The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
Led by Poland, the European “House Negroes” Compete for the Darwin Awards
shutterstock_336411011

And now, when all of these benefits and all this aid has been lost and discarded, England, leading the France offers to guarantee the integrity of Poland — the same in Poland, which just six months ago with greed hyena appetite took part in the robbery and destruction of the Czechoslovak state.

-Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

We really live in a crazy world. In preparation for the next NATO summit in Warsaw, already announced as ‘landmark summit‘, kids in Poland will be exposed to 4 hours of NATO propaganda a week for the next two months. Apparently, the Poles believe that their safety will be greatly enhanced if they succeed in creating the strongest possible tensions between NATO and Russia. Either that, or they think that the Russians will be absolutely terrified, that they will return the Crimea to the Ukronazi junta in Kiev, abandon the Donbass and unilaterally demilitarize.

There is nothing new here. Poland – the country which Winston Churchill called a “greedy hyena” – has a long history of trying to attack Russia when Russia is at her weakest, and the greatest Polish “heroes” are famous for attacking Russia in the times of internal trouble. Except that this time around Russia is not weak and the Russian people are solidly behind the Kremlin.

You could say that the Russian bear is utterly unimpressed by the Polish hyena, especially when it hides behind the American eagle to bark at Russia.

The Polish view of history is nothing short of bizarre. For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (for some reason not known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact”). Speaking of Piłsudski, take a look at this (very politically correct) summary of his life and actions and you will see that having megalomaniacal Fascist national heroes is not only a Ukrainian feature.

Apparently, history taught the Poles absolutely nothing.

They are hardly alone.

SakerRussiaGoogle Most of Eastern Europe seems to be seized by a militaristic frenzy and a genuine fear that the Russians are about to invade. Just enter “Baltic invasion drills” in your favorite search engine and see for yourself how the imperial propaganda machine is constantly discussing whether an (apparently imminent) Russian invasion can be stopped or not and how the US tanks will save the Baltics from the Russkies.

Russians, who are constantly informed about these developments which are discussed on an almost daily basis in the Russian media, are absolutely baffled by this paranoid hysteria. In fact, they have a hard time believing that anybody could take that kind of nonsense seriously.

At the same time, however, the Russians are also realizing that what is taking place now is very much like what preceded the German invasion of the Soviet Union: a mix of rabidly russophobic rhetoric and an increasing concentration of military forces along the eastern borders of the Soviet Union. So even though the notion of Poland or anyone else actually preparing for a Russian invasion elicits only baffled reactions and giggles in Russia, the Russians are also assuming that the current militarization is only the first step in a much longer and larger process and are actively preparing for war too.

What will happen next is hardly a surprise: the toxic mix of US Neocons and East-European russophobes will result in first and foremost a lot of paranoid rhetoric and grandstanding and in an increase of US and NATO forces in Eastern Europe. That, in turn, will result in the inevitable increase of Russian military capabilities directed at NATO, which will give the NATO officials even more reasons to speak of a “Russian threat” and give more paranoid nightmares to the East-Europeans.

There is no way to deny that this is a huge victory for the US Neocons: they have finally created a situation in which

  1. East-Europeans are so terrified that they are unable to thinking logically.
  2. West Europeans are maybe capable of thinking, but cannot take any action.
  3. All EU countries will increase their military spending and purchase mostly US weapon systems (to meet NATO standards); the US MIC will make a killing.
  4. NATO will find a new (old) role for itself.
  5. Russia will be further decoupled form the EU, especially economically.
  6. Europeans will be further terrified by predictions of war and further convinced that NATO is the indispensable alliance lead by the indispensable nation.
  7. Russia will be further surrounded by new US protectorates (Finland and Georgia are probably next)

If this is a huge success for the Empire, this is also a huge failure for Russia.

However, I don’t think that anybody could have prevented this outcome. Let’s be honest here: there is nobody for the Russians to speak to in Europe (except, maybe, Hungarian President Orban). The Russians tried everything they possibly could to try to revive a modicum of common sense into the European politicians, but to no avail: the Europeans simply don’t have the brains, the spine or the balls to dare to have an opinion of their own. Instead, their opinion is whatever the White House says.

I know, the argument will be that its only the leaders, that the people of Europe don’t support these policies. But how is it that millions of Europeans took to the streets during the so-called “Euromissile crisis” or to oppose the war in Iraq, but have absolutely nothing to say about their sovereignty being turned into a farce, about their leaders supporting a Nazi regime in Kiev and about being used by the USA a cannon fodder in possible continental war?

I can only conclude that the Europeans deserve the leaders they have.

They also all deserve a collective Darwin Award. Especially the East-Europeans who have painted a bullseye on their heads just to please of Uncle Sam. One Polish official denounced the “Negro mentality” of his colleagues and one ex-foreign minister even spoke of “giving oral sex and getting nothing in return”, a very apt image indeed. But these outbursts lead to nothing. If McCain compared Russia to a “gas station masquerading as a country” then I would compare EU as a brothel masquerading as a continental alliance, a brothel where Americans get serviced for free. “Despised by all, feared by none” could become the new EU motto.

ORDER IT NOW

At the NATO summit in Warsaw the Americans will try hard to treat their EU NATO allies with absolute courtesy and respect, but in reality they will view them exactly as what Malcolm X called the “house negro”. Let me quote him in full as it is a perfect description of the modern European:

So you have two types of Negro. The old type and the new type. Most of you know the old type. When you read about him in history during slavery he was called “Uncle Tom.” He was the house Negro. And during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master’s second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master’s house–probably in the basement or the attic–but he still lived in the master’s house. So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, “We have good food,” the house Negro would say, “Yes, we have plenty of good food.” “We” have plenty of good food. When the master said that “we have a fine home here,” the house Negro said, “Yes, we have a fine home here.” When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he’d say, “What’s the matter boss, we sick?” His master’s pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master’s house out than the master himself would. But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses–the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he’d die. If his house caught on fire, they’d pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze. If someone came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” naturally that Uncle Tom would say, “Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?” That’s the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” he wouldn’t even ask you where or how. He’d say, “Yes, let’s go.” And that one ended right there.

Is that not a prefect description of the “new European” towards the USA?

And I am quite certain that US officers will have far more respect for their Russian “adversaries” than for their NATO “allies” (I have often noted that attitude in US servicemen).

Still, I am not losing all hope.

First, I want to believe that the Neocons can still be defeated in the USA and that what I call the “old Anglo guard” can give them the boot. Second, I have not lost hope in two European nations: France and Italy. I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that the French and the Italians are, in Europe, those who are least influenced by the imperial propaganda machine, maybe because of their complex and rich history, who knows? I think that there is a typically Latin (I mean that culturally, not religiously) spirit of resistance and revolt which has not been completely blotted out of the French and Italian people. I might be very naïve of course, and totally wrong. I had high hopes for the Greeks, and all they could muster was the resistance power of a wet firecracker. Even the always proud Serbs appear to have been put down on their knees, at least for the time being. It is a very sad spectacle indeed.

In the meantime, there are signs that Russia is coming out of the recession. The Russian armed forces are planning over 2000 military exercises just for 2016. As for the Russian people, they still overwhelmingly support Putin. After the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw, this popularity is likely to soar even higher.

The Saker

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: NATO, Russia 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. “For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty”

    Stopped reading there…somehow the Saker seems to have “forgotten” that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union…comparing it to Poland’s 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany…NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don’t think I’m a Russophobe, but when one’s confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    "However one spins the crystal and tries to look into the future from the point of view of 23 August 1939, it is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed. The Soviet apprehensions of a European alliance against Russia were exaggerated, though not groundless. But, quite apart from this - given the Polish refusal of Soviet aid, given too the British policy of drawing out negotiations in Moscow without seriously striving for a conclusion - neutrality, with or without a formal pact, was the most that Soviet diplomacy could attain; and limitation of German gains in Poland and the Baltic was the inducement which made a formal pact attractive." - A.J.P. Taylor: The Origins of the Second World War, Hamish Hamilton, 1961

    You really need to study the context of the Soviet-German pact before you accuse others of demented ramblings.
    , @SmoothieX12
    Dear German Reader. I don't know what they teach you in Germany but here is an opinion of one of the greatest Anglophone military historians, Commodore Of British Empire Correlli Barnett from his seminal The Collapse Of British Power. Enjoy.

    http://s33.postimg.org/kfc34mlun/Poland.jpg
    , @5371
    There's nothing remotely absurd about the comparison. If there was supposed to be a united front against German expansionism, Poland had betrayed it before it even came into being. Poland was happy to take advantage of the Munich agreement to grab a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Poland even raised its own demands for overseas colonies to make the Mini-Me act more complete.
    , @voicum
    german_reader,you,sir do not deserve a comment.as you stated you did not read,let alone comprehend, the article .
    , @attonn
    First of all, nobody had ever presented any copy of Ribbentropp - Molotov Pact. It most likely never existed.

    And second, USSR simply reclaimed the land that Poland seized by aggression during Russian Civil War. Soviets didn't grab what shouldn't have belonged to them in the first place.
    , @Randal
    I agree that Saker over-eggs the pudding, but his basic point in this polemic is surely correct - that the European nations have accustomed themselves to servitude to Washington in some kind of collective national Stockholm Syndrome, and now persist in it even when it is no longer needed nor remotely in their own interests (the interests of the nations as a whole, that is, as opposed to the wealthy trans-national elites who administer their media, politics and big business).

    In the aftermath of WW2 that position was understandable. The former Axis nations were under occupation anyway, and the western Allies - including Britain - faced a world in which they were powerless, shattered by war, and which was dominated by two superpowers whose military and economic powers they could not hope to compete with. Those superpowers were competing aggressively for global domination and were each in their own ways ruthlessly opposed to the survival of the European nations as independent, sovereign power centres.

    The choice between Washington and Moscow was arguably necessary and easy in 1945.

    There is no excuse for even pretending a need to make such a choice in 2016, when the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia is no longer strong enough to threaten central Europe militarily and the US has largely been bound by its own propaganda from doing so.

    Time for the European nations and Britain to finally stand back up on their hind legs and repudiate US domination.
    , @Vendetta
    I'm a Saker fan and I generally agree with him on the folly of the Polish and Baltic provocation and antagonism towards Russia at present, but this is just laying it on just a little too thick. Smearing Piłsudski as a "fascist megalomaniac" is ridiculous.
    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
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/led-by-poland-the-european-house-negroes-compete-for-the-darwin-awards/#comment-1440009
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    “However one spins the crystal and tries to look into the future from the point of view of 23 August 1939, it is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed. The Soviet apprehensions of a European alliance against Russia were exaggerated, though not groundless. But, quite apart from this – given the Polish refusal of Soviet aid, given too the British policy of drawing out negotiations in Moscow without seriously striving for a conclusion – neutrality, with or without a formal pact, was the most that Soviet diplomacy could attain; and limitation of German gains in Poland and the Baltic was the inducement which made a formal pact attractive.” – A.J.P. Taylor: The Origins of the Second World War, Hamish Hamilton, 1961

    You really need to study the context of the Soviet-German pact before you accuse others of demented ramblings.

    Read More
  3. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    Dear German Reader. I don’t know what they teach you in Germany but here is an opinion of one of the greatest Anglophone military historians, Commodore Of British Empire Correlli Barnett from his seminal The Collapse Of British Power. Enjoy.

    http://s33.postimg.org/kfc34mlun/Poland.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    SmoothieX12, if it is not too burdensome, could you please post what comes after the "four or five"? Just one more page should suffice.
    , @German_reader
    That excerpt doesn't tell me anything except that Corelli Barnett thinks Polish behaviour in 1939 was foolish (don't really get his argument from that brief excerpt...does he argue Poland should have been more accomodating of German demands for the corridor?)...so what? Doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union had a secret agreement with Germany for the division of Poland, then invaded Eastern Poland and committed massive crimes there. Which is totally incomparable to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-pact which didn't include provisions for invading other countries (let alone committing mass murders/mass deportations like the Soviet Union did in 1939-1941).
    , @Aixa
    England wanted to appease Germany by giving Germany rich awards - polish lands.
    No wonder that polish government refused.
    If England wanted that much to avoid war it could give Germany some English land, like Kent for example.
    It could show Mr. Hitler that he might achieve more if he refrained from force.

    As for polish government, it predicted that Germany would fail totally, loose war and with that Poland could grab vast territories from Germany. And this just happened and Poland did it.

    It was rational for Poland to start a war and gain territories in the West.
    Just some polish politicians outsmarted German and English idiot politicians.
    Instead of blaming Poles, you should blame yourself of your idiocy.

    The same with NATO and Russia.
    Poles know, who are the Americans, who are the Russians , Germans, English and French.
    And Poles play them the same way as in 1939.
    Very funny to see Putin's Russia and NATO all going frenzy and spending up milliards because some low level polish official is just talking them to do it and lol when reporting to polish PM.

    Nothing changes in Europe.
    , @Seraphim
    @"Polish pride, obstinacy and folie de grandeur".

    It was the same pride, obstinacy and folie de grandeur of the Szlachta which led to the weakening of the Polish state in the 18th Century and its partition in the first place.
  4. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    There’s nothing remotely absurd about the comparison. If there was supposed to be a united front against German expansionism, Poland had betrayed it before it even came into being. Poland was happy to take advantage of the Munich agreement to grab a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Poland even raised its own demands for overseas colonies to make the Mini-Me act more complete.

    Read More
  5. It is very interesting to see that there is not a whole lot of enthusiasm about NATO among the European countries, as evidenced by the fact that they are still looking for a country to lead the last of the four battalions being deployed in Poland and the three Baltic countries. This seems to be consistent with those polls about a year or so ago showing that every NATO in western Europe was opposed to going to the aid of the Eastern European NATO members should they be attacked by Russia. So much for the NATO pledge. As far as I am concerned, NATO lost its reason for being when the Soviet Union was dissolved, and NATO should have followed the USSR out the door.

    http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/nato-struggles-to-rally-allies-to-deter-resurgent-russia:

    “BRUSSELS • Six weeks before a critical summit meeting aimed at bolstering Nato’s deterrence against a resurgent Russia, the alliance is facing a long list of challenges.

    The first is to find a country to lead the last of four military units to be deployed in Poland and the three Baltic nations.”

    With respect to France and Italy, the article says the following: “Despite the growing threats, many European countries still resist strong measures to strengthen Nato. Many remain reluctant to increase military spending, despite past pledges. Some, like Italy, are cutting back. France is reverting to its traditional scepticism towards the alliance, which it sees as an instrument of US policy and an infringement on its sovereignty.”

    Read More
  6. @SmoothieX12
    Dear German Reader. I don't know what they teach you in Germany but here is an opinion of one of the greatest Anglophone military historians, Commodore Of British Empire Correlli Barnett from his seminal The Collapse Of British Power. Enjoy.

    http://s33.postimg.org/kfc34mlun/Poland.jpg

    SmoothieX12, if it is not too burdensome, could you please post what comes after the “four or five”? Just one more page should suffice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12
    My scans of selected pages by Barnett are at home PC. I am not at home right now. I'll try, once I get there. But my advice is to simply check out this incredible book (a large one) and read it in full. It is a seminal work of history which also explains why Anglo societies degenerate.
  7. @SmoothieX12
    Dear German Reader. I don't know what they teach you in Germany but here is an opinion of one of the greatest Anglophone military historians, Commodore Of British Empire Correlli Barnett from his seminal The Collapse Of British Power. Enjoy.

    http://s33.postimg.org/kfc34mlun/Poland.jpg

    That excerpt doesn’t tell me anything except that Corelli Barnett thinks Polish behaviour in 1939 was foolish (don’t really get his argument from that brief excerpt…does he argue Poland should have been more accomodating of German demands for the corridor?)…so what? Doesn’t change the fact that the Soviet Union had a secret agreement with Germany for the division of Poland, then invaded Eastern Poland and committed massive crimes there. Which is totally incomparable to Poland’s 1934 non-aggression-pact which didn’t include provisions for invading other countries (let alone committing mass murders/mass deportations like the Soviet Union did in 1939-1941).

