rather than becoming the typical emigre.

    America was not wanting to hear, "the line between good and evil is not drawn between peoples, but through every human heart." Or "bless you prison, bless you for being in my life, because there, lying on the rotting prison straw, I came to understand that the object of life is not materialism as we are taught, but the maturing of the human soul."

    As for Jehovah's Witnesses, if nothing else they have been brave in refusing to fight in wars. They have been imprisoned for that and famously some were tortured to death at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas military prison, and elsewhere, rather than do what they believed immoral. I always make a point to give this praise where it is due when they come to the door, before telling them I can't otherwise join.

    You may be aware Solzhenitsyn was not popular in the U.S. due to his criticisms of its failings. He was never invited to the White House.

    Solzh gladly supported US Vietnam War. He also stated that the difference between Stalin and Hitler was only in mustache. Most of US “intellectual” elite never read his geopolitical rants–I love talking with US Ph.Ds. on this issue–I get the kick out of it. Again, Solzh’s interpretation of WW II is a case of schizophrenia. Other than that, sure, he is so good. I wonder why Russians fight his writings being the part of Russian Literature studies. As per “being invited to White House”, Reagan surely thought that Mujaheddin were “equivalent” of US Founding Fathers. I guess ISIS are the direct derivative of Jeffersonian Democracy.

    P.S. The idiocy of US East Coast “academe” is legendary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Being dragged from war to Siberian camp zekdom for minor criticism in letter no doubt leads to personal bias. Yet novels "Cancer Ward" and "First Circle" are truly literature. The former has passages that parallel Dostoyevsky's "House of the Dead." The latter is particularly timely for the irony of what purposes and practices mass surveillance by western secret security state police have achieved under what Sheldon Wolin calls managed democracy, Superpower and inverted totalitarianism. I read all volumes of Gulag Archipelago, something I found almost no one who had the volumes did. If fellow human beings could suffer then as a fellow human being I should not turn away.

    Solzhenitsyn was a man not a god. I don't think there is anyone around who has every answer or sees but darkly, even those who do so more clearly. Even the prophetic have feet of clay. I am old enough now to appreciate, engage thought, but not hero worship.

    Famously Tolstoy could not get along with his wife, despite his philosophy. Dostoyevsky behaved as someone with a bad gambling addiction. Yet, despite this, or because of it, the prison scene in "House of the Dead" of Christmas celebrations by the prisoners, ending with appeal to the mercy of Christ - obviously the whole world being prisoners of the same sin.

    For myself, I thought when watching "Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears" that my own Cold War induced anticommunism, driven by antipathy to totalitarianism and authoritarianism personally, still did not justify nuclear annihilation of people who were still moral human beings despite being within another system of reference. When we just saw the Youtube link you gave of the Russian heavy metal rock, we thought again, what insanity to target lives of human beings just like us.

    To end up in a place where one thinks like Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, Ghandi or finally as Jesus himself about war making, is for some career suicide and joblessness. But what can you do other than proceed according to what you see through that glass darkly, if you do not want to succumb to the banality of evil.

  171. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Rurik

    To put it in medical terms (albeit with positive connotation, despite scary titles)–to treat a cancer, one has to diagnose it and then start with chemo, not with aspirin.
     
    My research into Russian began with reading about the Viking expeditions at the end of the first millennium and the beginning of the second. With the fascinating persona of King Sviatoslav, who was the kind of king I myself might have followed into battle. Then the struggles and triumphs. The wars with the Mongols and the tragedy of the Russian prince's hubris, when they ended up being used to support a Mongol dinner party served on a platform supported by defeated Russian princes. (The Mongols had their way with parts of Russia at one time). There were all the amazing leaders like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The courageous Cossacks. The Hermitage. The Winter Palace. The Tsars and the ties to Byzantium and Rome and the Catholic Church. The wars with Europe. The Tartars of Crimea and their raids to capture so many millions of Russian slaves over the centuries to sell to the Muslims.

    And on to the Napoleonic war and more recent history with the tragic war with Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. Then the terrible tragedy as I see it of Tsar Nicolas II and his being too feeble in his Christian kindness to handle the problems of the day. (that's why I don't like hereditary rule) The amazing Rasputin. The genocidal Jewish Bolsheviks who would so tragically murder the Tsar and his family in that basement

    http://www.charonboat.com/2007/11/charonboat_dot_com_nicholas_ii_17.jpg

    and then go on to impose a reign of terror so chilling the details of which have hardened my heart at humanity.

    Those are the surface reflections I have of Russia. Who can ever forget The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment?

    So much more, but I don't want to write a book here. Anyways, I wouldn't call it aspirin exactly.

    –it blows American exceptionalism out of the water. That is why whole industry exists in the US on reassigning the credit for WW I and, especially, for WW II to the US.
     
    The US had as much to do with winning WWII as it did winning WWI. They came in at the end after all the carnage and horrors and then demanded to be treated like conquering heroes.

    It was Russia the defeated the Nazis. But then Hitler only wanted peace with the west. Hitler's enemy was communism, and we may have to agree to disagree on this point, but had there been no Bolshevik victory over the Tsar and the Russian people, there would have been no WWII. There would have been no Hitler, because Hitler's raison d'etre was to crush the very real communist threat. IMHO.

    There is almost no mantra more sickening to me than that of "American exceptionalism", unless you take it at it's literal interpretation and see that exceptionalism for what it is today; The Fiend unleashed on a hapless world. An exceptional fiend who tortures and butchers innocents and rapes and robs his way across the globe. In that way we are exceptional indeed.

    And I say that on the Fourth of July with a bitter taste of irony in my mouth. (soon to be replaced with cold beer ; )

    Would that the spirit of the men who wrote that Declaration of Independence were still surging through the veins of enough Americans today.

    Anyways that's just one American's partial view of Russia. One day I'd like to go there and see it for myself. To smell it and live it and taste it. With a reverence that people who have a slight appreciation for a place like Russia must certainly feel.

    One day I’d like to go there and see it for myself.

    As you should. As per agree to disagree-it is not about it, it is about what constitutes the truth. The truth is knowable. As per WW II–it is a global civilization’s singularity, the new world emerged from it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    May be more accurate to say that the singularity is closer to viewing both WWI and WWII as one conflict with a pause for breath. Many bad things developed from the consequences of the one to create the next. And now here we are, with either few strategists understanding or if they do don't care. However, many earlier tendencies and historical developments contribute, nothing is in isolation even if it takes a long time to see just how. It may even be, history is the long war against God, culminating in a suicide of mankind.
    , @Rurik
    ".. it is about what constitutes the truth. The truth is knowable. "

    well then...

    'had there been no Bolshevik victory over the Tsar and the Russian people, there would have been no WWII. There would have been no Hitler'

    ?


    WW II–it is a global civilization’s singularity,
     
    Indeed

    But we all are our own singularity too.

    We all have our trajectories, just as does history.
  172. @Andrei Martyanov

    You may be aware Solzhenitsyn was not popular in the U.S. due to his criticisms of its failings. He was never invited to the White House.
     
    Solzh gladly supported US Vietnam War. He also stated that the difference between Stalin and Hitler was only in mustache. Most of US "intellectual" elite never read his geopolitical rants--I love talking with US Ph.Ds. on this issue--I get the kick out of it. Again, Solzh's interpretation of WW II is a case of schizophrenia. Other than that, sure, he is so good. I wonder why Russians fight his writings being the part of Russian Literature studies. As per "being invited to White House", Reagan surely thought that Mujaheddin were "equivalent" of US Founding Fathers. I guess ISIS are the direct derivative of Jeffersonian Democracy.

    P.S. The idiocy of US East Coast "academe" is legendary.

    Being dragged from war to Siberian camp zekdom for minor criticism in letter no doubt leads to personal bias. Yet novels “Cancer Ward” and “First Circle” are truly literature. The former has passages that parallel Dostoyevsky’s “House of the Dead.” The latter is particularly timely for the irony of what purposes and practices mass surveillance by western secret security state police have achieved under what Sheldon Wolin calls managed democracy, Superpower and inverted totalitarianism. I read all volumes of Gulag Archipelago, something I found almost no one who had the volumes did. If fellow human beings could suffer then as a fellow human being I should not turn away.

    Solzhenitsyn was a man not a god. I don’t think there is anyone around who has every answer or sees but darkly, even those who do so more clearly. Even the prophetic have feet of clay. I am old enough now to appreciate, engage thought, but not hero worship.

    Famously Tolstoy could not get along with his wife, despite his philosophy. Dostoyevsky behaved as someone with a bad gambling addiction. Yet, despite this, or because of it, the prison scene in “House of the Dead” of Christmas celebrations by the prisoners, ending with appeal to the mercy of Christ – obviously the whole world being prisoners of the same sin.

    For myself, I thought when watching “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears” that my own Cold War induced anticommunism, driven by antipathy to totalitarianism and authoritarianism personally, still did not justify nuclear annihilation of people who were still moral human beings despite being within another system of reference. When we just saw the Youtube link you gave of the Russian heavy metal rock, we thought again, what insanity to target lives of human beings just like us.

    To end up in a place where one thinks like Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, Ghandi or finally as Jesus himself about war making, is for some career suicide and joblessness. But what can you do other than proceed according to what you see through that glass darkly, if you do not want to succumb to the banality of evil.

    Read More
  173. @Andrei Martyanov

    One day I’d like to go there and see it for myself.
     
    As you should. As per agree to disagree-it is not about it, it is about what constitutes the truth. The truth is knowable. As per WW II--it is a global civilization's singularity, the new world emerged from it.

    May be more accurate to say that the singularity is closer to viewing both WWI and WWII as one conflict with a pause for breath. Many bad things developed from the consequences of the one to create the next. And now here we are, with either few strategists understanding or if they do don’t care. However, many earlier tendencies and historical developments contribute, nothing is in isolation even if it takes a long time to see just how. It may even be, history is the long war against God, culminating in a suicide of mankind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    WWI and WWII as one conflict with a pause for breath. Many bad things developed from the consequences of the one to create the next. And now here we are
     
    Yep

    On the brink of the next one. And everything I've read about the first two lead me to believe they were completely avoidable and contrived by a tiny elite who profited by them and enjoyed the spectacle. Just as they are unmoved by the millions of people slaughtered so far in this century by wars and aggressions all based on lies, as they foment war in Ukraine, just as they are doing in Syria and the wider Levant.

    It seems to be humanity (and sanity) vs. these Satanic war pigs. And we're losing.

    My contention with The Smooth One is that Russia should lessen the 'heroic Red Army' bravado with its neighbors (even if it is justified from the Russian point of view). The Satellite States have memories of Russian nationals being foisted upon their communities and even today there is strife between the Russian speaking peoples who were brought in during the Soviet period and the natives of places like Estonia or Latvia. Bad memories of decades of communism and its top down, individuality crushing gall. That is the fault line that NATO (and those Satanic elites I just mentioned) are cynically abusing to foist their next campaign of human horror$ writ large on a duped people that won't know what hit them until they too are the next Libya or Syria (or yesterday's Stalingrad or Hiroshima or Dresden)

    From my perspective, having the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me the differences between the average resident of Stalingrad and Dresden were negligible when compared to their similarities. They were simply people who were all ground up by the same mass insanity imposed on them from above by International Bankers who had funded Lenin's rise to power and Trotsky's intrigues just as they had brought Hitler to power.

    And they're doing it all again today right in front of our eyes.

    There's not a nickels bit of difference between what's going on in Ukraine and what's going on in Syria (or WWI and II) when you consider who's behind it all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEudf8NOuY
  174. Rurik says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    One day I’d like to go there and see it for myself.
     
    As you should. As per agree to disagree-it is not about it, it is about what constitutes the truth. The truth is knowable. As per WW II--it is a global civilization's singularity, the new world emerged from it.

    “.. it is about what constitutes the truth. The truth is knowable. ”

    well then…

    ‘had there been no Bolshevik victory over the Tsar and the Russian people, there would have been no WWII. There would have been no Hitler’

    ?

    WW II–it is a global civilization’s singularity,

    Indeed

    But we all are our own singularity too.

    We all have our trajectories, just as does history.

    Read More
  175. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    May be more accurate to say that the singularity is closer to viewing both WWI and WWII as one conflict with a pause for breath. Many bad things developed from the consequences of the one to create the next. And now here we are, with either few strategists understanding or if they do don't care. However, many earlier tendencies and historical developments contribute, nothing is in isolation even if it takes a long time to see just how. It may even be, history is the long war against God, culminating in a suicide of mankind.

    WWI and WWII as one conflict with a pause for breath. Many bad things developed from the consequences of the one to create the next. And now here we are

    Yep

    On the brink of the next one. And everything I’ve read about the first two lead me to believe they were completely avoidable and contrived by a tiny elite who profited by them and enjoyed the spectacle. Just as they are unmoved by the millions of people slaughtered so far in this century by wars and aggressions all based on lies, as they foment war in Ukraine, just as they are doing in Syria and the wider Levant.

    It seems to be humanity (and sanity) vs. these Satanic war pigs. And we’re losing.

    My contention with The Smooth One is that Russia should lessen the ‘heroic Red Army’ bravado with its neighbors (even if it is justified from the Russian point of view). The Satellite States have memories of Russian nationals being foisted upon their communities and even today there is strife between the Russian speaking peoples who were brought in during the Soviet period and the natives of places like Estonia or Latvia. Bad memories of decades of communism and its top down, individuality crushing gall. That is the fault line that NATO (and those Satanic elites I just mentioned) are cynically abusing to foist their next campaign of human horror$ writ large on a duped people that won’t know what hit them until they too are the next Libya or Syria (or yesterday’s Stalingrad or Hiroshima or Dresden)

    From my perspective, having the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me the differences between the average resident of Stalingrad and Dresden were negligible when compared to their similarities. They were simply people who were all ground up by the same mass insanity imposed on them from above by International Bankers who had funded Lenin’s rise to power and Trotsky’s intrigues just as they had brought Hitler to power.

    And they’re doing it all again today right in front of our eyes.

    There’s not a nickels bit of difference between what’s going on in Ukraine and what’s going on in Syria (or WWI and II) when you consider who’s behind it all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEudf8NOuY

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Wonder if the Snowden docs, WikiLeaks or some as yet unknown whistleblower can tell us who really authored the identical Iraq war speech given in Five Eyes legislatures?
  176. @Rurik

    WWI and WWII as one conflict with a pause for breath. Many bad things developed from the consequences of the one to create the next. And now here we are
     
    Yep

    On the brink of the next one. And everything I've read about the first two lead me to believe they were completely avoidable and contrived by a tiny elite who profited by them and enjoyed the spectacle. Just as they are unmoved by the millions of people slaughtered so far in this century by wars and aggressions all based on lies, as they foment war in Ukraine, just as they are doing in Syria and the wider Levant.

    It seems to be humanity (and sanity) vs. these Satanic war pigs. And we're losing.

    My contention with The Smooth One is that Russia should lessen the 'heroic Red Army' bravado with its neighbors (even if it is justified from the Russian point of view). The Satellite States have memories of Russian nationals being foisted upon their communities and even today there is strife between the Russian speaking peoples who were brought in during the Soviet period and the natives of places like Estonia or Latvia. Bad memories of decades of communism and its top down, individuality crushing gall. That is the fault line that NATO (and those Satanic elites I just mentioned) are cynically abusing to foist their next campaign of human horror$ writ large on a duped people that won't know what hit them until they too are the next Libya or Syria (or yesterday's Stalingrad or Hiroshima or Dresden)

    From my perspective, having the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me the differences between the average resident of Stalingrad and Dresden were negligible when compared to their similarities. They were simply people who were all ground up by the same mass insanity imposed on them from above by International Bankers who had funded Lenin's rise to power and Trotsky's intrigues just as they had brought Hitler to power.

    And they're doing it all again today right in front of our eyes.

    There's not a nickels bit of difference between what's going on in Ukraine and what's going on in Syria (or WWI and II) when you consider who's behind it all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEudf8NOuY

    Wonder if the Snowden docs, WikiLeaks or some as yet unknown whistleblower can tell us who really authored the identical Iraq war speech given in Five Eyes legislatures?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Probably the same folks who handed Jane Stanley the script describing how WTC Building Seven came down - before it did.

    All of this is orchestrated, and even when we have proof of it, like the 'dueling puppets' video or the Stanley BBC broadcast that proves advanced knowledge by our elites (and therefore complicity), not too many people seem to care.

    What seems very clear is that 911 was the pretext to the wars in the Middle East as General Clark laid out. And that this is all tied to the PNAC, just as the strife in Ukraine is all tied to it.

    We don't need Snowden or WikiLeaks to know there is a Zionist hand behind it all.

    What I'll find interesting is how they're going to foist their lies about MH17 on the world. On one side will be the script that all the western world leaders and media will read like so many puppets, and on the other side will be all the people who know it's all lies, like Malaysia and Russia (and the pilot who riddled the MH17 cockpit with his 30mm machine gun cannon). How are they going to force their lies on the world and get everyone to go along with it?

    All the tragedy notwithstanding, it's become a sort of popcorn theater for me I confess.
  177. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Wonder if the Snowden docs, WikiLeaks or some as yet unknown whistleblower can tell us who really authored the identical Iraq war speech given in Five Eyes legislatures?

    Probably the same folks who handed Jane Stanley the script describing how WTC Building Seven came down – before it did.

    All of this is orchestrated, and even when we have proof of it, like the ‘dueling puppets’ video or the Stanley BBC broadcast that proves advanced knowledge by our elites (and therefore complicity), not too many people seem to care.

    What seems very clear is that 911 was the pretext to the wars in the Middle East as General Clark laid out. And that this is all tied to the PNAC, just as the strife in Ukraine is all tied to it.

    We don’t need Snowden or WikiLeaks to know there is a Zionist hand behind it all.

    What I’ll find interesting is how they’re going to foist their lies about MH17 on the world. On one side will be the script that all the western world leaders and media will read like so many puppets, and on the other side will be all the people who know it’s all lies, like Malaysia and Russia (and the pilot who riddled the MH17 cockpit with his 30mm machine gun cannon). How are they going to force their lies on the world and get everyone to go along with it?