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12
    Polish folie de grandeur. No comments to the rest.
    , @Jon Halpenny
    Professor Geoffrey Roberts has demonstrated that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was not a division of territory. At the time it was signed it was not clear Poland would collapse under German blitzkrieg. The Soviets had to reconsider the situation in September 1939 after the Polish army had already begun to collapse and German panzers were racing everywhere. Only then was a decision to intervene in Poland taken. Winston Churchill publicly declared it was a good thing that Soviet troops had denied occupation of eastern Poland to the Germans.


    http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Union-Origins-Second-World/dp/0333556976
  8. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    german_reader,you,sir do not deserve a comment.as you stated you did not read,let alone comprehend, the article .

    Read More
  9. Russia will be further decoupled form the EU, especially economically.

    This, I would argue, is a huge win for Russia in a long run. Judging by the latest developments–a really huge one. I mean economic part. As per “cultural” part–erecting a cultural wall doesn’t seem such a bad idea, when one considers current EU “values”. Lest they get transplanted to Russia’s soil. God forbids.

    Read More
  10. @tbraton
    SmoothieX12, if it is not too burdensome, could you please post what comes after the "four or five"? Just one more page should suffice.

    My scans of selected pages by Barnett are at home PC. I am not at home right now. I’ll try, once I get there. But my advice is to simply check out this incredible book (a large one) and read it in full. It is a seminal work of history which also explains why Anglo societies degenerate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Thanks, SmoothieX12. No rush. Whenever you get a chance. I was just curious about the non-completed thought that the "four or five years" led to.
  11. @SmoothieX12
    Dear German Reader. I don't know what they teach you in Germany but here is an opinion of one of the greatest Anglophone military historians, Commodore Of British Empire Correlli Barnett from his seminal The Collapse Of British Power. Enjoy.

    http://s33.postimg.org/kfc34mlun/Poland.jpg

    England wanted to appease Germany by giving Germany rich awards – polish lands.
    No wonder that polish government refused.
    If England wanted that much to avoid war it could give Germany some English land, like Kent for example.
    It could show Mr. Hitler that he might achieve more if he refrained from force.

    As for polish government, it predicted that Germany would fail totally, loose war and with that Poland could grab vast territories from Germany. And this just happened and Poland did it.

    It was rational for Poland to start a war and gain territories in the West.
    Just some polish politicians outsmarted German and English idiot politicians.
    Instead of blaming Poles, you should blame yourself of your idiocy.

    The same with NATO and Russia.
    Poles know, who are the Americans, who are the Russians , Germans, English and French.
    And Poles play them the same way as in 1939.
    Very funny to see Putin’s Russia and NATO all going frenzy and spending up milliards because some low level polish official is just talking them to do it and lol when reporting to polish PM.

    Nothing changes in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That had to be the most expensive land purchase in history.
    , @Che Guava

    spending up milliards
     
    Nice to see someone else recall the time before the bastardised US 'billion', like many of their language innovations, originating in error, has become near-universal in English-speaking lands.

    Style rules for many years restricted it to money, not science etc.

    I recall Russell Crowe, commenting post 2008, something like 'Why not just give everyone $x', x being a large sum which, I bothered to calculate at the time, was correct, if you use the correct definition of billion, ten to the twelfth, and divide by the rough size of the US population.

    Many journalists outside the US, usually older than Crowe, ridiculed him, simply displaying their own ignorance and lack of attention to maths at school, or perhaps, their 1984-style flexible memories.

    'Billion has always meant ten to the ninth, it never meant ten to the twelfth.'

    I was able to understand the US journalists doing the same, but those outside just showed that they were morons.

    The Saker's article is, as always, interesting, and Poland did, after all, gleefully participate in a land grab from Czechoslovakia under the terms of their non-agression pact.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Clearly, it was a brilliant plan.
    , @Anonymous
    The vast territories were not grabbed by Poland but given to Poland by Stalin.
  12. @German_reader
    That excerpt doesn't tell me anything except that Corelli Barnett thinks Polish behaviour in 1939 was foolish (don't really get his argument from that brief excerpt...does he argue Poland should have been more accomodating of German demands for the corridor?)...so what? Doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union had a secret agreement with Germany for the division of Poland, then invaded Eastern Poland and committed massive crimes there. Which is totally incomparable to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-pact which didn't include provisions for invading other countries (let alone committing mass murders/mass deportations like the Soviet Union did in 1939-1941).

    Polish folie de grandeur. No comments to the rest.

    Read More
  13. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    First of all, nobody had ever presented any copy of Ribbentropp – Molotov Pact. It most likely never existed.

    And second, USSR simply reclaimed the land that Poland seized by aggression during Russian Civil War. Soviets didn’t grab what shouldn’t have belonged to them in the first place.

    Read More
  14. Polish behavior – poking the bear, then pleading for American protection when consequences loom – is beyond revolting.

    Read More
    • Agree: SmoothieX12
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    True, and it's also beyond stupid since even Polish liberals are surely aware the Americans will not lift a finger to help them in the event of actual war. That the comments of the FBI director re. Polish collaboration with Germans against Jews did not open Polish eyes, does not speak well of Polish sensibilities.
  15. Is Poland about to play the role of dupe and sacrificial lamb for the cause of Atlanticist-Zionist hegemony yet again?

    The Second World War was begun and fought primarily for the purpose of destroying Germany as an independent nation, in large part because Hitler’s miraculous economic recovery, monetary policies and the institution of the barter trade, which were in essence an end run around and potentially mortal threat to the world financial domination by The City of London and Wall St. Although the current situation with the BRICS and the attempted encirclement of Russia is obviously an exact repetition, the two situations do share many eerie similarities.

    The cynical Anglo-French offer of military alliance to Poland was merely a tripwire to launch the war on a continental basis. The British War Party, (Churchill, Cooper, Hore Belishe, Anthony Eden, inter alia), the FDR administration (working behind the scenes), did everything in their power to encourage the Polish “Regime of Colonels” to act as intransigently and as bellicose as possible in the face of perfectly reasonable and moderate German proposals to reincorporate the 95% ethnic German (and Free City under League of Nations administration) Danzig into the Reich and a transportation corridor connecting East Prussia and Danzig with the rest of Germany. The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world. I would be so bold as to say that Hitler did not want war at all, although when presented with it by Germany’s enemies as a fait accomplis, would fight it.

    Neither Hitler nor Stalin could be blamed for signing the Non-Aggression Pact; Poland was hardly the innocent and defenseless lamb set upon by raving wolves. From the short period after its national rebirth, the bellicose, virulently chauvinist policies of its leadership were well known to the world. It had involved itself in numerous conflicts inspired by its own leadership’s exaggerated sense of national power. I am sure Pilsudski’s victory over the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw had much to do with imbuing a sense of invincibility into the Polish military leadership, although the Marshal himself was smart enough not to get caught in a German-Soviet vise, as were his successors. I believe the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact was signed in 1934.

    If the Polish leadership of today were of the caliber of Pilsudski, would it fail to perceive that the same, virtually identical forces, want to make dupes of the Poles again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn't want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

  16. @SmoothieX12
    My scans of selected pages by Barnett are at home PC. I am not at home right now. I'll try, once I get there. But my advice is to simply check out this incredible book (a large one) and read it in full. It is a seminal work of history which also explains why Anglo societies degenerate.

    Thanks, SmoothieX12. No rush. Whenever you get a chance. I was just curious about the non-completed thought that the “four or five years” led to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    SmoothieX12, the thought just occurred to me that it might be less work just to type out the completion of the sentence on the next page. That's all I'm interested in.
  17. @tbraton
    Thanks, SmoothieX12. No rush. Whenever you get a chance. I was just curious about the non-completed thought that the "four or five years" led to.

    SmoothieX12, the thought just occurred to me that it might be less work just to type out the completion of the sentence on the next page. That’s all I’m interested in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12
    No problem.

    http://s33.postimg.org/u8bkriywf/Page570.jpg
  18. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Aixa
    England wanted to appease Germany by giving Germany rich awards - polish lands.
    No wonder that polish government refused.
    If England wanted that much to avoid war it could give Germany some English land, like Kent for example.
    It could show Mr. Hitler that he might achieve more if he refrained from force.

    As for polish government, it predicted that Germany would fail totally, loose war and with that Poland could grab vast territories from Germany. And this just happened and Poland did it.

    It was rational for Poland to start a war and gain territories in the West.
    Just some polish politicians outsmarted German and English idiot politicians.
    Instead of blaming Poles, you should blame yourself of your idiocy.

    The same with NATO and Russia.
    Poles know, who are the Americans, who are the Russians , Germans, English and French.
    And Poles play them the same way as in 1939.
    Very funny to see Putin's Russia and NATO all going frenzy and spending up milliards because some low level polish official is just talking them to do it and lol when reporting to polish PM.

    Nothing changes in Europe.

    That had to be the most expensive land purchase in history.

    Read More
  19. @tbraton
    SmoothieX12, the thought just occurred to me that it might be less work just to type out the completion of the sentence on the next page. That's all I'm interested in.
    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Thanks, SmoothieX12.
    , @Vendetta
    Interesting stuff. Maybe Chamberlain actually would have achieved his intentions by having one of those absurd little tripwire forces sent to Poland when the guarantee was offered.
  20. Russia doesn’t have a good propaganda machine. They have good points to score but they still sound wooden and predictable like TASS or Pravda during Brezhnev times. Just look at Sputnik, RT or Russia Insider. I think they just do not have a knack for it or somebody is sabotaging their efforts. So when I read Saker I keep wondering: Is it a lack of talent or is he a saboteur? Russia has a story to be told that deserves a much better story teller.

    Read More
    • Replies: @landlubber

    deserves a much better story teller
     
    For this particular article, I agree. The House Negro example may be apt, but it can only resonate badly with American readers. Liberals think nothing can fairly be compared to racism, and conservatives aren't going to see the world through the eyes of Malcolm X.
    , @SmoothieX12

    Russia doesn’t have a good propaganda machine.
     
    Today, Russia doesn't need a propaganda "machine", she merely needs the reality to be presented. This is much simpler work than propaganda. And then again, neocons and their media are so incompetent that, sometimes, allowing Russian, American or any other real professionals to simply talk is more than enough.
    , @schmenz
    Agreed.
  21. “And I am quite certain that US officers will have far more respect for their Russian “adversaries” than for their NATO “allies”.”

    I can’t go so far as to disparage the NATO allies, but in the ’80s we did have a certain grudging respect for the ‘adversaries’ or ‘opposing forces’. I don’t recall I or anyone around me ever referring to them as enemies, which goes a long way to explaining why missiles did not fly so many years ago when the world was seemingly on a hair-trigger. To be frank, the bipolar world of the 70s and 80s was a lot more stable than today’s unipolar world.

    Read More
  22. NATO’s behaviour towards Russia certainly deserves criticism and rectification. But Russia and it’s dopey apologist like “Saker” sure play into NATO’s hands most easily.

    Read More
  23. @utu
    Russia doesn't have a good propaganda machine. They have good points to score but they still sound wooden and predictable like TASS or Pravda during Brezhnev times. Just look at Sputnik, RT or Russia Insider. I think they just do not have a knack for it or somebody is sabotaging their efforts. So when I read Saker I keep wondering: Is it a lack of talent or is he a saboteur? Russia has a story to be told that deserves a much better story teller.

    deserves a much better story teller

    For this particular article, I agree. The House Negro example may be apt, but it can only resonate badly with American readers. Liberals think nothing can fairly be compared to racism, and conservatives aren’t going to see the world through the eyes of Malcolm X.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    Malcolm's explanation was spot on. Liberals and conservatives have issues with reality so they try to wish reality away. Truth is as always a moveable feast. Malcolm's truths are still true even when America does it ever uplifting neener neener at reality.
    , @Kiza
    You may be correct about US Neo-liberals and Neo-conservatives, they would see Saker's comparison as totally un-PC and would not stop braying. But I fail to understand why you fall for utu's trolling about Saker. Saker is not Russian propaganda in my opinion, Saker is a little Western entrepreneur who discovered that there is a niche in the information market for Russia-related analysis in good English. He is pro-Russian but he is not a propagandist paid by the Russians. If you want to understand Russia and avoid being bamboozled by the Western MSM propaganda.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Put bluntly, who gives a damn if it resonates poorly with Americans? A slap in the face (several, really) is exactly what they need.
  24. @utu
    Russia doesn't have a good propaganda machine. They have good points to score but they still sound wooden and predictable like TASS or Pravda during Brezhnev times. Just look at Sputnik, RT or Russia Insider. I think they just do not have a knack for it or somebody is sabotaging their efforts. So when I read Saker I keep wondering: Is it a lack of talent or is he a saboteur? Russia has a story to be told that deserves a much better story teller.

    Russia doesn’t have a good propaganda machine.

    Today, Russia doesn’t need a propaganda “machine”, she merely needs the reality to be presented. This is much simpler work than propaganda. And then again, neocons and their media are so incompetent that, sometimes, allowing Russian, American or any other real professionals to simply talk is more than enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Today, Russia doesn’t need a propaganda “machine”, she merely needs the reality to be presented. This is much simpler work than propaganda. And then again, neocons and their media are so incompetent that, sometimes, allowing Russian, American or any other real professionals to simply talk is more than enough.
     
    Exactly. Despite Russia's alleged inferiority in the propaganda department, they are winning the information war. Why do you think NATOstan wants to start censoring the internet? Because people have been catching on to their bullshit media.

    http://theduran.com/1984-eu-unveils-online-code-conduct-fight-censor-hate-speech/
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/12/02/the-war-against-the-trolls/
  25. @utu
    Russia doesn't have a good propaganda machine. They have good points to score but they still sound wooden and predictable like TASS or Pravda during Brezhnev times. Just look at Sputnik, RT or Russia Insider. I think they just do not have a knack for it or somebody is sabotaging their efforts. So when I read Saker I keep wondering: Is it a lack of talent or is he a saboteur? Russia has a story to be told that deserves a much better story teller.

    Agreed.

    Read More
  26. @Mulegino1
    Is Poland about to play the role of dupe and sacrificial lamb for the cause of Atlanticist-Zionist hegemony yet again?


    The Second World War was begun and fought primarily for the purpose of destroying Germany as an independent nation, in large part because Hitler's miraculous economic recovery, monetary policies and the institution of the barter trade, which were in essence an end run around and potentially mortal threat to the world financial domination by The City of London and Wall St. Although the current situation with the BRICS and the attempted encirclement of Russia is obviously an exact repetition, the two situations do share many eerie similarities.

    The cynical Anglo-French offer of military alliance to Poland was merely a tripwire to launch the war on a continental basis. The British War Party, (Churchill, Cooper, Hore Belishe, Anthony Eden, inter alia), the FDR administration (working behind the scenes), did everything in their power to encourage the Polish "Regime of Colonels" to act as intransigently and as bellicose as possible in the face of perfectly reasonable and moderate German proposals to reincorporate the 95% ethnic German (and Free City under League of Nations administration) Danzig into the Reich and a transportation corridor connecting East Prussia and Danzig with the rest of Germany. The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world. I would be so bold as to say that Hitler did not want war at all, although when presented with it by Germany's enemies as a fait accomplis, would fight it.