    All the tragedy notwithstanding, it’s become a sort of popcorn theater for me I confess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    I don't buy into anti-Semitic conspiracy fabulisms that feature Hitleresque interpretations of "the Jews" as the authors of the ills of the world. It's simply a distraction that stands in the way of practical reform. Lord knows, you can find disreputable as well as admirable individuals among all the families on the earth. What we can say, is you can recognize Wolin's description of inverted totalitarianism, managed democracy and Superpower as accurate for understanding just how America is ruled by corporate wealth and power and excludes the vast swathe of most Americans, regardless of ethnic origin or religious persuasion.
  178. @Rurik
    Probably the same folks who handed Jane Stanley the script describing how WTC Building Seven came down - before it did.

    All of this is orchestrated, and even when we have proof of it, like the 'dueling puppets' video or the Stanley BBC broadcast that proves advanced knowledge by our elites (and therefore complicity), not too many people seem to care.

    What seems very clear is that 911 was the pretext to the wars in the Middle East as General Clark laid out. And that this is all tied to the PNAC, just as the strife in Ukraine is all tied to it.

    We don't need Snowden or WikiLeaks to know there is a Zionist hand behind it all.

    What I'll find interesting is how they're going to foist their lies about MH17 on the world. On one side will be the script that all the western world leaders and media will read like so many puppets, and on the other side will be all the people who know it's all lies, like Malaysia and Russia (and the pilot who riddled the MH17 cockpit with his 30mm machine gun cannon). How are they going to force their lies on the world and get everyone to go along with it?

    All the tragedy notwithstanding, it's become a sort of popcorn theater for me I confess.

    I don’t buy into anti-Semitic conspiracy fabulisms that feature Hitleresque interpretations of “the Jews” as the authors of the ills of the world. It’s simply a distraction that stands in the way of practical reform. Lord knows, you can find disreputable as well as admirable individuals among all the families on the earth. What we can say, is you can recognize Wolin’s description of inverted totalitarianism, managed democracy and Superpower as accurate for understanding just how America is ruled by corporate wealth and power and excludes the vast swathe of most Americans, regardless of ethnic origin or religious persuasion.

    Read More
  179. Rurik says:

    Fran, Fran, Fran,

    For a smart person you sure are quick to excrete knee-jerk shibboleths.

    anti-Semitic conspiracy fabulisms

    I say Zionists have far too much influence over the foreign policy of the US, and the west in general, and were involved in some degree with 911 and the push for wars on Iran, Libya, and Syria (a non-brainer) and you accuse me of wanting to shove little Jewish girls into ovens…

    Hitleresque interpretations of “the Jews”

    Not all Jews are uber-Zionists Fran, nor all Zionists Jews. But to ‘protesteth too much’ at anyone mentioning Zionist influence over the foreign policy of the US and its war on states Israel wants destroyed, like Assad’s Syria, does not take a herculean intellectual effort. You don’t have to be a genius to see that Bibi wants the US and west to destroy Iran also, now does it?

    the authors of the ills of the world

    Some Fran. Some of the ills of the world. And always with the sycophantic and sniveling servility of the Five Eyes you speak of.

    What about the Palestinians Fran? When they suffer the ravages of uber-Zionism (as they often do), do you call them Hitleresque anti-Semites for their myopic and irrational hatred of ‘the Jews’ (the Zionists)?

    I certainly do not blame “the Jews’ for all the ills in the world Fran. That of course would be infantile and egregious, but neither do I give Jews a pass when their hands are bloody. And Bibi’s hands are dripping. Just as are our leaders who’ve mass-murdered over a million souls for ‘reasons’ that all boil down to lies. I want to expose the lies Fran. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I write this pap. To use this place as a foil to find out how I’m in error. But I was hoping for more than just the official slogans regurgitated back at me like a daytime talk show host reading a script.

    It behooves us not to straight-jacket our minds into the parameters of the narratives that our leaders have created for us. IMHO

    PS, I enjoy your stuff ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Excellent post!

    I would have made just one minor edit to the following sentence:


    "Just as are our leaders who’ve mass-murdered over a million souls for ‘reasons’ that all boil down to lies"... because the real reason is to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle!
     
  180. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik
    Fran, Fran, Fran,

    For a smart person you sure are quick to excrete knee-jerk shibboleths.


    anti-Semitic conspiracy fabulisms
     
    I say Zionists have far too much influence over the foreign policy of the US, and the west in general, and were involved in some degree with 911 and the push for wars on Iran, Libya, and Syria (a non-brainer) and you accuse me of wanting to shove little Jewish girls into ovens...

    Hitleresque interpretations of “the Jews”
     
    Not all Jews are uber-Zionists Fran, nor all Zionists Jews. But to 'protesteth too much' at anyone mentioning Zionist influence over the foreign policy of the US and its war on states Israel wants destroyed, like Assad's Syria, does not take a herculean intellectual effort. You don't have to be a genius to see that Bibi wants the US and west to destroy Iran also, now does it?

    the authors of the ills of the world

     

    Some Fran. Some of the ills of the world. And always with the sycophantic and sniveling servility of the Five Eyes you speak of.

    What about the Palestinians Fran? When they suffer the ravages of uber-Zionism (as they often do), do you call them Hitleresque anti-Semites for their myopic and irrational hatred of 'the Jews' (the Zionists)?

    I certainly do not blame "the Jews' for all the ills in the world Fran. That of course would be infantile and egregious, but neither do I give Jews a pass when their hands are bloody. And Bibi's hands are dripping. Just as are our leaders who've mass-murdered over a million souls for 'reasons' that all boil down to lies. I want to expose the lies Fran. That's why I'm here. That's why I write this pap. To use this place as a foil to find out how I'm in error. But I was hoping for more than just the official slogans regurgitated back at me like a daytime talk show host reading a script.

    It behooves us not to straight-jacket our minds into the parameters of the narratives that our leaders have created for us. IMHO


    PS, I enjoy your stuff ; )

    Excellent post!

    I would have made just one minor edit to the following sentence:

    “Just as are our leaders who’ve mass-murdered over a million souls for ‘reasons’ that all boil down to lies”… because the real reason is to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Thanks

    And you're right of course ; )

    but to point out the obvious I guess makes one a Hitler

    They hate us for our freedom'
  181. Rurik says:
    @geokat62
    Excellent post!

    I would have made just one minor edit to the following sentence:


    "Just as are our leaders who’ve mass-murdered over a million souls for ‘reasons’ that all boil down to lies"... because the real reason is to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle!
     

    Thanks

    And you’re right of course ; )

    but to point out the obvious I guess makes one a Hitler

    They hate us for our freedom’

    Read More
  182. “neither do I give Jews a pass”

    It’s perfectly accurate to name names of individuals who take actions and bear responsibility for them. You named some of them, who make just the same mistake, who “neither do give Palestinians a pass.”

    It is entirely inaccurate to pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity whose relations with one another are based on tenuous genetic associations and most of whom neither know the individuals involved nor have ever been consulted.

    Like blaming all of the same background for Bushes or Clintons. Or half for the current President. If alliance with Likudniks, or Saudis, didn’t also mostly serve elitist interests in our own country, those alliances would be quickly dispensed with, even that with “Bandar Bush,” out of their own economic and political self-interest.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, selfish and megalomaniacal individuals are quick to betray their own relations if there is personal advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    It is entirely inaccurate to pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity...
     
    Fran, how do you reconcile the statement above with the one below?

    Not all Jews are uber-Zionists Fran, nor all Zionists Jews.
     
    I think if you reread his post, it is pretty clear that Bob was condemning the behaviour of "uber-Zionists" as he phrased it and not an entire ethnicity.

    Not sure why you insist on doing this. Can we not criticize a segment of an ethnic group without being accused of denigrating the entire group?
    , @Rurik

    You named some of them, who make just the same mistake, who “neither do give Palestinians a pass.”
     
    Never have I ever stated a problem with or condemnation of Jews as a people Fran. Never. I have stated a problem with uber-Zionists as I call them, but the difference between uber-Zionists and Jews is the exact same difference between Nazis and Germans. Is that distinction possible for you to make? It's a fair question it seems.

    pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity
     
    OMG!

    WHEN have I ever done that?!

    NEVER Fran. Never have I or would I. Let me see if I can get something through your iron matrix of knee-jerk paradigm pre-judgments, OK?

    I condemn uber-Zionism and its murderous, genocidal advocates and perpetrators. That is NOT the same as condemning all Jews. In fact some of the most ardent and eloquent opponents of uber-Zionism are themselves Jews Fran. For instance, the man who wrote the article that we're both on the comment section of. He is a very righteous and very noble Jew who has written extensively on the evils and foul crimes of Zionism. I have nothing but tones of respect for this man, and read everything that he writes eagerly and hungrily because there is such a dearth of writers who write with such knowledge and perspicacious perspective. He is a Jew Fran, and I don't want to push him into an oven or gas him. Does that knowledge do something to your knee-jerk, automatic assumption that anyone who criticizes Zionist intrigues = someone who hates or wants to kill all Jews ?

    I find it amazing how quick people are to automatically assume that anyone who criticizes some of the things some Jews (and others) do, that it means automatically that they hate all Jews and presumably think Hitler was right.

    It doesn't work that way. Condemning some of the things Jews do, like genociding Arabs on Arab land, is not the same thing as wanting to genocide Jews Fran. What I do, what a lot of people do, (Jews too) is to condemn the act of genocide itself, no matter who is doing it to whom. Can you at least try to understand that? Please?

    What the white man did to the American Indians was wrong and contemptible. It doesn't mean I hate white people. What the Turks did to the Arminian Christians was wrong and contemptible. It doesn't mean I hate Turks. What Americans are going to those men in Gitmo or in Syria is wrong and contemptible. It doesn't mean I hate all Americans.

    But somehow if I criticize some of the more outrageous things some Jews (and others) do, like 911 and foisting wars, then it automatically means = I hate Jerry Seinfeld and Elaine and want to push them into a gas chamber.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, selfish and megalomaniacal individuals are quick to betray their own relations if there is personal advantage.
     
    If it became expedient tomorrow for the world's politicians to advocate for and serve the interests of the Palestinian people while at the same time opposing Israel.. if it were in their personal interests to do so.. I have absolutely zero doubt that everyone from John McCain to Benjamin Netanyahu would be frothing their bile at those terrible Zionists and singing the praises of the late statesman Yasser Arafat.

    They're all whores. That's what they do.

    It just so happens that today it's in their perceived interest to serve the war-mongering, genocidal Zionist Fiend stomping all over the world's stage.

    What I advocate for is simply that we all remove our collective support for the Fiend. Whether or not some or even many of them are - yes Fran - Jewish. I don't care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn). So did tens of millions of non-Jews in that evil, contrived war. Nobody gets a pass. Not from me. And if that means that there are people that will automatically make quantum leaps in logic to try to equate criticism of what some Jews do, with hating all Jews, then so be it. All I can do is tell the simple, honest truth. I can't make people use their God given brains.
  183. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "neither do I give Jews a pass"

    It's perfectly accurate to name names of individuals who take actions and bear responsibility for them. You named some of them, who make just the same mistake, who "neither do give Palestinians a pass."

    It is entirely inaccurate to pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity whose relations with one another are based on tenuous genetic associations and most of whom neither know the individuals involved nor have ever been consulted.

    Like blaming all of the same background for Bushes or Clintons. Or half for the current President. If alliance with Likudniks, or Saudis, didn't also mostly serve elitist interests in our own country, those alliances would be quickly dispensed with, even that with "Bandar Bush," out of their own economic and political self-interest.

    In case you hadn't noticed, selfish and megalomaniacal individuals are quick to betray their own relations if there is personal advantage.

    It is entirely inaccurate to pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity…

    Fran, how do you reconcile the statement above with the one below?

    Not all Jews are uber-Zionists Fran, nor all Zionists Jews.

    I think if you reread his post, it is pretty clear that Bob was condemning the behaviour of “uber-Zionists” as he phrased it and not an entire ethnicity.

    Not sure why you insist on doing this. Can we not criticize a segment of an ethnic group without being accused of denigrating the entire group?

    Read More
  184. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "neither do I give Jews a pass"

    It's perfectly accurate to name names of individuals who take actions and bear responsibility for them. You named some of them, who make just the same mistake, who "neither do give Palestinians a pass."

    It is entirely inaccurate to pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity whose relations with one another are based on tenuous genetic associations and most of whom neither know the individuals involved nor have ever been consulted.

    Like blaming all of the same background for Bushes or Clintons. Or half for the current President. If alliance with Likudniks, or Saudis, didn't also mostly serve elitist interests in our own country, those alliances would be quickly dispensed with, even that with "Bandar Bush," out of their own economic and political self-interest.

    In case you hadn't noticed, selfish and megalomaniacal individuals are quick to betray their own relations if there is personal advantage.

    You named some of them, who make just the same mistake, who “neither do give Palestinians a pass.”

    Never have I ever stated a problem with or condemnation of Jews as a people Fran. Never. I have stated a problem with uber-Zionists as I call them, but the difference between uber-Zionists and Jews is the exact same difference between Nazis and Germans. Is that distinction possible for you to make? It’s a fair question it seems.

    pronounce your blanket judgment on an entire ethnicity

    OMG!

    WHEN have I ever done that?!

    NEVER Fran. Never have I or would I. Let me see if I can get something through your iron matrix of knee-jerk paradigm pre-judgments, OK?

    I condemn uber-Zionism and its murderous, genocidal advocates and perpetrators. That is NOT the same as condemning all Jews. In fact some of the most ardent and eloquent opponents of uber-Zionism are themselves Jews Fran. For instance, the man who wrote the article that we’re both on the comment section of. He is a very righteous and very noble Jew who has written extensively on the evils and foul crimes of Zionism. I have nothing but tones of respect for this man, and read everything that he writes eagerly and hungrily because there is such a dearth of writers who write with such knowledge and perspicacious perspective. He is a Jew Fran, and I don’t want to push him into an oven or gas him. Does that knowledge do something to your knee-jerk, automatic assumption that anyone who criticizes Zionist intrigues = someone who hates or wants to kill all Jews ?

    I find it amazing how quick people are to automatically assume that anyone who criticizes some of the things some Jews (and others) do, that it means automatically that they hate all Jews and presumably think Hitler was right.

    It doesn’t work that way. Condemning some of the things Jews do, like genociding Arabs on Arab land, is not the same thing as wanting to genocide Jews Fran. What I do, what a lot of people do, (Jews too) is to condemn the act of genocide itself, no matter who is doing it to whom. Can you at least try to understand that? Please?

    What the white man did to the American Indians was wrong and contemptible. It doesn’t mean I hate white people. What the Turks did to the Arminian Christians was wrong and contemptible. It doesn’t mean I hate Turks. What Americans are going to those men in Gitmo or in Syria is wrong and contemptible. It doesn’t mean I hate all Americans.

    But somehow if I criticize some of the more outrageous things some Jews (and others) do, like 911 and foisting wars, then it automatically means = I hate Jerry Seinfeld and Elaine and want to push them into a gas chamber.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, selfish and megalomaniacal individuals are quick to betray their own relations if there is personal advantage.

    If it became expedient tomorrow for the world’s politicians to advocate for and serve the interests of the Palestinian people while at the same time opposing Israel.. if it were in their personal interests to do so.. I have absolutely zero doubt that everyone from John McCain to Benjamin Netanyahu would be frothing their bile at those terrible Zionists and singing the praises of the late statesman Yasser Arafat.

    They’re all whores. That’s what they do.

    It just so happens that today it’s in their perceived interest to serve the war-mongering, genocidal Zionist Fiend stomping all over the world’s stage.

    What I advocate for is simply that we all remove our collective support for the Fiend. Whether or not some or even many of them are – yes Fran – Jewish. I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn). So did tens of millions of non-Jews in that evil, contrived war. Nobody gets a pass. Not from me. And if that means that there are people that will automatically make quantum leaps in logic to try to equate criticism of what some Jews do, with hating all Jews, then so be it. All I can do is tell the simple, honest truth. I can’t make people use their God given brains.

    Read More
  185. “I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn).”

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made. And the Manichean caricatures that particularly exaggerate the perfidy of this “enemy” as compared, say, to more personally related tribes.

    There is definitely an unhealthy obsession with “the Jews” going on.

    I go as far as Phil Giraldi’s assessments of excess influence of a foreign government, and the mistaken assumptions that lead to bad policy, but no further. I can also go as far as to agree generally with Greenwald and to entertain Max Blumenthal’s condemnations of Israel’s acts, but no further than that to outright demonization.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/israel-gaza-anniversary-interview-max-blumenthal/

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    “I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn).”

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made.
     
    I couldn't disagree more! You chose to latch on one awkwardly worded sentence in Bob's eloquent explanation of his position, rather than considering the thrust of his argument.

    And you boldly state:

    I go as far as Phil Giraldi’s assessments of excess influence of a foreign government,... but no further than that to outright demonization.
     
    which neither Bob nor I are advocating! But once again you've ducked the central question:

    Can we not criticize a segment of an ethnic group without being accused of denigrating the entire group?
     
    But I almost forgot... you're averse to answering prickly questions!
    , @Rurik

    “I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn).”

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made.

     

    How so Fran?

    How does that statement have any pertinence to anything other that what it specifically means?

    The reason I said that is because western peoples have all been conditioned to fall all over themselves genuflecting and apologizing for something they had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with.

    The fact that I don't care how many Jews died in the Holocaust, other than the regret I feel at all atrocities, is heresy most foul, isn't it? Aren't I supposed to look the other way as Zionists use my tax dollars today to commit genocide and human rights atrocities writ large, and all the while sneering accusations at the rest of us (if you point out their crimes) for our participation in the Holocaust. I just don't give a fuck anymore. I've been bludgeoned with that particular accusation until it's lost its power to cow me into silence. But it hasn't lost its power over you tho Fran, has it?

    There is definitely an unhealthy obsession with “the Jews” going on.
     
    it there?

    is that why Paul Craig Roberts said yesterday that

    The Republican Party, now controlled by Israel, even asked the crazed leader of Israel to address the US Congress in order to block Obama’s agreement to the Iran deal
     
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/07/07/nuclear-agreement-iran-paul-craig-roberts/

    Is he a crazed anti-Semite for suggesting such a thing Fran?