    Neither Hitler nor Stalin could be blamed for signing the Non-Aggression Pact; Poland was hardly the innocent and defenseless lamb set upon by raving wolves. From the short period after its national rebirth, the bellicose, virulently chauvinist policies of its leadership were well known to the world. It had involved itself in numerous conflicts inspired by its own leadership's exaggerated sense of national power. I am sure Pilsudski's victory over the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw had much to do with imbuing a sense of invincibility into the Polish military leadership, although the Marshal himself was smart enough not to get caught in a German-Soviet vise, as were his successors. I believe the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact was signed in 1934.

    If the Polish leadership of today were of the caliber of Pilsudski, would it fail to perceive that the same, virtually identical forces, want to make dupes of the Poles again.

    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn’t want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    you and Alexander oughta get a room
    , @HdC
    Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).

    It explains why Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe, which had been planned to commence one month after the German invasion. Consequently the German invasion was a preemptive attack in the truest sense of the definition.

    I would submit that a very large number of Soviet troops were murdered by their own rear-guard troops in order to stop retreat or surrender.

    Or they died in battle because of insufficient war material. Or through the stupidity of their commanders.

    I know it is politically correct to blame the Germans for all national and international ills in the world, but that doesn't mean it is true or, that the thinking portion of the population swallows this nonsense. HdC
    , @Jacques Sheete
    I would also recommend reading Suvorov.

    Pat Buchanan also has some short columns on his website answering your question, then there's this.:


    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned: that Germany and Japan are not uniquely "aggressor nations," doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592
    , @Mulegino1
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    No, but is "living space" so controversial a concept that it needs to be made into a Manichean myth? It is no more evil a concept that "Manifest Destiny" in the United States, perhaps less so, because those of European Christian descent could hardly claim ancestral ties to Wyoming or the Dakotas, while the Germanic peoples could certainly do so with regards to the western parts of Poland and Ukraine.

    "Lebensraum" is a perfectly reasonable concept which predated the National Socialists by decades. Jewish propaganda has given it an utterly distorted meaning, i.e., that it implies the destruction or total displacement of the indigenous peoples by those of "pure Aryan descent" whereas, in reality, it refers to the settling of sparsely populated regions by ethnic Germans, with no real negative consequences for the local indigenous populations.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Lebensraum is not a myth, but there is no evidence what Hitler wrote in the 20's (before he became German ruler) re. the THEN instability of the new Soviet state and prospects following its (wrongly) anticipated dissolution, played any role in the formulation of Barbarossa.
  27. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Polish political elites must be the most brain-dead in all of Europe. Why in 1939 they took the ludicrous British territorial guarantees seriously is inexplicable to me. There was essentially nothing the U.K. could have done to save Poland as the Poles should have instantly realized. Today it should be clear that Russia is no threat and cannot even touch Polish soil except from the tiny exclave to the north. Poland has probably never been safer from attack by any European country then at any time in its history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    The explanation seems to be that they really thought the German regime was fragile and would collapse if Poland made no concessions. No doubt they knew of the unhappiness among the German generals when it looked like the Czech crisis would lead to war, and failed to see how the final outcome of that crisis had changed calculations.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Edwin Black in "The Transfer Agreement" is rather surprisingly forthright in recording the extent to which Jewish zionists enflamed Polish public opinion against Germany. Black notes that Polish military forces threatened an invasion of Germany very early on -- within months of Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

    The anti-German propaganda steadily increased as did the military threats. Black wrote that it was the stated tactic of zionist Jews to conflate the Danzig conflict with what Jews considered "persecution of Jews" in order to incite non-Jewish Poles to intensified hatred of Germans.

    wrt "persecution of Jews" -- other Jewish authors report that In the time-period from NSDAP aggregation of power in the first quarter of 1933 until the onset of war, Sept 1 (or 3, re British) 1939, Jews in Germany were protected from physical violence by the NSDAP, to the extent that no Jews were even sent to concentration camp until mid-November 1938. Even then, most of those Jews were released, only Jews identified as Communists were retained in camps.

    The role of Jews in exacerbating the situation that led to war, with what appears to all intents and purposes to have the an eagerness for a hot war, absolutely must be factored into the equation.

    , @gwynedd1
    I think Montesquieu spoke rather disparaging of them and that they remained a feudalistic potato state was a surprise to no one.

    "; in general, the pleasures of the prince, that of despotic states; that of monarchies, the prince's and the kingdom's glory; the independence of individuals is the end aimed at by the laws of Poland, thence results the oppression of the whole."


    Poland's leadership has always been poor. If they would stop their mindless grudges they would see themselves straddling East and West. By taking a neutral stance between Russia and the Nato they could win favors from both. The model city state for this master stroke was Dubrovnik which won favors from the Ottomans as a means to keep them out of a Western orbit and they won a beautiful little republic from it.
  28. @anon
    The Polish political elites must be the most brain-dead in all of Europe. Why in 1939 they took the ludicrous British territorial guarantees seriously is inexplicable to me. There was essentially nothing the U.K. could have done to save Poland as the Poles should have instantly realized. Today it should be clear that Russia is no threat and cannot even touch Polish soil except from the tiny exclave to the north. Poland has probably never been safer from attack by any European country then at any time in its history.

    The explanation seems to be that they really thought the German regime was fragile and would collapse if Poland made no concessions. No doubt they knew of the unhappiness among the German generals when it looked like the Czech crisis would lead to war, and failed to see how the final outcome of that crisis had changed calculations.

    Read More
  29. @Avery
    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn't want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    you and Alexander oughta get a room

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    you recommending that based on your own experience with your fellow neo-Nazi posters?
  30. @anon
    The Polish political elites must be the most brain-dead in all of Europe. Why in 1939 they took the ludicrous British territorial guarantees seriously is inexplicable to me. There was essentially nothing the U.K. could have done to save Poland as the Poles should have instantly realized. Today it should be clear that Russia is no threat and cannot even touch Polish soil except from the tiny exclave to the north. Poland has probably never been safer from attack by any European country then at any time in its history.

    Edwin Black in “The Transfer Agreement” is rather surprisingly forthright in recording the extent to which Jewish zionists enflamed Polish public opinion against Germany. Black notes that Polish military forces threatened an invasion of Germany very early on — within months of Hitler’s appointment as chancellor.

    The anti-German propaganda steadily increased as did the military threats. Black wrote that it was the stated tactic of zionist Jews to conflate the Danzig conflict with what Jews considered “persecution of Jews” in order to incite non-Jewish Poles to intensified hatred of Germans.

    wrt “persecution of Jews” — other Jewish authors report that In the time-period from NSDAP aggregation of power in the first quarter of 1933 until the onset of war, Sept 1 (or 3, re British) 1939, Jews in Germany were protected from physical violence by the NSDAP, to the extent that no Jews were even sent to concentration camp until mid-November 1938. Even then, most of those Jews were released, only Jews identified as Communists were retained in camps.

    The role of Jews in exacerbating the situation that led to war, with what appears to all intents and purposes to have the an eagerness for a hot war, absolutely must be factored into the equation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sherman
    Now, what was that part about your parents teaching you to respect Jews?

    Sherm
  31. @Avery
    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn't want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).

    It explains why Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe, which had been planned to commence one month after the German invasion. Consequently the German invasion was a preemptive attack in the truest sense of the definition.

    I would submit that a very large number of Soviet troops were murdered by their own rear-guard troops in order to stop retreat or surrender.

    Or they died in battle because of insufficient war material. Or through the stupidity of their commanders.

    I know it is politically correct to blame the Germans for all national and international ills in the world, but that doesn’t mean it is true or, that the thinking portion of the population swallows this nonsense. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Duplicate from another thread (I know, SmoothieX12 will disagree):
    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)
     

    I.f.f.U.: Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods, 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army — in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00:
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    I can imagine that your (Revusky's) impression of Suvorov’s work may be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    , @Seraphim
    @Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe

    It became lately "politically correct" to 'expose' the innately aggressive intentions of Russia (it goes back in time to the famous hoax of the Testament of Peter the Great - in which the Poles had a heavy hand) and exonerate Germany, both for WWI and II.

    Let's quote a few passages from the Introduction to a fundamental book written in 1938: 'Brest-Litovsk, The Forgotten Peace, March 1918", by J.W. Wheeler-Bennett.

    "the very practical application of the principles of Brest-Litovsk now obtaining in Germany (1938), since the advent to power of the National Socialist regime. The Weimar Republic, with the support of the majority opinion on the German General Staff, represented by General von Seeckt, sought to reach a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, and largely succeeded in doing so by the Treaty of Rapallo and the Military Agreement of April 3, 1922, and the German-Russian Non-Aggression Treaty of 1926. There remained, however, a minority who followed in the Hoffmann tradition, regarding Bolshevism as the root of all evil, and dreaming of the ultimate realization of those far-reaching plans for German expansion in Eastern Europe which so sadly eluded them after Brest-Litovsk.
    Added to this is the very definite view which Adolf Hitler himself holds regarding the treaty, and which the National Socialist Party has sedulously fostered into a legend and an attainable ideal. For the ideology which actuated the dictation of the treaty has not been replaced by any other set of ideas, and has become the conviction of a large part of the German people. The present German generation - the generation of Nazi Germany - regards the principles of Brest-Litovsk and the motives lying behind it as an actual political programme. None has been more eloquent in this view than the Fuehrer himself, in his comparison of the treaty with the Peace of Versailles. " I placed the two Treaties side by side, compared them point by point, showed the positively boundless humanity of the one in contrast to the inhuman cruelty of the other ", he wrote in Mein Kampf. " In those days I spoke on this subject before audiences of 2000 at which I was often exposed to the gaze of 3600 hostile eyes. And three hours later I had before me a surging mass filled with righteous indignation and boundless wrath." With this as a pointer it is not surprising to find Hitler stating somewhat later in his work : " We [the National Socialists] stop the perpetual migration towards the south and west of Europe and fix our gaze on the land in the East . . . when we talk of new lands in Europe, we are bound to think first of Russia and her border States". And again: "We must not forget that the international Jew, who continues to dominate Russia, does not regard Germany as an ally, but as a State destined to undergo a similar fate. The menace which Russia suffered under is one which perpetually hangs over Germany; Germany is the next great objective of Bolshevism.
    Here then is combined in one political philosophy the doctrine of pre-war Pan-Germanism, the all-pervading hatred of the Jew, and the ideological opposition to Bolshevism, and the only means by which this philosophy may be given practical application is through a reversion to the German mentality of Brest-Litovsk...
    This expansion according to the views expressed in Mem Kampf, the undisputed Bible of the Third Reich, is to take place in the east and south-east of Europe, in those territories to which German colonization during the Middle Ages was directed- "We begin again where we left six centuries ago" - and to the Ukraine and Southern Russia as a whole...
    German " colonization " in Russia was proposed by Dr. Schacht at a conference in Rome in
    November 1932, even before the advent of Hitler to power, and the subject was revived in Herr Hugenberg's famous memorandum to the World Economic Conference in June 1933. The Fuehrer himself made plain reference to it during his speeches against Communism at the Nurnberg Parteifest of 1936. " If the Urals with their incalculable wealth of raw-materials, the rich forests of Siberia, and the unending cornfields of the Ukraine lay within Germany, under National Socialist leadership the country would swim in plenty. We would produce, and every single German would have enough to live on ", he told representatives of the Arbeitsfront on September 12. No purer example of Brest- Litovsk psychology could be required than this virtual incitement to plunder".
    (pp.XVI-XVIII)
    , @Avery
    Suvorov's thesis has been debunked by many, e.g. Colonel David Glantz's work "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War."

    Viktor Suvorov, real name Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, is an amateur historian regularly accused of historical revisionism and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom. He has an ax to grind. He needs to sell books. He is a fraud.

    And pretty much all criminals justify their crimes one way or another by blaming the victim.
    You and other neo-Nazi revisionists attempting to justify the killings and murders of ~25 million people of USSR due to the criminal invasion by Nazi Germany are no different.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    You are largely correct that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack, but come on, the shocking maltreatment of Soviet POWs by the Germans (granted they were rebuffed by Stalin in attempts to come to agreement re. treatment of prisoners) is well-known and a serous crime.
  32. Maybe those rabid Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians have stealthily taken over the West and are agitating Russia in the hopes that WWIII will commence and mushroom clouds will start blossoming over their cities so they can use the corpses of millions and millions to build that Stairway to Heaven.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    so they can use the corpses of millions and millions to build that Stairway to Heaven.
     
    You have a point.
  33. @Greg Bacon
    Maybe those rabid Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians have stealthily taken over the West and are agitating Russia in the hopes that WWIII will commence and mushroom clouds will start blossoming over their cities so they can use the corpses of millions and millions to build that Stairway to Heaven.

    so they can use the corpses of millions and millions to build that Stairway to Heaven.

    You have a point.

    Read More
  34. @HdC
    Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).

    It explains why Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe, which had been planned to commence one month after the German invasion. Consequently the German invasion was a preemptive attack in the truest sense of the definition.

    I would submit that a very large number of Soviet troops were murdered by their own rear-guard troops in order to stop retreat or surrender.

    Or they died in battle because of insufficient war material. Or through the stupidity of their commanders.

    I know it is politically correct to blame the Germans for all national and international ills in the world, but that doesn't mean it is true or, that the thinking portion of the population swallows this nonsense. HdC

    Duplicate from another thread (I know, SmoothieX12 will disagree):
    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)

    I.f.f.U.: Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods, 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army — in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00:

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

    I can imagine that your (Revusky’s) impression of Suvorov’s work may be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
    You seem to know more than Hitler himself. In his very own words the attack on USSR was necessary in order to make Great Britain surrender by removing her one and only ally in Europe from the war. As far as USSR fighting capabilities were concerned, Hitler called USSR a giant on feet of clay. One would conclude from that description that he did not exactly consider the Russians as a serious military threat. In fact he planned to have the war with USSR concluded in less than five month. So keep your fairy tales about pre-emptive strike for children.
    , @SmoothieX12
    http://s33.postimg.org/ibysvbdfj/Rezun_Glantz.jpg
    , @L.K
    The book you mentioned, Immigrant from former USSR, is excellent.

    The only problem with Suvorov(Rezun) is that he basically only addresses the Soviet responsability for the war, leaving out the other 2 main culprits on the Allied side; The U.S F.D.R administration and Churchill and the rest of the British war mongering party(France to a less extent).

    The fools and propagandists here who try to dismiss Suvorov's work are either stupid and ignorant or just dishonest. They think Suvorov is the only Russian who has advanced such a thesis, far from it;

    Since the 1990s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims. An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers include:
    Besides former Soviet intel officer , Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc.


    In fact, Suvorov's more recent work, such as 'The Chief Culprit", benefits a lot from such research done by other Russian historians in the archives.

    Since the 1990s, many Western/European historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans such as Prof.Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi.
    German and Austrian historians such as Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, military historians such as Heinz Magenheimer, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof and Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, S. Scheil, Polish historian Bogdan Musial, Scott E. Mawdsley, French Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, etc.

    The official comic book, Roger Rabitt narrative re the Soviet-German clash during WWII does not have a leg to stand on.
    This is the reason behind Russia’s new legislation against ‘revising’ WWII history.
    The truth does not need to be shielded from scrutiny.

    Also most Soviet archives of the era remain sealed.
    Why? What is the Russian government hiding? A lot. As Rezun points out, many hundreds of thousands of top secret documents remain sealed.
    It is understandable that Russia, as the main heir to the Soviet Empire, does not wish to let go of its most important national myth, even more so when the Americans, Perfidious Albion, aka, the english pests and the French are of course not letting go of the “good war” myth either and will not face up to their decisive roles and responsabilities in fomenting and causing what eventually became a world war(II).
  35. East-Europeans are so terrified that they are unable to thinking logically.

    Saker should have paid more attention to the map at the top. What he calls Eastern Europeans are actually Central Europeans. His claim about terrified population unable to think logically is an exaggeration based solely on Saker’s dislike of Central Europeans. I have lived for the last three years right in the middle of Central Europe and I have not met any terrified individuals. As far as their inability to think logically is concerned I would say that their ability to think remains unimpaired.