    Has he not spend enough time reflecting over his guilt for the Holocaust?

    Actually he sounded just like Bill Maher who said the same thing recently

    In fact you'd have to be living under a rock not to know that Israel has and continues to wield undue influence over our foreign policy. Just look at who the lone beneficiary is to all our wars in the Middle East.

    But I guess to point this out betray my "unhealthy obsession with “the Jews”

    No Fran, what it betrays is an honest and forthright wiliness to say the emperor is nekkid. It betrays the courage to say the obvious, and what's obvious is that our State Dept and our congress are all Zionist occupied territories and that fact is having catastrophic consequences not only for the future of this country, but for the millions of innocent people who have been slaughtered in the Middle East using my tax dollars and my government's moral capital to impose this madness and inhumanity on mankind. That I do care about. That I have something to do with. That is a holocaust that I personally am party to, because it's being done in my time, with my tax dollars and using my country's military to slaughter and maim and torture and rape and genocide. So yes Fran, when it is being done under the auspices of my country, and using me as a participant (however unwilling), then I do care about genocide. And that would be just as true if it were being perpetrated against Arabs or Persians or Jews Fran.

    I don't hate anyone, (certainly not an entire people) but I do hate lies and treachery and state-sponsored terror campaigns of genocide. I do hate drones assassinating innocent people and depleted uranium and boys playing on a beach being targeted and murdered. I hate those things a lot Fran. I hate contrived wars for fun and profit, I hate treason and unaccountable power run amok. Those things I hate. I hate what was done on 911 and the reasons for it. And I lament that there are so many people whose minds have been conditioned to believe that no matter what America does, no matter how murderous or illegal, it's all OK because it's America that's doing it. Or for that matter Israelis. Those two entities seem to wallow in the hubris that they are so exceptional, because of their might or the Holocaust- respectively, that they can impose upon this world so much suffering and misery and cruelty, and often for its own sake. And I am here to say God damn them for it. I am here to proclaim that genocide is wrong. And one people's genocide does not make another people's genocide perfectly honorable and noble and good. Some one has to say this, and say it loud. I just wish I was better equipped intellectually and rhetorically and philosophically to make the argument. Because it needs to be made. And now more than ever.
  186. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn)."

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made. And the Manichean caricatures that particularly exaggerate the perfidy of this "enemy" as compared, say, to more personally related tribes.

    There is definitely an unhealthy obsession with "the Jews" going on.

    I go as far as Phil Giraldi's assessments of excess influence of a foreign government, and the mistaken assumptions that lead to bad policy, but no further. I can also go as far as to agree generally with Greenwald and to entertain Max Blumenthal's condemnations of Israel's acts, but no further than that to outright demonization.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/israel-gaza-anniversary-interview-max-blumenthal/

    “I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn).”

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made.

    I couldn’t disagree more! You chose to latch on one awkwardly worded sentence in Bob’s eloquent explanation of his position, rather than considering the thrust of his argument.

    And you boldly state:

    I go as far as Phil Giraldi’s assessments of excess influence of a foreign government,… but no further than that to outright demonization.

    which neither Bob nor I are advocating! But once again you’ve ducked the central question:

    Can we not criticize a segment of an ethnic group without being accused of denigrating the entire group?

    But I almost forgot… you’re averse to answering prickly questions!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    There seems to be a difficult paradigm that every conversation regarding anything that is in anyway related to someone who happens to be Jewish brings out.

    We've all been marinated in it since childhood, the eternal victimization of the Jews by everybody and especially the white Christians (Inquisition and Nazis) to the point that any valid criticism of some of the more egregious crimes of Israel or their treacherous and invidious influence over our government and cultural institutions becomes verboten from the start.

    If you happen to notice that Victoria Nuland and her husband and in-laws are all Jewish war mongers who've foisted all this strife upon the Ukraine and Russia and are agitating for more and more war and slaughtered innocents, it can only mean that you hate all Jews and are a Hitler who wants to gas them all. That's how the narrative works. There's no nuance allowed.

    They even call the Jews who condemn the Zionist's terrible crimes- self-hating Jews.
  187. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn)."

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made. And the Manichean caricatures that particularly exaggerate the perfidy of this "enemy" as compared, say, to more personally related tribes.

    There is definitely an unhealthy obsession with "the Jews" going on.

    I go as far as Phil Giraldi's assessments of excess influence of a foreign government, and the mistaken assumptions that lead to bad policy, but no further. I can also go as far as to agree generally with Greenwald and to entertain Max Blumenthal's condemnations of Israel's acts, but no further than that to outright demonization.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/israel-gaza-anniversary-interview-max-blumenthal/

    “I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn).”

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made.

    How so Fran?

    How does that statement have any pertinence to anything other that what it specifically means?

    The reason I said that is because western peoples have all been conditioned to fall all over themselves genuflecting and apologizing for something they had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with.

    The fact that I don’t care how many Jews died in the Holocaust, other than the regret I feel at all atrocities, is heresy most foul, isn’t it? Aren’t I supposed to look the other way as Zionists use my tax dollars today to commit genocide and human rights atrocities writ large, and all the while sneering accusations at the rest of us (if you point out their crimes) for our participation in the Holocaust. I just don’t give a fuck anymore. I’ve been bludgeoned with that particular accusation until it’s lost its power to cow me into silence. But it hasn’t lost its power over you tho Fran, has it?

    There is definitely an unhealthy obsession with “the Jews” going on.

    it there?

    is that why Paul Craig Roberts said yesterday that

    The Republican Party, now controlled by Israel, even asked the crazed leader of Israel to address the US Congress in order to block Obama’s agreement to the Iran deal

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/07/07/nuclear-agreement-iran-paul-craig-roberts/

    Is he a crazed anti-Semite for suggesting such a thing Fran?

    Has he not spend enough time reflecting over his guilt for the Holocaust?

    Actually he sounded just like Bill Maher who said the same thing recently

    In fact you’d have to be living under a rock not to know that Israel has and continues to wield undue influence over our foreign policy. Just look at who the lone beneficiary is to all our wars in the Middle East.

    But I guess to point this out betray my “unhealthy obsession with “the Jews”

    No Fran, what it betrays is an honest and forthright wiliness to say the emperor is nekkid. It betrays the courage to say the obvious, and what’s obvious is that our State Dept and our congress are all Zionist occupied territories and that fact is having catastrophic consequences not only for the future of this country, but for the millions of innocent people who have been slaughtered in the Middle East using my tax dollars and my government’s moral capital to impose this madness and inhumanity on mankind. That I do care about. That I have something to do with. That is a holocaust that I personally am party to, because it’s being done in my time, with my tax dollars and using my country’s military to slaughter and maim and torture and rape and genocide. So yes Fran, when it is being done under the auspices of my country, and using me as a participant (however unwilling), then I do care about genocide. And that would be just as true if it were being perpetrated against Arabs or Persians or Jews Fran.

    I don’t hate anyone, (certainly not an entire people) but I do hate lies and treachery and state-sponsored terror campaigns of genocide. I do hate drones assassinating innocent people and depleted uranium and boys playing on a beach being targeted and murdered. I hate those things a lot Fran. I hate contrived wars for fun and profit, I hate treason and unaccountable power run amok. Those things I hate. I hate what was done on 911 and the reasons for it. And I lament that there are so many people whose minds have been conditioned to believe that no matter what America does, no matter how murderous or illegal, it’s all OK because it’s America that’s doing it. Or for that matter Israelis. Those two entities seem to wallow in the hubris that they are so exceptional, because of their might or the Holocaust- respectively, that they can impose upon this world so much suffering and misery and cruelty, and often for its own sake. And I am here to say God damn them for it. I am here to proclaim that genocide is wrong. And one people’s genocide does not make another people’s genocide perfectly honorable and noble and good. Some one has to say this, and say it loud. I just wish I was better equipped intellectually and rhetorically and philosophically to make the argument. Because it needs to be made. And now more than ever.

    Read More
  188. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    “I don’t care if a lot of Jews (and others) did die in the Holocaust (that I condemn).”

    This is what undermines all the rest of the protestations made.
     
    I couldn't disagree more! You chose to latch on one awkwardly worded sentence in Bob's eloquent explanation of his position, rather than considering the thrust of his argument.

    And you boldly state:

    I go as far as Phil Giraldi’s assessments of excess influence of a foreign government,... but no further than that to outright demonization.
     
    which neither Bob nor I are advocating! But once again you've ducked the central question:

    Can we not criticize a segment of an ethnic group without being accused of denigrating the entire group?
     
    But I almost forgot... you're averse to answering prickly questions!

    There seems to be a difficult paradigm that every conversation regarding anything that is in anyway related to someone who happens to be Jewish brings out.

    We’ve all been marinated in it since childhood, the eternal victimization of the Jews by everybody and especially the white Christians (Inquisition and Nazis) to the point that any valid criticism of some of the more egregious crimes of Israel or their treacherous and invidious influence over our government and cultural institutions becomes verboten from the start.

    If you happen to notice that Victoria Nuland and her husband and in-laws are all Jewish war mongers who’ve foisted all this strife upon the Ukraine and Russia and are agitating for more and more war and slaughtered innocents, it can only mean that you hate all Jews and are a Hitler who wants to gas them all. That’s how the narrative works. There’s no nuance allowed.

    They even call the Jews who condemn the Zionist’s terrible crimes- self-hating Jews.

    Read More
  189. “If you happen to notice that Victoria Nuland and her husband and in-laws are all Jewish war mongers who’ve foisted all this strife upon the Ukraine and Russia”

    I happen to “notice” that these are all minor officials who carried out the policies directed by superiors named Clinton, Gore, Albright, Cheney, Bush, Clinton again, Kerry, Obama and Biden, and who aren’t even senators who advocate those same policies like McCain and Graham, non-Jewish names all.

    But I’m sorry to have worked you up into a lather of high dudgeon about “the Jews” and their perfidy, particularly in these instances so obviously just following Gentile orders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    No worries. I'm always in a lather. It's sort of my natural state.

    To what degree are the wars attributable to Zionists (Jewish and Gentile) vs. just everyday human greed for lucre and power by opportunists of every stripe? I don't know.

    Certainly men like Graham and McCain are on the front lines of chicken-hawk militarism. But it troubles me when a man like Bibi can stride into our congressional hall and lecture our leaders so arrogantly. Especially knowing what a notorious genocidal, Nazi-type, racial supremacist war criminal he is. And knowing that all these wars seem to be benefitting only the Likudniks of Israel even as our returning youngsters are offing themselves at like over 20 a day, unable to live with themselves knowing what they were forced to do- and why.

    I am angry about the wars. It's true. I'm angry about the drones. I'm upset that my government is raining down terror on simple and impoverished people from Pakistan to Yemen to Ukraine, even if they are using proxies in the latter. It's some kind of Orwellian horror show, and I'm being compelled to help fund it all. At least I don't have to give my moral consent.

    This is a thread about Russia and the ongoing strife between Putin and the "west".

    The way I see it, from my perspective and in my personal opinion, the 'west' is cynically using the Ukraine to put pressure on Putin because he thwarted their agenda vis-a-vis Syria. Which is an important stepping stone on their way to Tehran. Sure, the motivation for all of this is to create a greater Israel, but you'd be correct in pointing out that even in sheer numbers, there are exponentially more Christian dispensationalists who're agitating for all of this mass-murder even more rabidly than the neo-cons. It isn't just Jews Fran. I know that. But no one gets a pass.

    My contention is that it would be sensible for Putin to mollify the rhetoric regarding the heroism of the Red Army at least outside of Russia. The 'west' is using the lingering resentments from the atrocities of the Soviet Union on the former satellite states to move NATO into Putin's face and foment more war. The Soviet Union is gone. RIP and good riddance. But statues in public squares remain. Hatreds remain. Men eager to pick up an AK and exact justice (revenge) as they see it. I would like to see this whole tragedy de-escalate. Like the Irish today, it will in time. Unless people like Nuland and co are able to use billions of dollars and the power and reach of our State Dept. including the Pentagon to force a wider war down people's throats.

    https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/nato-forces-swarming-all-over-georgia-prepared-to-correct-2008-fiasco/

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ashton-carter-putin-east-europe-nato/2015/06/23/id/651781/

    http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Israel-approves-drilling-for-oil-in-Golan-Heights


    here's an "Ukrainian" oligarch talking about shooting down MH17

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
  190. geokat62 says:

    “… all minor officials who carried out the policies directed by superiors…”

    Fran, these policies may have been directed by the people you listed above. No one is disputing that. But isn’t the pertinent question: who formulated these policies and lobbied heavily to have them implemented?

    Are you unwilling to acknowledge that U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to the ME, was and is formulated by the neocons/Israel Firsters who are predominately Jewish? Do you deny this? And aren’t these policies, and therefore these people, primarily responsible for the death and destruction that is taking place in the region?

    As always, you should just consider these difficult questions to be rhetorical!

    Read More
  191. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "If you happen to notice that Victoria Nuland and her husband and in-laws are all Jewish war mongers who’ve foisted all this strife upon the Ukraine and Russia"

    I happen to "notice" that these are all minor officials who carried out the policies directed by superiors named Clinton, Gore, Albright, Cheney, Bush, Clinton again, Kerry, Obama and Biden, and who aren't even senators who advocate those same policies like McCain and Graham, non-Jewish names all.

    But I'm sorry to have worked you up into a lather of high dudgeon about "the Jews" and their perfidy, particularly in these instances so obviously just following Gentile orders.

    No worries. I’m always in a lather. It’s sort of my natural state.

    To what degree are the wars attributable to Zionists (Jewish and Gentile) vs. just everyday human greed for lucre and power by opportunists of every stripe? I don’t know.

    Certainly men like Graham and McCain are on the front lines of chicken-hawk militarism. But it troubles me when a man like Bibi can stride into our congressional hall and lecture our leaders so arrogantly. Especially knowing what a notorious genocidal, Nazi-type, racial supremacist war criminal he is. And knowing that all these wars seem to be benefitting only the Likudniks of Israel even as our returning youngsters are offing themselves at like over 20 a day, unable to live with themselves knowing what they were forced to do- and why.

    I am angry about the wars. It’s true. I’m angry about the drones. I’m upset that my government is raining down terror on simple and impoverished people from Pakistan to Yemen to Ukraine, even if they are using proxies in the latter. It’s some kind of Orwellian horror show, and I’m being compelled to help fund it all. At least I don’t have to give my moral consent.

    This is a thread about Russia and the ongoing strife between Putin and the “west”.

    The way I see it, from my perspective and in my personal opinion, the ‘west’ is cynically using the Ukraine to put pressure on Putin because he thwarted their agenda vis-a-vis Syria. Which is an important stepping stone on their way to Tehran. Sure, the motivation for all of this is to create a greater Israel, but you’d be correct in pointing out that even in sheer numbers, there are exponentially more Christian dispensationalists who’re agitating for all of this mass-murder even more rabidly than the neo-cons. It isn’t just Jews Fran. I know that. But no one gets a pass.

    My contention is that it would be sensible for Putin to mollify the rhetoric regarding the heroism of the Red Army at least outside of Russia. The ‘west’ is using the lingering resentments from the atrocities of the Soviet Union on the former satellite states to move NATO into Putin’s face and foment more war. The Soviet Union is gone. RIP and good riddance. But statues in public squares remain. Hatreds remain. Men eager to pick up an AK and exact justice (revenge) as they see it. I would like to see this whole tragedy de-escalate. Like the Irish today, it will in time. Unless people like Nuland and co are able to use billions of dollars and the power and reach of our State Dept. including the Pentagon to force a wider war down people’s throats.

    https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/nato-forces-swarming-all-over-georgia-prepared-to-correct-2008-fiasco/

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ashton-carter-putin-east-europe-nato/2015/06/23/id/651781/

    http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Israel-approves-drilling-for-oil-in-Golan-Heights

    here’s an “Ukrainian” oligarch talking about shooting down MH17

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665

    Read More
  192. Since it’s admitted that there are people of Jewish ethnicity or persuasion on all sides of these issues – there’s the joke that when two Jewish people are in a room arguing there are at least three opinions – then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew. So we should name the individuals involved and their political, business and governmental affiliations. For instance, call out the current Israeli Prime Minister, the Likud, certain of those with business interests and other operators and identify their error by what they do, not who they are according to ethnic or religious background.

    For instance, Max Blumenthal has very different opinions and goals than his father Sidney Blumenthal.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/transcript-max-blumenthal-gaza/

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Since it’s admitted that there are people of Jewish ethnicity or persuasion on all sides of these issues... then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew. (emphasis added)
     
    Wow, that's quite a conclusion you reached there, Fran.

    I'd like to focus on the word "it" in your sentence above. I'm assuming by "it" you mean all the death and destruction that is taking place in the ME, something that I conveniently describe using the following shorthand: "War on Islam" and everything that is subsumed under that rubric, including the U.S. launching wars against 7 Muslim countries.

    If so, here's how General Wesley Clark described it:


    So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
     
    So, according to you, these wars are not being primarily fought to secure the villa in the jungle, right? So I guess this means you take issue with the thesis of Mearsheimer & Walt, who claim the Israel Lobby e.g., AIPAC, ADL, etc.) has been pushing hard for these wars. If that's the case, could you please provide your rationale for disagreeing with M&W?

    btw - have you ever read PNAC's Clean Break or Oded Yinon's Foreign Policy for Israel in the 1980s? These documents may explain for whose benefit the War on Islam is being waged.

    With respect to your final remark:


    For instance, Max Blumenthal has very different opinions and goals than his father Sidney Blumenthal.
     
    I couldn't agree more. You are merely pointing out that the Jewish community itself is divided on the subject of I/P. No news there! But just because Max is a severe critic of Zionism doesn't change the fact that a significant percentage of his co-religionists are supportive of Israel and that most organizations that comprise the Israel Lobby are predominately Jewish and are expending tremendous resources to fulfil their objective - i.e., enhancing the security of Israel. Not sure how you think you can square that circle!
    , @Rurik

    then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew.
     
    who said it did Fran?

    not me. Never. Those were just the words that were put in my mouth, so to speak.

    I don't blame Jews as a monolithic group for the problems in the world, (but then I wouldn't hold it against the Palestinians if they did), but neither do I give them a pass.