    If this is a huge success for the Empire, this is also a huge failure for Russia.

    How can that be? Under the leadership of infallible genius Putin, Russia goes from victory to victory as testified by many previous articles from this author.

    I can only conclude that the Europeans deserve the leaders they have.

    As Americans deserve theirs and that includes you Mr. Saker.

    Read More
  36. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Duplicate from another thread (I know, SmoothieX12 will disagree):
    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)
     

    I.f.f.U.: Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods, 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army — in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00:
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    I can imagine that your (Revusky's) impression of Suvorov’s work may be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    You seem to know more than Hitler himself. In his very own words the attack on USSR was necessary in order to make Great Britain surrender by removing her one and only ally in Europe from the war. As far as USSR fighting capabilities were concerned, Hitler called USSR a giant on feet of clay. One would conclude from that description that he did not exactly consider the Russians as a serious military threat. In fact he planned to have the war with USSR concluded in less than five month. So keep your fairy tales about pre-emptive strike for children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Esteemed Regnum Nostrum:
    I have addressed my reply to HdC, but now I will respond to you.

    GRU (Chief Intelligence Directorate of Soviet Army) retrieved in 1940-41 the information that
    1) German Army did not prepare winter sheep coats (овчиные шубы) or any other warm clothes for the campaign in Russia.
    2) German Army did not prepare winter type of oil for artillery and rifles (смазочные масла), oil adequate for winter conditions in Russia.
    Considering Germans as at least reasonable, GRU did not expect them to advance against USSR without said preparations.

    Now you tell me, who was smart to call USSR a giant on feet of clay and not to look at the geographical size of USSR: linear dimension about 7,200 km (4,500 land miles, along the geodesic.) Dividing 7,200 km by (5*30)=150 days, it would mean
    moving the front line of your troops
    with the continuous speed about 50 km per day ---
    unheard of, either in previous or even in subsequent wars.

    Disclaimer.
    In no ways am I trying to justify aggressive politics of Stalin's USSR.
    I despise my own grand-aunt, who worked in Comintern with Béla Kun (Hungarian Communist leader) and was liquidated more or less simultaneously with him (around 1938.)
    But the goals of Comintern were promoted not only ideologically, but mostly in the military form: militarization, war preparation, etc., independently of my attitudes
    (the more so, I was not born at the time yet.)
    Respectfully yours, I.f.f.U.

    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    In addition, just ask yourself, what was the speed of front line during Iraq-Coalition war of 2003 ?
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq :
    about 800 km of the linear size of Iraq, Date of war: 20 March – 1 May 2003 (40 days),
    800 / 40 = 20 km per day, with all modern technology.
  37. @Regnum Nostrum
    You seem to know more than Hitler himself. In his very own words the attack on USSR was necessary in order to make Great Britain surrender by removing her one and only ally in Europe from the war. As far as USSR fighting capabilities were concerned, Hitler called USSR a giant on feet of clay. One would conclude from that description that he did not exactly consider the Russians as a serious military threat. In fact he planned to have the war with USSR concluded in less than five month. So keep your fairy tales about pre-emptive strike for children.

    Esteemed Regnum Nostrum:
    I have addressed my reply to HdC, but now I will respond to you.

    GRU (Chief Intelligence Directorate of Soviet Army) retrieved in 1940-41 the information that
    1) German Army did not prepare winter sheep coats (овчиные шубы) or any other warm clothes for the campaign in Russia.
    2) German Army did not prepare winter type of oil for artillery and rifles (смазочные масла), oil adequate for winter conditions in Russia.
    Considering Germans as at least reasonable, GRU did not expect them to advance against USSR without said preparations.

    Now you tell me, who was smart to call USSR a giant on feet of clay and not to look at the geographical size of USSR: linear dimension about 7,200 km (4,500 land miles, along the geodesic.) Dividing 7,200 km by (5*30)=150 days, it would mean
    moving the front line of your troops
    with the continuous speed about 50 km per day
    unheard of, either in previous or even in subsequent wars.

    Disclaimer.
    In no ways am I trying to justify aggressive politics of Stalin’s USSR.
    I despise my own grand-aunt, who worked in Comintern with Béla Kun (Hungarian Communist leader) and was liquidated more or less simultaneously with him (around 1938.)
    But the goals of Comintern were promoted not only ideologically, but mostly in the military form: militarization, war preparation, etc., independently of my attitudes
    (the more so, I was not born at the time yet.)
    Respectfully yours, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
    Hitler and his generals had expected the campaign in Russia to be finished before the onset of winter hence their lack of preparations for winter activities. The invasion of USSR was supposed to start much earlier but was delayed by revolt in Yugoslavia. The length of USSR is of little significance. Most of the industrial production was concentrated in large cities like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. It is no coincidence that the heaviest fighting took place around these places. Without industrial production to support your war efforts the fight is over.
  38. @Regnum Nostrum
    You seem to know more than Hitler himself. In his very own words the attack on USSR was necessary in order to make Great Britain surrender by removing her one and only ally in Europe from the war. As far as USSR fighting capabilities were concerned, Hitler called USSR a giant on feet of clay. One would conclude from that description that he did not exactly consider the Russians as a serious military threat. In fact he planned to have the war with USSR concluded in less than five month. So keep your fairy tales about pre-emptive strike for children.

    In addition, just ask yourself, what was the speed of front line during Iraq-Coalition war of 2003 ?
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq :
    about 800 km of the linear size of Iraq, Date of war: 20 March – 1 May 2003 (40 days),
    800 / 40 = 20 km per day, with all modern technology.

    Read More
  39. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    At the same time, however, the Russians are also realizing that what is taking place now is very much like what preceded the German invasion of the Soviet Union: a mix of rabidly russophobic rhetoric and an increasing concentration of military forces along the eastern borders of the Soviet Union.

    What a pile of utter rubish! Poor peace loving, non-agressive russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive East Europeans.
    Alright, I come to unz.com to read only Steve Sailer and Eamonn Fingleton anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Have you found the word "NATO" in the article? - If yes, than you should look around this word to see something in effect "financed by the US" and "creeping towards encircling the Russian federation."
    By the way, the millions of protesters against the Iraq War had been ridiculed, for being pussies, by the war-mongering class of war-profiteers. Don't you admire the fantastic results of the Middle Eastern wars, such as the millions of refugees in Europe? It seems that the war-mongering class wants more of the same; hence the NATO's maneuvers on the Russian borders. Here is the problem: the Yinon plan-inspred destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been producing the march of war refugees from the Middle East, as wells an avalanche of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The European Union is richly deserved this plague (though it should be the US paying for both the march and avalanche). But the NATO fox-trot at the Russian border could lead to a hot war that would end up the history of humankind. After the years of incessant provocations by the MIC' lunatics, at some point, Russians will not have other options but to become aggressive.
    Read this idiot from AEI and weep: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-next-us-president-must-carry-a-big-stick/?utm_source
    , @Tom Welsh
    "Poor peace loving, non-agressive russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive East Europeans".

    No, peace loving, non-aggressive Russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive Americans (and their European house negroes).

    Don't tell me that Russia (as opposed to the USSR) is aggressive when it has only fought one very short and decisive war outside its borders since 1991. In response to extreme violent aggression. (And immediately returned within its previous borders).

    Don't tell me that the USA is not bloodthirsty and expansive when since 1991 it has attacked and destroyed or severely damaged Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (through the war it ordered its puppet Saddam Hussein to launch), Libya and Syria. With the deaths of at the very least well over 3 million civilians, the creation of well over 10 million homeless refugees and the destruction of hundreds of towns and cities. And when it has positioned its most advanced and threatening military equipment right up as close to the borders of Russia and China as it possibly can.

  40. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    utter rubish!

    Rube-ish comments are a symptom of brain wasting from reading too much Sailer.

    Read More
  41. The “old Anglo” guard died with Richard of Gloucester at Bosworth. No salvation on that front.

    Read More
  42. @landlubber

    deserves a much better story teller
     
    For this particular article, I agree. The House Negro example may be apt, but it can only resonate badly with American readers. Liberals think nothing can fairly be compared to racism, and conservatives aren't going to see the world through the eyes of Malcolm X.

    Malcolm’s explanation was spot on. Liberals and conservatives have issues with reality so they try to wish reality away. Truth is as always a moveable feast. Malcolm’s truths are still true even when America does it ever uplifting neener neener at reality.

    Read More
  43. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Duplicate from another thread (I know, SmoothieX12 will disagree):
    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)
     

    I.f.f.U.: Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods, 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army — in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00:
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    I can imagine that your (Revusky's) impression of Suvorov’s work may be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    Read More
  44. @Anonymous

    At the same time, however, the Russians are also realizing that what is taking place now is very much like what preceded the German invasion of the Soviet Union: a mix of rabidly russophobic rhetoric and an increasing concentration of military forces along the eastern borders of the Soviet Union.
     
    What a pile of utter rubish! Poor peace loving, non-agressive russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive East Europeans.
    Alright, I come to unz.com to read only Steve Sailer and Eamonn Fingleton anyway.

    Have you found the word “NATO” in the article? – If yes, than you should look around this word to see something in effect “financed by the US” and “creeping towards encircling the Russian federation.”
    By the way, the millions of protesters against the Iraq War had been ridiculed, for being pussies, by the war-mongering class of war-profiteers. Don’t you admire the fantastic results of the Middle Eastern wars, such as the millions of refugees in Europe? It seems that the war-mongering class wants more of the same; hence the NATO’s maneuvers on the Russian borders. Here is the problem: the Yinon plan-inspred destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been producing the march of war refugees from the Middle East, as wells an avalanche of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The European Union is richly deserved this plague (though it should be the US paying for both the march and avalanche). But the NATO fox-trot at the Russian border could lead to a hot war that would end up the history of humankind. After the years of incessant provocations by the MIC’ lunatics, at some point, Russians will not have other options but to become aggressive.
    Read this idiot from AEI and weep: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-next-us-president-must-carry-a-big-stick/?utm_source

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    Read this idiot from AEI
     
    Neocons' defining characteristic is their sheer incompetence in issues which do require a solid body of knowledge and serious actual skills. Nowhere does this incompetence manifest itself more than in anything related to military--be it military history or more complex issues of operational art or military-political analysis. Incessant doctrine-mongering (which is a euphemism for war-mongering) is one of the indicators of intellectual hollowness of this whole neocon cabal. As a result of neocons' preponderance in US media and think-tankdom. most, not all, though, even non-neocon US "elite" lives in la-la land of US exceptionalism and history which is nothing more than real life iteration of the 1984 Minitrue propaganda--needless to say, nothing good can possibly come from all that. I never saw or heard of a lawyer, journalist or political "scientist" perform appendectomy or design a nuclear reactor, yet, somehow, it seems totally natural for those semi-educated hacks to order around complex modern armed forces. I once tried to get a degree in auto-mechanic-gynecologist field, didn't work out that well.

    P.S. The real history of the Cold War is not written yet in the West and I doubt it will ever be written properly.
    , @Rurik

    The European Union is richly deserved this plague

     

    banksters and Zionists end or destroy the lives of powerless people = other powerless people should pay the price?

    Dutch and German and French young women and working class communities caused all of this evil?

    The Fiend in the banking houses of the ECB and NATO and their minions like Obama and Merkel destroy (or end) millions of people's lives, and you think some poor guy who shovels horse manure for a living should pay for it all? That he or she 'richly deserves' it? Why, because he or she has blue eyes?

    From everything that I've been able to glimmer from my short time on this rock, is that the PTB that are slaughtering Muslims and others in these evil and monstrous wars for fun and profit, hate the working class people of Germany and France and Russia, far, far, far more than they hate the Muslims who they're bombing and mass-murdering. In fact I'd say it's not even close.

    So as these victims of Zion march on Europe and impose hell on earth and strife and intractable hatred,

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV_XKGZUsAAGQLy.jpg:large


    it's all just more divide and conquer to the infinite amusement and wet dreams of the Fiend. And all of these people are victims of the Fiend. I blame the Fiend, not it's victims. (even if they're white)

    All of us, Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, Syrian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Greek, Yemeni, Iranian, poor American (yes, there are tens of millions of them) .. and so many more who've lost their lives in these contrived wars imposed on us all by the Fiend, should be blaming the Fiend. Not the poor German teenager or impoverished American soldier whose been lied to. IMHO

    It is Merkel and Obama and all of those lying and corrupt politicians that know all of these wars are based on lies, just like they all know the downing of MH17 has all been a sewer of lies, just like the chemical weapon attack in Syria. It is the people in charge who "richly deserve" to pay for all of this. And then some. Not the poor schlub who's simply done what they considered right and good, (because they've been lied to).

    All of our collective and righteous hatred should be concentrated like a laser right at the people responsible.

    Obama. Hollande, Cameron and Blair and Bush and Clinton and the Zio-scumfucks at the Fed and ECB. They absolutely "richly deserve' to have justice visit their front door. And then some. Not, IMHO poor and middle and working class people from all over the world. Enough of them have suffered for the evil schemes of evil men and women who never seem to pay so much as hearing a harsh word offered in their general direction.

    Tony Blair should never be allowed to show his face. Same for Bush and Obama and all the rest. They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!
  45. @landlubber

    deserves a much better story teller
     
    For this particular article, I agree. The House Negro example may be apt, but it can only resonate badly with American readers. Liberals think nothing can fairly be compared to racism, and conservatives aren't going to see the world through the eyes of Malcolm X.

    You may be correct about US Neo-liberals and Neo-conservatives, they would see Saker’s comparison as totally un-PC and would not stop braying. But I fail to understand why you fall for utu’s trolling about Saker. Saker is not Russian propaganda in my opinion, Saker is a little Western entrepreneur who discovered that there is a niche in the information market for Russia-related analysis in good English. He is pro-Russian but he is not a propagandist paid by the Russians. If you want to understand Russia and avoid being bamboozled by the Western MSM propaganda.

    Read More
  46. It would be nice to get a final resolution of the European “condition” by having the US leave NATO for good. Either Britain, Germany, and France could work out their differences for the common good of all Europeans, or go their own ways in seeking a foreign policy with Russia. Or fight it out. And may the best country win. I, for one, would be content to deal with whatever power ended up on top. And I’m guessing it would be either Germany or Russia. And this would bring the circle back to where it should have ended at the conclusion of WW1.

    Read More
  47. @SmoothieX12
    Dear German Reader. I don't know what they teach you in Germany but here is an opinion of one of the greatest Anglophone military historians, Commodore Of British Empire Correlli Barnett from his seminal The Collapse Of British Power. Enjoy.

    http://s33.postimg.org/kfc34mlun/Poland.jpg

    @”Polish pride, obstinacy and folie de grandeur”.

    It was the same pride, obstinacy and folie de grandeur of the Szlachta which led to the weakening of the Polish state in the 18th Century and its partition in the first place.

    Read More
  48. @HdC
    Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).

    It explains why Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe, which had been planned to commence one month after the German invasion. Consequently the German invasion was a preemptive attack in the truest sense of the definition.

    I would submit that a very large number of Soviet troops were murdered by their own rear-guard troops in order to stop retreat or surrender.

    Or they died in battle because of insufficient war material. Or through the stupidity of their commanders.

    I know it is politically correct to blame the Germans for all national and international ills in the world, but that doesn't mean it is true or, that the thinking portion of the population swallows this nonsense. HdC

    @Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe

    It became lately “politically correct” to ‘expose’ the innately aggressive intentions of Russia (it goes back in time to the famous hoax of the Testament of Peter the Great – in which the Poles had a heavy hand) and exonerate Germany, both for WWI and II.

    Let’s quote a few passages from the Introduction to a fundamental book written in 1938: ‘Brest-Litovsk, The Forgotten Peace, March 1918″, by J.W. Wheeler-Bennett.

    [MORE]

    “the very practical application of the principles of Brest-Litovsk now obtaining in Germany (1938), since the advent to power of the National Socialist regime. The Weimar Republic, with the support of the majority opinion on the German General Staff, represented by General von Seeckt, sought to reach a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, and largely succeeded in doing so by the Treaty of Rapallo and the Military Agreement of April 3, 1922, and the German-Russian Non-Aggression Treaty of 1926. There remained, however, a minority who followed in the Hoffmann tradition, regarding Bolshevism as the root of all evil, and dreaming of the ultimate realization of those far-reaching plans for German expansion in Eastern Europe which so sadly eluded them after Brest-Litovsk.
    Added to this is the very definite view which Adolf Hitler himself holds regarding the treaty, and which the National Socialist Party has sedulously fostered into a legend and an attainable ideal. For the ideology which actuated the dictation of the treaty has not been replaced by any other set of ideas, and has become the conviction of a large part of the German people. The present German generation – the generation of Nazi Germany – regards the principles of Brest-Litovsk and the motives lying behind it as an actual political programme. None has been more eloquent in this view than the Fuehrer himself, in his comparison of the treaty with the Peace of Versailles. ” I placed the two Treaties side by side, compared them point by point, showed the positively boundless humanity of the one in contrast to the inhuman cruelty of the other “, he wrote in Mein Kampf. ” In those days I spoke on this subject before audiences of 2000 at which I was often exposed to the gaze of 3600 hostile eyes. And three hours later I had before me a surging mass filled with righteous indignation and boundless wrath.” With this as a pointer it is not surprising to find Hitler stating somewhat later in his work : ” We [the National Socialists] stop the perpetual migration towards the south and west of Europe and fix our gaze on the land in the East . . . when we talk of new lands in Europe, we are bound to think first of Russia and her border States”. And again: “We must not forget that the international Jew, who continues to dominate Russia, does not regard Germany as an ally, but as a State destined to undergo a similar fate. The menace which Russia suffered under is one which perpetually hangs over Germany; Germany is the next great objective of Bolshevism.
    Here then is combined in one political philosophy the doctrine of pre-war Pan-Germanism, the all-pervading hatred of the Jew, and the ideological opposition to Bolshevism, and the only means by which this philosophy may be given practical application is through a reversion to the German mentality of Brest-Litovsk…
    This expansion according to the views expressed in Mem Kampf, the undisputed Bible of the Third Reich, is to take place in the east and south-east of Europe, in those territories to which German colonization during the Middle Ages was directed- “We begin again where we left six centuries ago” – and to the Ukraine and Southern Russia as a whole…
    German ” colonization ” in Russia was proposed by Dr. Schacht at a conference in Rome in
    November 1932, even before the advent of Hitler to power, and the subject was revived in Herr Hugenberg’s famous memorandum to the World Economic Conference in June 1933. The Fuehrer himself made plain reference to it during his speeches against Communism at the Nurnberg Parteifest of 1936. ” If the Urals with their incalculable wealth of raw-materials, the rich forests of Siberia, and the unending cornfields of the Ukraine lay within Germany, under National Socialist leadership the country would swim in plenty. We would produce, and every single German would have enough to live on “, he told representatives of the Arbeitsfront on September 12. No purer example of Brest- Litovsk psychology could be required than this virtual incitement to plunder”.
    (pp.XVI-XVIII)

    Read More
  49. ‘But how is it that millions of Europeans took to the streets during the so-called “Euromissile crisis” or to oppose the war in Iraq, but have absolutely nothing to say about their sovereignty being turned into a farce, about their leaders supporting a Nazi regime in Kiev and about being used by the USA a cannon fodder in possible continental war?’

    Perhaps they were influenced by the fact that European governments paid absolutely no attention to their huge and sincere protest, and went to war exactly as if there had been no protests.

    Read More
  50. @Anonymous

    At the same time, however, the Russians are also realizing that what is taking place now is very much like what preceded the German invasion of the Soviet Union: a mix of rabidly russophobic rhetoric and an increasing concentration of military forces along the eastern borders of the Soviet Union.
     
    What a pile of utter rubish! Poor peace loving, non-agressive russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive East Europeans.
    Alright, I come to unz.com to read only Steve Sailer and Eamonn Fingleton anyway.

    “Poor peace loving, non-agressive russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive East Europeans”.

    No, peace loving, non-aggressive Russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive Americans (and their European house negroes).

    Don’t tell me that Russia (as opposed to the USSR) is aggressive when it has only fought one very short and decisive war outside its borders since 1991. In response to extreme violent aggression. (And immediately returned within its previous borders).

    Don’t tell me that the USA is not bloodthirsty and expansive when since 1991 it has attacked and destroyed or severely damaged Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (through the war it ordered its puppet Saddam Hussein to launch), Libya and Syria. With the deaths of at the very least well over 3 million civilians, the creation of well over 10 million homeless refugees and the destruction of hundreds of towns and cities. And when it has positioned its most advanced and threatening military equipment right up as close to the borders of Russia and China as it possibly can.

    Read More
  51. The Saker is an idiot.

    Of course there’s no chance of Russia attacking Poland. But there’s also no chance of NATO attacking Russia.

    However, the presence of NATO in Poland means more money flowing into Poland. A lot more money. Think about it.

    Russia will be defeated economically. It’s already happening. But Russia defeated itself by wasting its oil/gas money on its new military, the winter Olympics and the World Cup, and all sorts of other stupid shit.

    It’s a shame. Russians can be so much more than they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    These (Z)Big Poles are incorrigible!
    , @Poles never learn

    NATO in Poland means more money flowing into Poland
     
    You mean, selling food, offering drinks and escorts to 5000-10000 GIs? Now how about losing millions of Russian tourists and zero trade? Poland quickly derails towards Ukraine - less production, more US/EU servitude and debt, and still hoping to see thy neighbor Russia failing. Once strong european country, now Poland's fate is depopulation, rustic existence and social decline.

    There is no need for Russia to attack poor Poland, but there is a chance to nuke NATO stationed in Poland, and there is always a chance of something happening - with only seconds in response.
  52. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    I agree that Saker over-eggs the pudding, but his basic point in this polemic is surely correct – that the European nations have accustomed themselves to servitude to Washington in some kind of collective national Stockholm Syndrome, and now persist in it even when it is no longer needed nor remotely in their own interests (the interests of the nations as a whole, that is, as opposed to the wealthy trans-national elites who administer their media, politics and big business).

    In the aftermath of WW2 that position was understandable. The former Axis nations were under occupation anyway, and the western Allies – including Britain – faced a world in which they were powerless, shattered by war, and which was dominated by two superpowers whose military and economic powers they could not hope to compete with. Those superpowers were competing aggressively for global domination and were each in their own ways ruthlessly opposed to the survival of the European nations as independent, sovereign power centres.

    The choice between Washington and Moscow was arguably necessary and easy in 1945.

    There is no excuse for even pretending a need to make such a choice in 2016, when the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia is no longer strong enough to threaten central Europe militarily and the US has largely been bound by its own propaganda from doing so.

    Time for the European nations and Britain to finally stand back up on their hind legs and repudiate US domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I totally agree with you about that, European subservience to the US is a real problem, on every level (not least cultural, given how insane the US has become its cultural influence - "critical whiteness studies", transgenderism etc. - today is highly corrosive). Personally I'd like to see NATO disbanded and be replaced by some kind of European alliance structure that's genuinely focused on defending European countries against external threats (i.e. NOT some idiotic nation-building missions in the Hindukush). Unfortunately this seems unlikely to happen. European "elites" lack the necessary imagination and boldness to step outside of the transatlantic paradigm (and in many European countries military capabilities have atrophied to a disturbing degree...my own country being an extreme case).
    My problem with the Saker isn't that he criticizes NATO...rather that he comes across as a truly hateful, genuinely anti-Western individual (with bizarre sympathies for Islam, I might add).
    , @Catiline
    The problem with this analysis is that Russian gangsterism tends to inhibit any impulses that may exist or possibly come into being in that direction. Russia is strong enough to cause serious trouble and the extent to which it can't threaten Europe is largely based upon the deterrence of NATO. Remove the deterrence and Russia becomes that much more threatening. Finally, Britain is just as problematic as Russia is in it's own way. Britain does not belong in Europe, it acts as America's Trojan horse.
  53. @SmoothieX12

    Russia doesn’t have a good propaganda machine.
     
    Today, Russia doesn't need a propaganda "machine", she merely needs the reality to be presented. This is much simpler work than propaganda. And then again, neocons and their media are so incompetent that, sometimes, allowing Russian, American or any other real professionals to simply talk is more than enough.

    Today, Russia doesn’t need a propaganda “machine”, she merely needs the reality to be presented. This is much simpler work than propaganda. And then again, neocons and their media are so incompetent that, sometimes, allowing Russian, American or any other real professionals to simply talk is more than enough.

    Exactly. Despite Russia’s alleged inferiority in the propaganda department, they are winning the information war. Why do you think NATOstan wants to start censoring the internet? Because people have been catching on to their bullshit media.

    http://theduran.com/1984-eu-unveils-online-code-conduct-fight-censor-hate-speech/

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/12/02/the-war-against-the-trolls/

    Read More
  54. Saker should pay respect to Poland – the Vatican of the ‘Holocaust Industry’.

    American taxpayers are known for their fondness in building and maintaining Museums in almost every large city in memories of European Jews killed by Judeo-Christian Nazis. But many people don’t know that sometime Americans have gone beyond call of Christians’ duty to serve the ‘Chosen People’ in order to receive the promised Salvation in the life after death.

    American taxpayers have just completed a Jewish gravestone museum in Polish town of Serock, south of Warsaw. The town has no Jewish resident but according to country’s Foundation for the Preservation of Jewish Heritage (FPJH), once upon a time, the town had a Jewish population of 4100. The town, naturally, had a 120-year-old kosher cemetery which was destroyed by those evil Nazis.

    This certainly would make many God-fearing Christians cry since they’re never told that Israeli Jews continue to build Holocaust Museums, courthouses, shopping malls and apartment complex over Muslim Cemeteries in Jerusalem and other Arab towns. Some of the gravestones prove the burials of the Prophet’s Companions and Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi’s soldiers who liberated Jerusalem from the Crusades in 1187 CE.

    While the FPJH dished the faked gravestones like the Polish Gas Chambers Hoax, the funds for the housing of these gravestones were provided by the US Commission for Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. It was created by an act of Congress in 1979. Its founding-father was Brooklyn, NY, Rabbi Zvi Kestenbaum, who wanted to preserve Jewish cemeteries (not German victims of Jewish mobs, please), monuments and holy places, destroyed or damaged during World War II in Soviet Union and Europe.

    We all know how American lawmakers become very passionate when it comes to Jewish or Israeli interests. The Congress decided to fulfill rabbi’s dream based on the logic that since the United States is a country of European immigrants – it’s obliged to help Jews of those countries to preserve their heritage. The chairman of the Commission and its 21 ‘commissioners’ are appointed by the President of the United States of America. The current chairperson is Lesley Weiss. According to Jewish Heritage Europe official website, Most of its focuss has been on Jewish heritage sites.

    Last week, Washington’s ambassador in Warsaw, Stephen Mull, was the chief guest at the dedication ceremony of the Gravestone Museum. “One of our most sacred duties is to keep the memories of crimes committed by the Nazis during WW II. So it could never happen against,” said Mull. However, the passionate envoy didn’t explained whether those Jews in the graves were victims of Nazis or died of natural causes ahead of Nazis’ occupation of Poland.

    In April 2015, Stephen Mull apologized to Polish nation for FBI director James Comey’s statement at Jewish Washington Post article, accusing Warsaw of complicity with the Nazis in the ethnic-cleansing of Polish Jews. I wonder if James Comey knows that Pope John Paul’s mother was a Polish Jew who was saved by his grandparents from Nazis.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/25/polands-jewish-gravestone-museum/

    Read More
  55. @SolontoCroesus
    Edwin Black in "The Transfer Agreement" is rather surprisingly forthright in recording the extent to which Jewish zionists enflamed Polish public opinion against Germany. Black notes that Polish military forces threatened an invasion of Germany very early on -- within months of Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

    The anti-German propaganda steadily increased as did the military threats. Black wrote that it was the stated tactic of zionist Jews to conflate the Danzig conflict with what Jews considered "persecution of Jews" in order to incite non-Jewish Poles to intensified hatred of Germans.

    wrt "persecution of Jews" -- other Jewish authors report that In the time-period from NSDAP aggregation of power in the first quarter of 1933 until the onset of war, Sept 1 (or 3, re British) 1939, Jews in Germany were protected from physical violence by the NSDAP, to the extent that no Jews were even sent to concentration camp until mid-November 1938. Even then, most of those Jews were released, only Jews identified as Communists were retained in camps.

    The role of Jews in exacerbating the situation that led to war, with what appears to all intents and purposes to have the an eagerness for a hot war, absolutely must be factored into the equation.

    Now, what was that part about your parents teaching you to respect Jews?

    Sherm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Study Talmud in Hebrew to understand true Zionist Jewish hatred toward Christianity.

    In 2012, several pro-Israel Jewish groups lead by Abraham Foxman (ADL) urged Jordanian government to take action to ensure that the Arabic translation of Jewish Talmud was not used to teach hatred of Jews and Israel among the Arabs.

    A group of some 90 Jordanian Muslim and Christian scholars and researchers spent six years to translate Babylonian Jewish Talmud from Aramaic to Arabic. The project was sponsored by Amman-based academic group ‘Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES). The 20-volume set is being sold for $750.

    So why pro-Israel Jewish groups are upset with Arabic translation of Jewish Talmud? Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL says the introduction to the 20-volume set claims that Talmud teaches hatred toward non-Jews (Goyim) which is the basis of Israel’s discrimination against Arabs and the native Muslims and Christian Palestinians....

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/05/26/talmud-goes-arabic-jewish-groups-hit-the-wall/
  56. @Avery
    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn't want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    I would also recommend reading Suvorov.

    Pat Buchanan also has some short columns on his website answering your question, then there’s this.:

    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned: that Germany and Japan are not uniquely “aggressor nations,” doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Read More
  57. “Poland… has a long history of trying to attack Russia when Russia is at her weakest, and the greatest Polish “heroes” are famous for attacking Russia in the times of internal trouble.”

    Would this include the 123 years when Poland was completely dismembered and under foreign (mostly Russian) control?

    Since John McEnroe was mentioned by Sailer in the Muhammad Ali thread, this seems like a good moment of revive his famous line of “You cannot be serious!”

    Read More
  58. @Aixa
    England wanted to appease Germany by giving Germany rich awards - polish lands.
    No wonder that polish government refused.
    If England wanted that much to avoid war it could give Germany some English land, like Kent for example.
    It could show Mr. Hitler that he might achieve more if he refrained from force.

    As for polish government, it predicted that Germany would fail totally, loose war and with that Poland could grab vast territories from Germany. And this just happened and Poland did it.

    It was rational for Poland to start a war and gain territories in the West.
    Just some polish politicians outsmarted German and English idiot politicians.
    Instead of blaming Poles, you should blame yourself of your idiocy.

    The same with NATO and Russia.
    Poles know, who are the Americans, who are the Russians , Germans, English and French.
    And Poles play them the same way as in 1939.
    Very funny to see Putin's Russia and NATO all going frenzy and spending up milliards because some low level polish official is just talking them to do it and lol when reporting to polish PM.

    Nothing changes in Europe.

    spending up milliards

    Nice to see someone else recall the time before the bastardised US ‘billion’, like many of their language innovations, originating in error, has become near-universal in English-speaking lands.

    Style rules for many years restricted it to money, not science etc.