    I blame uber-Zionists, as I call them. And I say 'uber' because I believe there is a rather more benign form of Zionism that is available. The kind that simply wants for Jews to have a place where they can call home. A place for self-determination. Something I think we're all entitled to. But what we're seeing is Jewish self-determination being built on the bulldozed homes and shattered bodies of Palestinian children, and that holocaust just doesn't get much press in the Jewish dominated media, Max Blumenthal's piece notwithstanding.

    I compare uber-Zionism to last century's Nazism. At first Nazism seemed a good thing. It raised Germany out of the ashes and created an economic powerhouse. But then hubris and tribalism infected the experiment, and it became a threat to peaceable Slavs whose land was now Hitler's lebensraum, just like the Zionists and their land stealing ways. And just as not all Germans were Nazis, and indeed some were Nazi's biggest critics, it still meant that the world had to put Nazism down like a rabid dog, and in the process, many innocent Germans and so many others suffered terribly. I hope that if the sane world can find a way to cure uber-Zionism before we're all Palestinians, that there won't be any collateral damage to any innocents, Jewish or otherwise.

    As far as naming the individuals involved, basically what that would mean is finding out who the class A stock holders of the Federal Reserve Bank are. It is from that eye of Mordor counterfeiting machine that all of this tragedy oozes, imho, and has for basically a hundred years now.
  193. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Since it's admitted that there are people of Jewish ethnicity or persuasion on all sides of these issues - there's the joke that when two Jewish people are in a room arguing there are at least three opinions - then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew. So we should name the individuals involved and their political, business and governmental affiliations. For instance, call out the current Israeli Prime Minister, the Likud, certain of those with business interests and other operators and identify their error by what they do, not who they are according to ethnic or religious background.

    For instance, Max Blumenthal has very different opinions and goals than his father Sidney Blumenthal.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/transcript-max-blumenthal-gaza/

    Since it’s admitted that there are people of Jewish ethnicity or persuasion on all sides of these issues… then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew. (emphasis added)

    Wow, that’s quite a conclusion you reached there, Fran.

    I’d like to focus on the word “it” in your sentence above. I’m assuming by “it” you mean all the death and destruction that is taking place in the ME, something that I conveniently describe using the following shorthand: “War on Islam” and everything that is subsumed under that rubric, including the U.S. launching wars against 7 Muslim countries.

    If so, here’s how General Wesley Clark described it:

    So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

    So, according to you, these wars are not being primarily fought to secure the villa in the jungle, right? So I guess this means you take issue with the thesis of Mearsheimer & Walt, who claim the Israel Lobby e.g., AIPAC, ADL, etc.) has been pushing hard for these wars. If that’s the case, could you please provide your rationale for disagreeing with M&W?

    btw – have you ever read PNAC’s Clean Break or Oded Yinon’s Foreign Policy for Israel in the 1980s? These documents may explain for whose benefit the War on Islam is being waged.

    With respect to your final remark:

    For instance, Max Blumenthal has very different opinions and goals than his father Sidney Blumenthal.

    I couldn’t agree more. You are merely pointing out that the Jewish community itself is divided on the subject of I/P. No news there! But just because Max is a severe critic of Zionism doesn’t change the fact that a significant percentage of his co-religionists are supportive of Israel and that most organizations that comprise the Israel Lobby are predominately Jewish and are expending tremendous resources to fulfil their objective – i.e., enhancing the security of Israel. Not sure how you think you can square that circle!

    Read More
  194. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Since it's admitted that there are people of Jewish ethnicity or persuasion on all sides of these issues - there's the joke that when two Jewish people are in a room arguing there are at least three opinions - then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew. So we should name the individuals involved and their political, business and governmental affiliations. For instance, call out the current Israeli Prime Minister, the Likud, certain of those with business interests and other operators and identify their error by what they do, not who they are according to ethnic or religious background.

    For instance, Max Blumenthal has very different opinions and goals than his father Sidney Blumenthal.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/transcript-max-blumenthal-gaza/

    then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew.

    who said it did Fran?

    not me. Never. Those were just the words that were put in my mouth, so to speak.

    I don’t blame Jews as a monolithic group for the problems in the world, (but then I wouldn’t hold it against the Palestinians if they did), but neither do I give them a pass.

    I blame uber-Zionists, as I call them. And I say ‘uber’ because I believe there is a rather more benign form of Zionism that is available. The kind that simply wants for Jews to have a place where they can call home. A place for self-determination. Something I think we’re all entitled to. But what we’re seeing is Jewish self-determination being built on the bulldozed homes and shattered bodies of Palestinian children, and that holocaust just doesn’t get much press in the Jewish dominated media, Max Blumenthal’s piece notwithstanding.

    I compare uber-Zionism to last century’s Nazism. At first Nazism seemed a good thing. It raised Germany out of the ashes and created an economic powerhouse. But then hubris and tribalism infected the experiment, and it became a threat to peaceable Slavs whose land was now Hitler’s lebensraum, just like the Zionists and their land stealing ways. And just as not all Germans were Nazis, and indeed some were Nazi’s biggest critics, it still meant that the world had to put Nazism down like a rabid dog, and in the process, many innocent Germans and so many others suffered terribly. I hope that if the sane world can find a way to cure uber-Zionism before we’re all Palestinians, that there won’t be any collateral damage to any innocents, Jewish or otherwise.

    As far as naming the individuals involved, basically what that would mean is finding out who the class A stock holders of the Federal Reserve Bank are. It is from that eye of Mordor counterfeiting machine that all of this tragedy oozes, imho, and has for basically a hundred years now.

    Read More
  195. “I don’t blame Jews as a monolithic group for the problems in the world, (but then I wouldn’t hold it against the Palestinians if they did)”

    As Reagan would have put it, shaking his head, “There he goes again.”

    Read More
  196. Rurik says:

    My name is now Rurik (someone else was masquerading as Bob)

    [This is exactly why regular commenters are (unsuccessfully) urged to select at least somewhat distinct name-handles. Let us know if you'd like us to try to convert as many possible of your old "Bob" comments to "Rurik"]

    as to your reply : )

    As for the sentiment, it would be wrong for them to blame Jews per se, and I don’t think most of them do. But consider… how many Jews today hold a grudge against Germans, simply for being German?

    I actually know a few that do. There are quotes from Jewish leaders saying there’s something congenitally bad about Germans.

    This is racism most foul, but I suppose in some ways it too is understandable. We’re all human and flawed and if we get mistreated by a person wearing a purple toga every day, then eventually we’re going to be wary of people wearing purple togas. It doesn’t make it right, because I know perfectly good people who go around in purple togas and never hurt a soul, but people are people after all and the Palestinians have suffered like no people I know of. It must be terrible. So I think it’s OK to cut them some slack, no?

    Read More
  197. geokat62 says:

    then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew.

    I now see where you were going with this. When we see all the death and destruction being wreaked in the ME, isn’t it natural to ask who bears primary responsibility? Like you, most feel comfortable identifying the “excess influence of a foreign government.” But rather than stopping just there, isn’t it appropriate to identify the excess influence of a foreign government’s lobby that is operating in the U.S.? I think you’d agree with me that the lobby has put tremendous pressure to achieve the interests of said foreign government. And if the foreign government and their lobby are predominately Jewish, can we not acknowledge that and agree that these individuals and organizations can be fairly criticized for the policies they are promoting and the corresponding actions that are undertaken to implement those policies, but not for the ethnic group to which they belong? Is this not something you feel comfortable accepting? And if not, why not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    I think everyone acknowledges that Israeli lobbyists wield a lot of clout. A lot of us believe it is influence that is not being carefully examined enough to make sure it is not only in the interests of most Americans, and not to their detriment, but that the influence doesn't override concern for human rights. In the long run, that's not good for Israel either, but the influence of neocons bankrolled by the likes of Adelson has them ascendant in both America and Israel in such a way that they seek themselves to be seen as the only holders of valid opinions on policy, which can credibly be termed Likudnik. That's not something we should allow them.

    But this problem at its core isn't specifically Jewish. It's rather a manifestation of the managed democracy syndrome we've slipped into, with democratic accountability of officials to the public broken. Instead of reflecting Americans' consensus, policy is driven instead by what is called inverted totalitarianism, where government reports to donorist and corporate power instead of what's in the interest of the public.

    Another example of this is the publicly censored 28 pages of the 9/11 report, which by all the allusions, winking and nodding to escape draconian secrecy act punishments even for members of congress if they dared tell us the truth they've seen, appears to be that the Saudi dictatorship, supposedly our close ally, was behind the boxcutter attacks, the elitist response to which has suspended ordinary Americans' constitutional liberties ever since. One could observe that this even outranks for infamy the probably deliberate attack by Israel on the U.S. Liberty decades ago. In a similar act of putting foreign monied interests before ours, the government that grounded all other flights, allowed Saudi jets to evacuate elites who would otherwise have been questioned - and ought to have been. Yet, our government, without even a nod to public opinion, is arming that dictatorship to the teeth and supplying it for its humanitarian disaster of a pre-emptive war against Yemen.

  198. @geokat62

    then in reality it has nothing intrinsically to do with being a Jew.
     