    I recall Russell Crowe, commenting post 2008, something like ‘Why not just give everyone $x’, x being a large sum which, I bothered to calculate at the time, was correct, if you use the correct definition of billion, ten to the twelfth, and divide by the rough size of the US population.

    Many journalists outside the US, usually older than Crowe, ridiculed him, simply displaying their own ignorance and lack of attention to maths at school, or perhaps, their 1984-style flexible memories.

    ‘Billion has always meant ten to the ninth, it never meant ten to the twelfth.’

    I was able to understand the US journalists doing the same, but those outside just showed that they were morons.

    The Saker’s article is, as always, interesting, and Poland did, after all, gleefully participate in a land grab from Czechoslovakia under the terms of their non-agression pact.

    Read More
  59. @German_reader
    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty"

    Stopped reading there...somehow the Saker seems to have "forgotten" that Molotov-Rippentropp included secret provisions for the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union...comparing it to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-treaty with Germany is absurd. From 1939-1941 the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Germany...NKVD and Gestapo cooperated in Poland, and of course the Soviet Union had its own programme of murdering Polish elites/deporting them to the Gulag.
    I don't think I'm a Russophobe, but when one's confronted with the dishonest, demented ramblings of the Saker I can understand people who are.

    I’m a Saker fan and I generally agree with him on the folly of the Polish and Baltic provocation and antagonism towards Russia at present, but this is just laying it on just a little too thick. Smearing Piłsudski as a “fascist megalomaniac” is ridiculous.

    Read More
  60. @Davidski
    The Saker is an idiot.

    Of course there's no chance of Russia attacking Poland. But there's also no chance of NATO attacking Russia.

    However, the presence of NATO in Poland means more money flowing into Poland. A lot more money. Think about it.

    Russia will be defeated economically. It's already happening. But Russia defeated itself by wasting its oil/gas money on its new military, the winter Olympics and the World Cup, and all sorts of other stupid shit.

    It's a shame. Russians can be so much more than they are.

    These (Z)Big Poles are incorrigible!

    Read More
  61. @SmoothieX12
    No problem.

    http://s33.postimg.org/u8bkriywf/Page570.jpg

    Interesting stuff. Maybe Chamberlain actually would have achieved his intentions by having one of those absurd little tripwire forces sent to Poland when the guarantee was offered.

    Read More
  62. One week this spinner of agit-prop tells us of Russia’s mighty new armaments that will lay waste to anything the West would dare deploy, the next we are told that poor Russia is surrounded by the colossus of Poland, Finland and Georgia!

    I’ll tell you where the paranoia lies and its between the ears of Russia’s sawed off dictator!

    Read More
  63. @Davidski
    The Saker is an idiot.

    Of course there's no chance of Russia attacking Poland. But there's also no chance of NATO attacking Russia.

    However, the presence of NATO in Poland means more money flowing into Poland. A lot more money. Think about it.

    Russia will be defeated economically. It's already happening. But Russia defeated itself by wasting its oil/gas money on its new military, the winter Olympics and the World Cup, and all sorts of other stupid shit.

    It's a shame. Russians can be so much more than they are.

    NATO in Poland means more money flowing into Poland

    You mean, selling food, offering drinks and escorts to 5000-10000 GIs? Now how about losing millions of Russian tourists and zero trade? Poland quickly derails towards Ukraine – less production, more US/EU servitude and debt, and still hoping to see thy neighbor Russia failing. Once strong european country, now Poland’s fate is depopulation, rustic existence and social decline.

    There is no need for Russia to attack poor Poland, but there is a chance to nuke NATO stationed in Poland, and there is always a chance of something happening – with only seconds in response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski
    I seriously want to know where did you found million Russian tourists in Poland.
  64. @Tom Welsh
    "Poor peace loving, non-agressive russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive East Europeans".

    No, peace loving, non-aggressive Russians vs. bloodthirsty, expansive Americans (and their European house negroes).

    Don't tell me that Russia (as opposed to the USSR) is aggressive when it has only fought one very short and decisive war outside its borders since 1991. In response to extreme violent aggression. (And immediately returned within its previous borders).

    Don't tell me that the USA is not bloodthirsty and expansive when since 1991 it has attacked and destroyed or severely damaged Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (through the war it ordered its puppet Saddam Hussein to launch), Libya and Syria. With the deaths of at the very least well over 3 million civilians, the creation of well over 10 million homeless refugees and the destruction of hundreds of towns and cities. And when it has positioned its most advanced and threatening military equipment right up as close to the borders of Russia and China as it possibly can.

    Spot on! HdC

    Read More
  65. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Esteemed Regnum Nostrum:
    I have addressed my reply to HdC, but now I will respond to you.

    GRU (Chief Intelligence Directorate of Soviet Army) retrieved in 1940-41 the information that
    1) German Army did not prepare winter sheep coats (овчиные шубы) or any other warm clothes for the campaign in Russia.
    2) German Army did not prepare winter type of oil for artillery and rifles (смазочные масла), oil adequate for winter conditions in Russia.
    Considering Germans as at least reasonable, GRU did not expect them to advance against USSR without said preparations.

    Now you tell me, who was smart to call USSR a giant on feet of clay and not to look at the geographical size of USSR: linear dimension about 7,200 km (4,500 land miles, along the geodesic.) Dividing 7,200 km by (5*30)=150 days, it would mean
    moving the front line of your troops
    with the continuous speed about 50 km per day ---
    unheard of, either in previous or even in subsequent wars.

    Disclaimer.
    In no ways am I trying to justify aggressive politics of Stalin's USSR.
    I despise my own grand-aunt, who worked in Comintern with Béla Kun (Hungarian Communist leader) and was liquidated more or less simultaneously with him (around 1938.)
    But the goals of Comintern were promoted not only ideologically, but mostly in the military form: militarization, war preparation, etc., independently of my attitudes
    (the more so, I was not born at the time yet.)
    Respectfully yours, I.f.f.U.

    Hitler and his generals had expected the campaign in Russia to be finished before the onset of winter hence their lack of preparations for winter activities. The invasion of USSR was supposed to start much earlier but was delayed by revolt in Yugoslavia. The length of USSR is of little significance. Most of the industrial production was concentrated in large cities like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. It is no coincidence that the heaviest fighting took place around these places. Without industrial production to support your war efforts the fight is over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you for your opinion.
    , @Melchior
    Hitler thought Barbarossa would be a replay of the French campaign. It had taken around a month of fighting to defeat the French, and as Russia had around 4 to 5 times the population of France, he allowed himself 4 to 5 months to defeat the Russians. Assuming a launch date of May/June 1941, the campaign would be over by early autumn.

    However, to complete the analogy he needed to send 8-10 million men to Russia. In fact he had half that number. This was probably the critical failure.
    , @Pagoda
    After the Krauts saw the way the Finns held them up in that nasty little winter war, they figured it wouldn't be too much of a struggle to grab Moscow. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Stalin off a bunch of military guys who had some good experience?
  66. @Regnum Nostrum
    Hitler and his generals had expected the campaign in Russia to be finished before the onset of winter hence their lack of preparations for winter activities. The invasion of USSR was supposed to start much earlier but was delayed by revolt in Yugoslavia. The length of USSR is of little significance. Most of the industrial production was concentrated in large cities like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. It is no coincidence that the heaviest fighting took place around these places. Without industrial production to support your war efforts the fight is over.

    Thank you for your opinion.

    Read More
  67. @SolontoCroesus
    you and Alexander oughta get a room

    you recommending that based on your own experience with your fellow neo-Nazi posters?

    Read More
  68. Europeans simply don’t have the brains, the spine or the balls to dare to have an opinion of their own.

    Balls? Balls are weak and sensitive; if you want to be tough, get a vagina – those things can take a pounding.

    Read More
  69. @HdC
    Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).

    It explains why Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe, which had been planned to commence one month after the German invasion. Consequently the German invasion was a preemptive attack in the truest sense of the definition.

    I would submit that a very large number of Soviet troops were murdered by their own rear-guard troops in order to stop retreat or surrender.

    Or they died in battle because of insufficient war material. Or through the stupidity of their commanders.

    I know it is politically correct to blame the Germans for all national and international ills in the world, but that doesn't mean it is true or, that the thinking portion of the population swallows this nonsense. HdC

    Suvorov’s thesis has been debunked by many, e.g. Colonel David Glantz’s work “Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War.”

    Viktor Suvorov, real name Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, is an amateur historian regularly accused of historical revisionism and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom. He has an ax to grind. He needs to sell books. He is a fraud.

    And pretty much all criminals justify their crimes one way or another by blaming the victim.
    You and other neo-Nazi revisionists attempting to justify the killings and murders of ~25 million people of USSR due to the criminal invasion by Nazi Germany are no different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Instead of ad hominem attacks on Suvorov, why not rebuff his tome with your verifiable facts?

    HdC
  70. @annamaria
    Have you found the word "NATO" in the article? - If yes, than you should look around this word to see something in effect "financed by the US" and "creeping towards encircling the Russian federation."
    By the way, the millions of protesters against the Iraq War had been ridiculed, for being pussies, by the war-mongering class of war-profiteers. Don't you admire the fantastic results of the Middle Eastern wars, such as the millions of refugees in Europe? It seems that the war-mongering class wants more of the same; hence the NATO's maneuvers on the Russian borders. Here is the problem: the Yinon plan-inspred destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been producing the march of war refugees from the Middle East, as wells an avalanche of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The European Union is richly deserved this plague (though it should be the US paying for both the march and avalanche). But the NATO fox-trot at the Russian border could lead to a hot war that would end up the history of humankind. After the years of incessant provocations by the MIC' lunatics, at some point, Russians will not have other options but to become aggressive.
    Read this idiot from AEI and weep: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-next-us-president-must-carry-a-big-stick/?utm_source

    Read this idiot from AEI

    Neocons’ defining characteristic is their sheer incompetence in issues which do require a solid body of knowledge and serious actual skills. Nowhere does this incompetence manifest itself more than in anything related to military–be it military history or more complex issues of operational art or military-political analysis. Incessant doctrine-mongering (which is a euphemism for war-mongering) is one of the indicators of intellectual hollowness of this whole neocon cabal. As a result of neocons’ preponderance in US media and think-tankdom. most, not all, though, even non-neocon US “elite” lives in la-la land of US exceptionalism and history which is nothing more than real life iteration of the 1984 Minitrue propaganda–needless to say, nothing good can possibly come from all that. I never saw or heard of a lawyer, journalist or political “scientist” perform appendectomy or design a nuclear reactor, yet, somehow, it seems totally natural for those semi-educated hacks to order around complex modern armed forces. I once tried to get a degree in auto-mechanic-gynecologist field, didn’t work out that well.

    P.S. The real history of the Cold War is not written yet in the West and I doubt it will ever be written properly.

    Read More
  71. @German_reader
    That excerpt doesn't tell me anything except that Corelli Barnett thinks Polish behaviour in 1939 was foolish (don't really get his argument from that brief excerpt...does he argue Poland should have been more accomodating of German demands for the corridor?)...so what? Doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union had a secret agreement with Germany for the division of Poland, then invaded Eastern Poland and committed massive crimes there. Which is totally incomparable to Poland's 1934 non-aggression-pact which didn't include provisions for invading other countries (let alone committing mass murders/mass deportations like the Soviet Union did in 1939-1941).

    Professor Geoffrey Roberts has demonstrated that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was not a division of territory. At the time it was signed it was not clear Poland would collapse under German blitzkrieg. The Soviets had to reconsider the situation in September 1939 after the Polish army had already begun to collapse and German panzers were racing everywhere. Only then was a decision to intervene in Poland taken. Winston Churchill publicly declared it was a good thing that Soviet troops had denied occupation of eastern Poland to the Germans.

    http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Union-Origins-Second-World/dp/0333556976

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    I believe Hitler entertained the idea of a Polish rump state but Stalin opposed this because of Ukrainian populations under Polish control.
  72. @annamaria
    Have you found the word "NATO" in the article? - If yes, than you should look around this word to see something in effect "financed by the US" and "creeping towards encircling the Russian federation."
    By the way, the millions of protesters against the Iraq War had been ridiculed, for being pussies, by the war-mongering class of war-profiteers. Don't you admire the fantastic results of the Middle Eastern wars, such as the millions of refugees in Europe? It seems that the war-mongering class wants more of the same; hence the NATO's maneuvers on the Russian borders. Here is the problem: the Yinon plan-inspred destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been producing the march of war refugees from the Middle East, as wells an avalanche of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The European Union is richly deserved this plague (though it should be the US paying for both the march and avalanche). But the NATO fox-trot at the Russian border could lead to a hot war that would end up the history of humankind. After the years of incessant provocations by the MIC' lunatics, at some point, Russians will not have other options but to become aggressive.
    Read this idiot from AEI and weep: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-next-us-president-must-carry-a-big-stick/?utm_source

    The European Union is richly deserved this plague

    banksters and Zionists end or destroy the lives of powerless people = other powerless people should pay the price?

    Dutch and German and French young women and working class communities caused all of this evil?

    The Fiend in the banking houses of the ECB and NATO and their minions like Obama and Merkel destroy (or end) millions of people’s lives, and you think some poor guy who shovels horse manure for a living should pay for it all? That he or she ‘richly deserves’ it? Why, because he or she has blue eyes?

    From everything that I’ve been able to glimmer from my short time on this rock, is that the PTB that are slaughtering Muslims and others in these evil and monstrous wars for fun and profit, hate the working class people of Germany and France and Russia, far, far, far more than they hate the Muslims who they’re bombing and mass-murdering. In fact I’d say it’s not even close.

    So as these victims of Zion march on Europe and impose hell on earth and strife and intractable hatred,

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV_XKGZUsAAGQLy.jpg:large

    it’s all just more divide and conquer to the infinite amusement and wet dreams of the Fiend. And all of these people are victims of the Fiend. I blame the Fiend, not it’s victims. (even if they’re white)

    All of us, Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, Syrian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Greek, Yemeni, Iranian, poor American (yes, there are tens of millions of them) .. and so many more who’ve lost their lives in these contrived wars imposed on us all by the Fiend, should be blaming the Fiend. Not the poor German teenager or impoverished American soldier whose been lied to. IMHO

    It is Merkel and Obama and all of those lying and corrupt politicians that know all of these wars are based on lies, just like they all know the downing of MH17 has all been a sewer of lies, just like the chemical weapon attack in Syria. It is the people in charge who “richly deserve” to pay for all of this. And then some. Not the poor schlub who’s simply done what they considered right and good, (because they’ve been lied to).

    All of our collective and righteous hatred should be concentrated like a laser right at the people responsible.

    Obama. Hollande, Cameron and Blair and Bush and Clinton and the Zio-scumfucks at the Fed and ECB. They absolutely “richly deserve’ to have justice visit their front door. And then some. Not, IMHO poor and middle and working class people from all over the world. Enough of them have suffered for the evil schemes of evil men and women who never seem to pay so much as hearing a harsh word offered in their general direction.

    Tony Blair should never be allowed to show his face. Same for Bush and Obama and all the rest. They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Agree.
    , @Ivan K.

    [The Powers That Be] are responsible. Not Joe sixpack.
     
    Let me start with three quotes:

    Quigley: Even in a society where it looks as if all power is in the hands of the government -- let's say, Soviet Russia -- still eighty percent, at least, of human behavior in Russia is controlled by internalized controls which were socialized in them by the way they were treated from the moment that they were born. And as a result, they have come to accept certain things which allow the Russian state to act as if it can do anything, when it obviously can't. It knows it can't.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm

    Sibel Edmonds: This is the reason you will not see many whistleblowers. Because, people have learned a lesson. And if you go and talk to them, _real_ whistleblowers, ….they would tell you who screwed them the most, and the worst, and who really slapped them in the face. They are not gonna say, : “Oh, after twenty years my boss is taking away my retirement, or the US media bunch, or the Congress not doing what they’re supposed to do.” They’re gonna say: that their _biggest_ disappointment, their _biggest_ screw, – came directly from the public.

    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP1MtaSIePk) (51:45 – 52:35)

    JT Gatto: If you obsess about conspiracy , what you’ll fail to see is that we are held fast by a form of highly abstract thinking fully concretized in human institutions which has grown beyond the power of the managers of these institutions to control. If there is a way out of the trap we’re in, it won’t be by removing some bad guys and replacing them with good guys.
    Who are the villains, really , but ourselves? People can change, but systems cannot without losing their structural integrity . Even Henry Ford, a Jew-baiter of such colossal proportions he was lionized by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, made a public apology and denied to his death he had ever intended to hurt Jews—a too strict interpretation of Darwin made him do it!

    – Ungerground History of American Education

    ... Wise thoughts and quotes aside, my view has mainly been formed by my experience. And that experience is that of my close ones being aloof, obstructionist and threatening. (Even statistics say that you're much more likely to be abused or killed by a friend, an acquaintance or a relative than by a total stranger.)
    My experience is also one of a world abysmally divided into clans of some kind. The word 'tribes' comes to mind. But I've read about 'primitive' tribes and can tell you they tend to be less xenophobic than urban citizens of bureaucratised societies.

    TPB?

    Absolutely real. I'm just saying that to tackle them one has to start from the basics of one's own life.

    , @geokat62

    They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!
     
    Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies. Along with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being a well-informed citizen. Why is it that Rurik, annamarina, et. al. are well informed while others are totally in the dark?

    So, while I agree that the peoples' representatives deserve the lion's share of the blame, the people themselves are not totally innocent. It would be a mistake to let them completely off the hook and allow them to plead ignorance. We need them to stop shirking their responsibility to be well-informed citizens.
  73. @Rurik

    The European Union is richly deserved this plague

     

    banksters and Zionists end or destroy the lives of powerless people = other powerless people should pay the price?

    Dutch and German and French young women and working class communities caused all of this evil?

    The Fiend in the banking houses of the ECB and NATO and their minions like Obama and Merkel destroy (or end) millions of people's lives, and you think some poor guy who shovels horse manure for a living should pay for it all? That he or she 'richly deserves' it? Why, because he or she has blue eyes?

    From everything that I've been able to glimmer from my short time on this rock, is that the PTB that are slaughtering Muslims and others in these evil and monstrous wars for fun and profit, hate the working class people of Germany and France and Russia, far, far, far more than they hate the Muslims who they're bombing and mass-murdering. In fact I'd say it's not even close.

    So as these victims of Zion march on Europe and impose hell on earth and strife and intractable hatred,

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV_XKGZUsAAGQLy.jpg:large


    it's all just more divide and conquer to the infinite amusement and wet dreams of the Fiend. And all of these people are victims of the Fiend. I blame the Fiend, not it's victims. (even if they're white)

    All of us, Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, Syrian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Greek, Yemeni, Iranian, poor American (yes, there are tens of millions of them) .. and so many more who've lost their lives in these contrived wars imposed on us all by the Fiend, should be blaming the Fiend. Not the poor German teenager or impoverished American soldier whose been lied to. IMHO

    It is Merkel and Obama and all of those lying and corrupt politicians that know all of these wars are based on lies, just like they all know the downing of MH17 has all been a sewer of lies, just like the chemical weapon attack in Syria. It is the people in charge who "richly deserve" to pay for all of this. And then some. Not the poor schlub who's simply done what they considered right and good, (because they've been lied to).

    All of our collective and righteous hatred should be concentrated like a laser right at the people responsible.

    Obama. Hollande, Cameron and Blair and Bush and Clinton and the Zio-scumfucks at the Fed and ECB. They absolutely "richly deserve' to have justice visit their front door. And then some. Not, IMHO poor and middle and working class people from all over the world. Enough of them have suffered for the evil schemes of evil men and women who never seem to pay so much as hearing a harsh word offered in their general direction.

    Tony Blair should never be allowed to show his face. Same for Bush and Obama and all the rest. They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!

    Agree.

    Read More
  74. I suspect that behind this anti-Russian hysteria are a bunch of politicians that have been heavily bribed by the U.S. government. It won’t be the first time we sent men with large suitcases loaded with $100 bills to buy ‘co-operation’.

    Look those East European countries aren’t rich and neither are their politicians. Spreading the wealth among them will buy lots of favors and the promise of more wealth via ‘loans’ from the IMF and Brussels.

    To the U.S. spreading a couple billion is pocket change. Remember when we were in Iraq we were flying C-141′s loaded with $100 bills into Iraq – all of which promptly disappeared into the hands of Muslims.

    The point is, if we have to bribe the locals, we do it.

    Read More
  75. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Onkl Shmuel (aka Uncle Sam before 1913) is watching you, the Saker.

    Read More
  76. I know, right? It’s not as if the Russians would ever grab eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it.

    After communism fell, how many Soviet war criminals and genocidaires were hunted down, a la the Nazis, and put on trial?

    Just curious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    It’s not as if the Russians would ever grab eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it.
     
    it wasn't "Russians", it was Soviets, and they were funded (and led) by NY Jewish bankers. And it was Churchill and FDR (also funded and controlled by Jews) who told Stalin that he could have Eastern Europe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6p1zxKnDeM

    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin's Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn't you noticed?
    , @annamaria
    "After communism fell, how many Soviet war criminals and genocidaires were hunted down, a la the Nazis, and put on trial?"

    The lady doth protest too much. The recent count of the victims of the Middle Eastern wars has reached some 3 million (70 years after Nuremberg, btw). There are also some 10 million desperate refugees from the Middle East. Why was it so important to crush Iraq, Libya, Syria? These names should ring certain plan [Yinon] devised for certain small state, the one that munches freely on the US resources. Doubtless, there were "Soviet war criminals and genocidaires" in the Soviet Union, against other Soviets (i.e., internal affair). Now please tell us, how many "war criminals and genocidaires" of the US/EU extraction have been hunted down for their crimes against humanity in foreign countries during the last 15 years? Here are some names: Cheney, Blair, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Yoo, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Feith .....

  77. @Avery
    Suvorov's thesis has been debunked by many, e.g. Colonel David Glantz's work "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War."

    Viktor Suvorov, real name Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, is an amateur historian regularly accused of historical revisionism and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom. He has an ax to grind. He needs to sell books. He is a fraud.

    And pretty much all criminals justify their crimes one way or another by blaming the victim.
    You and other neo-Nazi revisionists attempting to justify the killings and murders of ~25 million people of USSR due to the criminal invasion by Nazi Germany are no different.

    Instead of ad hominem attacks on Suvorov, why not rebuff his tome with your verifiable facts?

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).}
    {Instead of ad hominem attacks on Suvorov, why not rebuff his tome with your verifiable facts?}

    Are you serious?
    What do you think this is, a discussion panel for academics and historians?
    This is a blog: you actually think I am going to spend days, weeks referencing page and chapter of Suvorov's book - a debunk it based on what ? If I reference archival material from say Soviet archives (if I had access), how are you going to verify it.

    Above you suggested I read Suvorov's book.
    I in turn suggest you re-read my post: therein I wrote that Suvorov's book has been rebutted, rebuffed, debunked by several historians and experts in the field.
    I am neither, so won't even go there.

    Please read a book titled "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Modern War Studies)" by David M. Glantz. And then rebuff his debunking of Suvorov's bogus claim.

    Avery.
  78. @Randal
    I agree that Saker over-eggs the pudding, but his basic point in this polemic is surely correct - that the European nations have accustomed themselves to servitude to Washington in some kind of collective national Stockholm Syndrome, and now persist in it even when it is no longer needed nor remotely in their own interests (the interests of the nations as a whole, that is, as opposed to the wealthy trans-national elites who administer their media, politics and big business).

    In the aftermath of WW2 that position was understandable. The former Axis nations were under occupation anyway, and the western Allies - including Britain - faced a world in which they were powerless, shattered by war, and which was dominated by two superpowers whose military and economic powers they could not hope to compete with. Those superpowers were competing aggressively for global domination and were each in their own ways ruthlessly opposed to the survival of the European nations as independent, sovereign power centres.

    The choice between Washington and Moscow was arguably necessary and easy in 1945.

    There is no excuse for even pretending a need to make such a choice in 2016, when the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia is no longer strong enough to threaten central Europe militarily and the US has largely been bound by its own propaganda from doing so.

    Time for the European nations and Britain to finally stand back up on their hind legs and repudiate US domination.

    I totally agree with you about that, European subservience to the US is a real problem, on every level (not least cultural, given how insane the US has become its cultural influence – “critical whiteness studies”, transgenderism etc. – today is highly corrosive). Personally I’d like to see NATO disbanded and be replaced by some kind of European alliance structure that’s genuinely focused on defending European countries against external threats (i.e. NOT some idiotic nation-building missions in the Hindukush). Unfortunately this seems unlikely to happen. European “elites” lack the necessary imagination and boldness to step outside of the transatlantic paradigm (and in many European countries military capabilities have atrophied to a disturbing degree…my own country being an extreme case).
    My problem with the Saker isn’t that he criticizes NATO…rather that he comes across as a truly hateful, genuinely anti-Western individual (with bizarre sympathies for Islam, I might add).

    Read More
  79. @Rurik

    The European Union is richly deserved this plague

     

    banksters and Zionists end or destroy the lives of powerless people = other powerless people should pay the price?

    Dutch and German and French young women and working class communities caused all of this evil?

    The Fiend in the banking houses of the ECB and NATO and their minions like Obama and Merkel destroy (or end) millions of people's lives, and you think some poor guy who shovels horse manure for a living should pay for it all? That he or she 'richly deserves' it? Why, because he or she has blue eyes?

    From everything that I've been able to glimmer from my short time on this rock, is that the PTB that are slaughtering Muslims and others in these evil and monstrous wars for fun and profit, hate the working class people of Germany and France and Russia, far, far, far more than they hate the Muslims who they're bombing and mass-murdering. In fact I'd say it's not even close.

    So as these victims of Zion march on Europe and impose hell on earth and strife and intractable hatred,

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV_XKGZUsAAGQLy.jpg:large


    it's all just more divide and conquer to the infinite amusement and wet dreams of the Fiend. And all of these people are victims of the Fiend. I blame the Fiend, not it's victims. (even if they're white)

    All of us, Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, Syrian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Greek, Yemeni, Iranian, poor American (yes, there are tens of millions of them) .. and so many more who've lost their lives in these contrived wars imposed on us all by the Fiend, should be blaming the Fiend. Not the poor German teenager or impoverished American soldier whose been lied to. IMHO

    It is Merkel and Obama and all of those lying and corrupt politicians that know all of these wars are based on lies, just like they all know the downing of MH17 has all been a sewer of lies, just like the chemical weapon attack in Syria. It is the people in charge who "richly deserve" to pay for all of this. And then some. Not the poor schlub who's simply done what they considered right and good, (because they've been lied to).

    All of our collective and righteous hatred should be concentrated like a laser right at the people responsible.

    Obama. Hollande, Cameron and Blair and Bush and Clinton and the Zio-scumfucks at the Fed and ECB. They absolutely "richly deserve' to have justice visit their front door. And then some. Not, IMHO poor and middle and working class people from all over the world. Enough of them have suffered for the evil schemes of evil men and women who never seem to pay so much as hearing a harsh word offered in their general direction.

    Tony Blair should never be allowed to show his face. Same for Bush and Obama and all the rest. They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!

    [The Powers That Be] are responsible. Not Joe sixpack.

    Let me start with three quotes:

    Quigley: Even in a society where it looks as if all power is in the hands of the government — let’s say, Soviet Russia — still eighty percent, at least, of human behavior in Russia is controlled by internalized controls which were socialized in them by the way they were treated from the moment that they were born. And as a result, they have come to accept certain things which allow the Russian state to act as if it can do anything, when it obviously can’t. It knows it can’t.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm

    Sibel Edmonds: This is the reason you will not see many whistleblowers. Because, people have learned a lesson. And if you go and talk to them, _real_ whistleblowers, ….they would tell you who screwed them the most, and the worst, and who really slapped them in the face. They are not gonna say, : “Oh, after twenty years my boss is taking away my retirement, or the US media bunch, or the Congress not doing what they’re supposed to do.” They’re gonna say: that their _biggest_ disappointment, their _biggest_ screw, – came directly from the public.

    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP1MtaSIePk) (51:45 – 52:35)

    JT Gatto: If you obsess about conspiracy , what you’ll fail to see is that we are held fast by a form of highly abstract thinking fully concretized in human institutions which has grown beyond the power of the managers of these institutions to control. If there is a way out of the trap we’re in, it won’t be by removing some bad guys and replacing them with good guys.
    Who are the villains, really , but ourselves? People can change, but systems cannot without losing their structural integrity . Even Henry Ford, a Jew-baiter of such colossal proportions he was lionized by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, made a public apology and denied to his death he had ever intended to hurt Jews—a too strict interpretation of Darwin made him do it!

    – Ungerground History of American Education

    … Wise thoughts and quotes aside, my view has mainly been formed by my experience. And that experience is that of my close ones being aloof, obstructionist and threatening. (Even statistics say that you’re much more likely to be abused or killed by a friend, an acquaintance or a relative than by a total stranger.)
    My experience is also one of a world abysmally divided into clans of some kind. The word ‘tribes’ comes to mind. But I’ve read about ‘primitive’ tribes and can tell you they tend to be less xenophobic than urban citizens of bureaucratised societies.

    TPB?

    Absolutely real. I’m just saying that to tackle them one has to start from the basics of one’s own life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    TPB?

    Absolutely real. I’m just saying that to tackle them one has to start from the basics of one’s own life.

     

    I did it?!

    I'm pointing out that it wasn't the guy in the street. The guy in the street has been so lied to from every direction that it's a miracle he knows which way is up.

    As near as I can tell, based on your logic, Madeleine Albright was right, and those half million children deserved to die because a scumfuck in Iraq was defying scumfucks in Washington/Tel Aviv.

    No, I don't blame myself for imposing those sanction and causing all that suffering and misery and death. I blame Madeleine Albright, (and her groupie Hillary).

    I don't blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.

    If you were Pat Tillman going to war to kill the bastards that did 911, you're not only blameless, you're f**king heroic! The best of the best. But then when you realize you've been lied to, and start to speak out against the war, and they blow your head off, and lie about it, I blame the ones who lied him into the wars. Not him. And then I blame the ones who blew his head off, and then lied about it.

    You see it is the murderous rotten liars who deserve to have their lying heads blown off, not the innocent who've been lied to, don't you think?

    Pat Tillman was a victim, even when he was killing the Taliban. Because he had been lied to.

    Just like we were all lied to about 911 and about everything else. I blame the liars. And I bet Sibel Edmonds would agree.

    Most Americans consider Edward Snowden a hero, even after they've been lied to about him. It's the PTB that want to torture him to death as an example, not the American people.
  80. @Sherman
    Now, what was that part about your parents teaching you to respect Jews?

    Sherm

    Study Talmud in Hebrew to understand true Zionist Jewish hatred toward Christianity.

    In 2012, several pro-Israel Jewish groups lead by Abraham Foxman (ADL) urged Jordanian government to take action to ensure that the Arabic translation of Jewish Talmud was not used to teach hatred of Jews and Israel among the Arabs.

    A group of some 90 Jordanian Muslim and Christian scholars and researchers spent six years to translate Babylonian Jewish Talmud from Aramaic to Arabic. The project was sponsored by Amman-based academic group ‘Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES). The 20-volume set is being sold for $750.