    I now see where you were going with this. When we see all the death and destruction being wreaked in the ME, isn't it natural to ask who bears primary responsibility? Like you, most feel comfortable identifying the "excess influence of a foreign government." But rather than stopping just there, isn't it appropriate to identify the excess influence of a foreign government's lobby that is operating in the U.S.? I think you'd agree with me that the lobby has put tremendous pressure to achieve the interests of said foreign government. And if the foreign government and their lobby are predominately Jewish, can we not acknowledge that and agree that these individuals and organizations can be fairly criticized for the policies they are promoting and the corresponding actions that are undertaken to implement those policies, but not for the ethnic group to which they belong? Is this not something you feel comfortable accepting? And if not, why not?

    I think everyone acknowledges that Israeli lobbyists wield a lot of clout. A lot of us believe it is influence that is not being carefully examined enough to make sure it is not only in the interests of most Americans, and not to their detriment, but that the influence doesn’t override concern for human rights. In the long run, that’s not good for Israel either, but the influence of neocons bankrolled by the likes of Adelson has them ascendant in both America and Israel in such a way that they seek themselves to be seen as the only holders of valid opinions on policy, which can credibly be termed Likudnik. That’s not something we should allow them.

    But this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish. It’s rather a manifestation of the managed democracy syndrome we’ve slipped into, with democratic accountability of officials to the public broken. Instead of reflecting Americans’ consensus, policy is driven instead by what is called inverted totalitarianism, where government reports to donorist and corporate power instead of what’s in the interest of the public.

    Another example of this is the publicly censored 28 pages of the 9/11 report, which by all the allusions, winking and nodding to escape draconian secrecy act punishments even for members of congress if they dared tell us the truth they’ve seen, appears to be that the Saudi dictatorship, supposedly our close ally, was behind the boxcutter attacks, the elitist response to which has suspended ordinary Americans’ constitutional liberties ever since. One could observe that this even outranks for infamy the probably deliberate attack by Israel on the U.S. Liberty decades ago. In a similar act of putting foreign monied interests before ours, the government that grounded all other flights, allowed Saudi jets to evacuate elites who would otherwise have been questioned – and ought to have been. Yet, our government, without even a nod to public opinion, is arming that dictatorship to the teeth and supplying it for its humanitarian disaster of a pre-emptive war against Yemen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    "But this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish... with democratic accountability of officials to the public broken."
     
    Fran, I agree that the democratic process is broken and that several ethnic groups can and do take advantage of this situation. No argument there. But wouldn't you agree that the driving force behind the policy to remake the ME in our image is the neocons/Israel Firsters, not the Saudis, notwithstanding the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudis?

    I have no difficulty acknowledging that "this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish," in the sense that not all Jews should be held responsible for the promotion of these policies. But do you have difficulty acknowledging that those promoting these policies (that are inimical to the national interest) are predominately Jewish and can and should be subject to criticism, not for who they are but for the policies and actions they are promoting?
  199. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    I think everyone acknowledges that Israeli lobbyists wield a lot of clout. A lot of us believe it is influence that is not being carefully examined enough to make sure it is not only in the interests of most Americans, and not to their detriment, but that the influence doesn't override concern for human rights. In the long run, that's not good for Israel either, but the influence of neocons bankrolled by the likes of Adelson has them ascendant in both America and Israel in such a way that they seek themselves to be seen as the only holders of valid opinions on policy, which can credibly be termed Likudnik. That's not something we should allow them.

    But this problem at its core isn't specifically Jewish. It's rather a manifestation of the managed democracy syndrome we've slipped into, with democratic accountability of officials to the public broken. Instead of reflecting Americans' consensus, policy is driven instead by what is called inverted totalitarianism, where government reports to donorist and corporate power instead of what's in the interest of the public.

    Another example of this is the publicly censored 28 pages of the 9/11 report, which by all the allusions, winking and nodding to escape draconian secrecy act punishments even for members of congress if they dared tell us the truth they've seen, appears to be that the Saudi dictatorship, supposedly our close ally, was behind the boxcutter attacks, the elitist response to which has suspended ordinary Americans' constitutional liberties ever since. One could observe that this even outranks for infamy the probably deliberate attack by Israel on the U.S. Liberty decades ago. In a similar act of putting foreign monied interests before ours, the government that grounded all other flights, allowed Saudi jets to evacuate elites who would otherwise have been questioned - and ought to have been. Yet, our government, without even a nod to public opinion, is arming that dictatorship to the teeth and supplying it for its humanitarian disaster of a pre-emptive war against Yemen.

    “But this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish… with democratic accountability of officials to the public broken.”

    Fran, I agree that the democratic process is broken and that several ethnic groups can and do take advantage of this situation. No argument there. But wouldn’t you agree that the driving force behind the policy to remake the ME in our image is the neocons/Israel Firsters, not the Saudis, notwithstanding the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudis?

    I have no difficulty acknowledging that “this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish,” in the sense that not all Jews should be held responsible for the promotion of these policies. But do you have difficulty acknowledging that those promoting these policies (that are inimical to the national interest) are predominately Jewish and can and should be subject to criticism, not for who they are but for the policies and actions they are promoting?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    One could as easily claim that those promoting the policies are predominantly white, English speaking Americans. But these elites, who are loyal to money and each other first, aren't themselves the majority of anyone, let alone Jews. An argument to the contrary actually dilutes the guilt of the elites, because it then becomes an amorphous property where everyone is guilty. This is the same mistaken reasoning terrorists use to justify killing ordinary people - not only is it supposedly useful to force desired behavior from their governments - but because after all, they are guilty for having these leaders, since the country is supposedly democratic.
  200. @geokat62

    "But this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish... with democratic accountability of officials to the public broken."
     
    Fran, I agree that the democratic process is broken and that several ethnic groups can and do take advantage of this situation. No argument there. But wouldn't you agree that the driving force behind the policy to remake the ME in our image is the neocons/Israel Firsters, not the Saudis, notwithstanding the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudis?

    I have no difficulty acknowledging that "this problem at its core isn’t specifically Jewish," in the sense that not all Jews should be held responsible for the promotion of these policies. But do you have difficulty acknowledging that those promoting these policies (that are inimical to the national interest) are predominately Jewish and can and should be subject to criticism, not for who they are but for the policies and actions they are promoting?

    One could as easily claim that those promoting the policies are predominantly white, English speaking Americans. But these elites, who are loyal to money and each other first, aren’t themselves the majority of anyone, let alone Jews. An argument to the contrary actually dilutes the guilt of the elites, because it then becomes an amorphous property where everyone is guilty. This is the same mistaken reasoning terrorists use to justify killing ordinary people – not only is it supposedly useful to force desired behavior from their governments – but because after all, they are guilty for having these leaders, since the country is supposedly democratic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    One could as easily claim that those promoting the policies are predominantly white, English speaking Americans. (emphasis added)
     
    One could claim that, but do you honestly believe it?
  201. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    One could as easily claim that those promoting the policies are predominantly white, English speaking Americans. But these elites, who are loyal to money and each other first, aren't themselves the majority of anyone, let alone Jews. An argument to the contrary actually dilutes the guilt of the elites, because it then becomes an amorphous property where everyone is guilty. This is the same mistaken reasoning terrorists use to justify killing ordinary people - not only is it supposedly useful to force desired behavior from their governments - but because after all, they are guilty for having these leaders, since the country is supposedly democratic.

    One could as easily claim that those promoting the policies are predominantly white, English speaking Americans. (emphasis added)

    One could claim that, but do you honestly believe it?

    Read More
  202. @Rurik
    What's going on here is what I like to call a geo-political version of 'rope-a-dope'.

    It's what they did to Hitler when they used Poland like today they're using Ukraine. They forced Hitler's hand by allowing / encouraging Poland to abuse the ethnic Germans in Danzig and elsewhere, thereby forcing Hitler to demand 'the corridor'. Just like today the Fiend is using the thugs in Kiev to slaughter ethnic Russians in Donbass in order to force Putin to do his own version of 'rope-a-dope'. Only Putin isn't playing along as well as the Fuhrer did. Perhaps he learned from Uncle Adolf's mistake.

    Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets (NKVD, Kulaks, Katyn, gulags, so many others) and understand that Nazism was a direct consequence of the Bolshevik threat. That's why so many Eastern Europeans (and Russians and Norwegians and others fought in the side of the Wehrmacht. Not because they loved the arrogant Germans. Hardly. It was because they understood all too well the very real threat of the Fiend. If Putin and the ultra-nationalistic Russians would just stop gloating about that terrible war and stoking the flames of hatred against the Ukrainians (and Baltic states and Poland and so many others) who didn't fight for Hitler or fascism, but rather against the international bankers and their golem the Bolshevism, then this conflict could end like a wisp of gossamer floating away in the wind, and the Fiend could stir in its juices and plot some other war where Russians and Europeans won't end up as the charred dupes.

    BTW, why is the MH17 "investigation" taking so long?

    What a pos you are.

    “Putin and Russia need to repudiate (please!) the crimes and horrors of the Soviets ”

    And the murderous Americans need to repudiate the theft of of half of Mexico, the theft of Hawaii
    The colonization of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, the Dresden firestorms, the nuclear attack on Japan, the murder of three million Vietnamese etc. etc,

    Read More
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 Israel Shamir Comments via RSS