    So why pro-Israel Jewish groups are upset with Arabic translation of Jewish Talmud? Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL says the introduction to the 20-volume set claims that Talmud teaches hatred toward non-Jews (Goyim) which is the basis of Israel’s discrimination against Arabs and the native Muslims and Christian Palestinians….

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/05/26/talmud-goes-arabic-jewish-groups-hit-the-wall/

    Read More
  81. @Svigor
    I know, right? It's not as if the Russians would ever grab eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it.

    After communism fell, how many Soviet war criminals and genocidaires were hunted down, a la the Nazis, and put on trial?

    Just curious.

    It’s not as if the Russians would ever grab eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it.

    it wasn’t “Russians”, it was Soviets, and they were funded (and led) by NY Jewish bankers. And it was Churchill and FDR (also funded and controlled by Jews) who told Stalin that he could have Eastern Europe.

    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin’s Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn’t you noticed?

    Read More
  82. Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them? Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies. If war broke out between NATO and Russia, the Americans will fight exactly like they did in ww2: Bomb endlessly for 4 years and if anybody asks them to do more they pretend that they are doing all they can. NATO is cannon fodder recruitment tool for US, it was designed to protect them, not Europe. I don’t see such generosity (protecting Europe) coming from people who like to show up late (1917 and 1944 instead of 1914 and 1939) and when they show up they don’t do all that much.

    So – sweet dreams Eastern Europe – US is there to “protect” you.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them?

    Unfortunately, they do.

    @Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies

    Unfortunately, they don't.
  83. @Ivan K.

    [The Powers That Be] are responsible. Not Joe sixpack.
     
    Let me start with three quotes:

    Quigley: Even in a society where it looks as if all power is in the hands of the government -- let's say, Soviet Russia -- still eighty percent, at least, of human behavior in Russia is controlled by internalized controls which were socialized in them by the way they were treated from the moment that they were born. And as a result, they have come to accept certain things which allow the Russian state to act as if it can do anything, when it obviously can't. It knows it can't.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm

    Sibel Edmonds: This is the reason you will not see many whistleblowers. Because, people have learned a lesson. And if you go and talk to them, _real_ whistleblowers, ….they would tell you who screwed them the most, and the worst, and who really slapped them in the face. They are not gonna say, : “Oh, after twenty years my boss is taking away my retirement, or the US media bunch, or the Congress not doing what they’re supposed to do.” They’re gonna say: that their _biggest_ disappointment, their _biggest_ screw, – came directly from the public.

    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP1MtaSIePk) (51:45 – 52:35)

    JT Gatto: If you obsess about conspiracy , what you’ll fail to see is that we are held fast by a form of highly abstract thinking fully concretized in human institutions which has grown beyond the power of the managers of these institutions to control. If there is a way out of the trap we’re in, it won’t be by removing some bad guys and replacing them with good guys.
    Who are the villains, really , but ourselves? People can change, but systems cannot without losing their structural integrity . Even Henry Ford, a Jew-baiter of such colossal proportions he was lionized by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, made a public apology and denied to his death he had ever intended to hurt Jews—a too strict interpretation of Darwin made him do it!

    – Ungerground History of American Education

    ... Wise thoughts and quotes aside, my view has mainly been formed by my experience. And that experience is that of my close ones being aloof, obstructionist and threatening. (Even statistics say that you're much more likely to be abused or killed by a friend, an acquaintance or a relative than by a total stranger.)
    My experience is also one of a world abysmally divided into clans of some kind. The word 'tribes' comes to mind. But I've read about 'primitive' tribes and can tell you they tend to be less xenophobic than urban citizens of bureaucratised societies.

    TPB?

    Absolutely real. I'm just saying that to tackle them one has to start from the basics of one's own life.

    TPB?

    Absolutely real. I’m just saying that to tackle them one has to start from the basics of one’s own life.

    I did it?!

    I’m pointing out that it wasn’t the guy in the street. The guy in the street has been so lied to from every direction that it’s a miracle he knows which way is up.

    As near as I can tell, based on your logic, Madeleine Albright was right, and those half million children deserved to die because a scumfuck in Iraq was defying scumfucks in Washington/Tel Aviv.

    No, I don’t blame myself for imposing those sanction and causing all that suffering and misery and death. I blame Madeleine Albright, (and her groupie Hillary).

    I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.

    If you were Pat Tillman going to war to kill the bastards that did 911, you’re not only blameless, you’re f**king heroic! The best of the best. But then when you realize you’ve been lied to, and start to speak out against the war, and they blow your head off, and lie about it, I blame the ones who lied him into the wars. Not him. And then I blame the ones who blew his head off, and then lied about it.

    You see it is the murderous rotten liars who deserve to have their lying heads blown off, not the innocent who’ve been lied to, don’t you think?

    Pat Tillman was a victim, even when he was killing the Taliban. Because he had been lied to.

    Just like we were all lied to about 911 and about everything else. I blame the liars. And I bet Sibel Edmonds would agree.

    Most Americans consider Edward Snowden a hero, even after they’ve been lied to about him. It’s the PTB that want to torture him to death as an example, not the American people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.

    I did it?! ... I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.
     
    1. I lack time for blaming. If we're truly in a crisis then people's lives, health (and honours) are at stake. Therefore I lack time for high moral grounds.

    2. The powerless are powerful. That's what the alternative media say. That's what the quoted Quigley's analysis says. You can't have it both ways, you can't 'have your cake and eat it.'

    Most Americans consider Edward Snowden a hero, even after they’ve been lied to about him.
     
    Edward Snowden was mass-promoted on cover pages of establishment magazines and so on. Russel Tice has been saying for years much more than Snowden has spilled and got absolutely no coverage. Sibel Edmonds, and her website partners, and her audience, consider Snowden a complete phony.

    I suspect that what stands for "the Jewish elite" is also a complex thing. Putin, in the speech you posted, says the "Soviet government Jews" were repressing other Jews. Well, what does that mean about their "Jewish" character? The Soviet government Jews had ideological motives different from those of today's Israel. The former were revolutionary, Bolshevik, the latter are rabbinic.

    I'm glad we exchanged views and thoughts.

    The points I quoted are valid, I think. I can add other examples of the same pattern:
    - Hitler's crimes were mostly things Hitler was kept in the dark by Himmler and Heydrich, and they were largely initiated by hundreds of low-level subordinates : those are David Irving's latest findings in his ongoing writing of Himmler's biography.
    - Stalin's great crimes were probably mostly 1) made-up 2) Yezhov's, whose purpose was provoking revolt and creating grounds for a pro-Nazi coup. (Grover Furr, building upon Thurston et al.). Again, it shows that the notion of evil elites misses important points.
  84. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The US has unlimited funds, all the money in the world, and I just assume that these various leaders have all been bribed or otherwise bought off. Money talks, ideology takes a walk. Insofar as doing what’s good for the mass of people in their respective countries the elites of most of them have something in common with each other and that is a contempt for the average person whose value is sized up much like that of cows to be sold on the market. The elites may as well be the new royal house whose members rule different countries. The US interest is of course to exploit other people into being their cannon fodder, just as domestically people with poor job prospects have to sell their bodies by joining the military and take their chances. The US will fight the Russians to the last European just as they were willing to fight them to the last Afghan in Afghanistan during the 80′s. The incompetence and miscalculations of these supposedly smart people in playing their game of ‘chicken’ could really have some serious consequences for everybody. Much of it seems to verge on the irrational and is certain to be counterproductive but yet here we go.

    Read More
  85. @Randal
    I agree that Saker over-eggs the pudding, but his basic point in this polemic is surely correct - that the European nations have accustomed themselves to servitude to Washington in some kind of collective national Stockholm Syndrome, and now persist in it even when it is no longer needed nor remotely in their own interests (the interests of the nations as a whole, that is, as opposed to the wealthy trans-national elites who administer their media, politics and big business).

    In the aftermath of WW2 that position was understandable. The former Axis nations were under occupation anyway, and the western Allies - including Britain - faced a world in which they were powerless, shattered by war, and which was dominated by two superpowers whose military and economic powers they could not hope to compete with. Those superpowers were competing aggressively for global domination and were each in their own ways ruthlessly opposed to the survival of the European nations as independent, sovereign power centres.

    The choice between Washington and Moscow was arguably necessary and easy in 1945.

    There is no excuse for even pretending a need to make such a choice in 2016, when the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia is no longer strong enough to threaten central Europe militarily and the US has largely been bound by its own propaganda from doing so.

    Time for the European nations and Britain to finally stand back up on their hind legs and repudiate US domination.

    The problem with this analysis is that Russian gangsterism tends to inhibit any impulses that may exist or possibly come into being in that direction. Russia is strong enough to cause serious trouble and the extent to which it can’t threaten Europe is largely based upon the deterrence of NATO. Remove the deterrence and Russia becomes that much more threatening. Finally, Britain is just as problematic as Russia is in it’s own way. Britain does not belong in Europe, it acts as America’s Trojan horse.

    Read More
  86. @Regnum Nostrum
    Hitler and his generals had expected the campaign in Russia to be finished before the onset of winter hence their lack of preparations for winter activities. The invasion of USSR was supposed to start much earlier but was delayed by revolt in Yugoslavia. The length of USSR is of little significance. Most of the industrial production was concentrated in large cities like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. It is no coincidence that the heaviest fighting took place around these places. Without industrial production to support your war efforts the fight is over.

    Hitler thought Barbarossa would be a replay of the French campaign. It had taken around a month of fighting to defeat the French, and as Russia had around 4 to 5 times the population of France, he allowed himself 4 to 5 months to defeat the Russians. Assuming a launch date of May/June 1941, the campaign would be over by early autumn.

    However, to complete the analogy he needed to send 8-10 million men to Russia. In fact he had half that number. This was probably the critical failure.

    Read More
  87. That initial Churchill quote looked illiterate as all get-out to me, so I googled and found:

    And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State.”

    Here

    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/10/the-polish-guarantee-churchill-speaks-.html

    Which seems correct, or at least makes sense. Probably you should fix this.

    Read More
  88. If the EU is the house Negro of the US, then Russia is the field Negro of the EU. It indeed seems legit as Russia is the back yard of the EU, the country that has long been supporting the EU with raw resources. But being a Negro of another Negro is a very pitiful position in the hierarchy.

    And what has been always overlooked is economy and the economic impact of the Russian militarization of the past 5-10 years. How long can the Russian economy withstand such a regime? Will it not result in an imminent breakdown? In 1985 the USSR was at its peak, still it simply couldn’t take it no more and failed, economically in the first place.

    I’m sure the conflict between Russia and the NATO is very exaggerated and far from the reality. It is, as you say, a field Negro is trying to rebel against the master. Obviously, it will fail. The Negro is too weak and dependent, the Master is too strong. Nothing terrible will happen during the suppression of the rebellion, maybe some Negroes will be hurt, but who cares anyway? Probably, the Master will just eliminate the rebellious chiefs of the field Negroes, and that’s it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [In 1985 the USSR was at its peak, still it simply couldn’t take it no more and failed, economically in the first place.]

    Nonsense. They decided life was too dull and fell for a scam.
  89. What a distasteful anti-Polish trash. “Hienas” – 3 times, so the reader will remember. After Churchill, that impeccable expert in matters Eastern-European. “House Negroes,” borrowed from another impeccable scholar X. “No brains, no logical thinking.” “Always attacking Russia,” “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the same as the 1934 Polish-German Pact,” etc, etc.

    If the French and the British attacked on the Western front during the first 2 weeks of September 1939, there and then the war would be over. Stalin waited till September 17, 1939 to see if the Western front would be opened. Then attacked, seeing no reaction of the French and the British. Hitler’s gambit paid off.

    The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn’t attack the Soviets.

    The Poles took Zaolzie in 1938 to protect the Polish majority living in that area. Not very elegant move, to be sure, but “hienas”? Churchill, who admired Comrade Stalin – was always correct in his opinions, right?

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

    Now, this NATO business in Warsaw: neocons here in the US, perhaps? The “no brains, no logical thinking” Poles, 95% of the press in Poland belongs to German publishers. Thus the anti-Russian and pro-Bandero/Ukrainian propaganda. And in this context, what should we think about our intelligence when supporting the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Syria? We, average citizens, could have stopped those wars easily, right Mr. Sater?

    There are voices in Poland that warn against Poland being involved in yet another bloodbath. Hopefully they will not drown in the incessant propaganda and the machinations of the current administration backed up by … yes, our irreplaceable neocons.

    Most uncouth propaganda this article you have written. Reminds me of the voices before the first partition of Poland: They (the Poles) are incapable of running their own country, exclaimed the the partitioning powers after they prevented the Poles from reforming their military and government. Look at this drawing carefully: deja vu:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Picture_of_Europe_for_July_1772.PNG/1024px-Picture_of_Europe_for_July_1772.PNG

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn’t attack the Soviets.]

    Yes, they did.
    , @Boris N
    Dear Polish friend, I do not know what version of history you are taught in your Polish schools, but I'm sure it is very Polish-centric and very Polish nationalist. Like "Holy Poland is the last stronghold of the Western civilization against the Eastern barbarians", or "the brave Poles have been fighting the Asiatic Tatar-Muscovite barbarians for the past 500 years". Anyway, even I'm a sincere anti-Communist, I must admit that in the 1919-1921 War Poland was hardly a victim. Your national hero Pilsudski wanted to recreate the Great Poland "od morza do morza", the version of 1772, if not 1618, by conquering today Ukraine and Belarus, which were then practically hardly controlled by anyone. Poland was indeed like a vulture picking up the flesh of the dead lion (the Russian Empire). Of course, the Bolsheviks saw in that war a possibility to push the Revolution westward, anyway even if the Bolsheviks were overthrown by Denikin or Wrangel, it would be absolutely logical for them to wage war against Poland to take control of White and Little Russias (Belarus and Ukraine were then phantom states), in that case the war would become another Russian-Polish. The Poles so eagerly "defended" Poland that they even took Kiev. Do you really think that Kiev, "the mother of Russian cities", is somewhere in Poland? Finally, the Poles decided that Western Belarus and Ukraine were enough for them for now. Oh, sorry, I meant "Kresy Wschondnie".

    As for 1939... Even if Stalin was the most terrible person of all Russian history, those moves of him were absolutely logical and legitimate. What Polish land did he take? How on Earth did the lands of historical White, Red and Little Russias become Polish? Poland always took these lands, when Russia was at its weakest. A true vulture.
    Even if it were not Stalin, but, say, a Russian Tsar or President, every Russian would support such a move. The bad side of Stalin's moves was that he did not want united Russia, but added those conquered lands to made-up Belarus and Ukraine.

    And as for 1772... Again, what Polish lands did Empress Catherine take? It was only in 1815, after Poland had eagerly supported Napoleon against Russia (again in the hope to recreate the Great Poland) did the Russians decide to take control over Poland proper. But while Russian Tsars did everything in favour of Poland (Tsar Alexander opened the Warsaw University, how was it an oppression?), the Poles were never grateful or at least peaceful but rebelled in 1830. Only then Russians lost any illusions about Poland.

    After that, how does Poland dare to play again and again the role of a victim being in fact a vulture? And who will believe it? Russians certainly will not.
  90. Well, what are you supposed to do if you’re Poland? The Poles are caught between two great powers that have both brutalized Poland in the recent past. Kiss up to Russia and you might anger the Germans and other Western nations; crawl in bed with the West and you upset Russia. And the current situation of relative peace is nice, but it is historical atypical, so any suggestion that Poland just kick back and enjoy things is naive, imo. Perhaps, Saker, you have a suggestion as to the strategic stance Poland should take, given its geography?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    They have no good choices, but surely, antagonizing the Russians while assuming the Americans have their back is a very poor one.
  91. @Boris N
    If the EU is the house Negro of the US, then Russia is the field Negro of the EU. It indeed seems legit as Russia is the back yard of the EU, the country that has long been supporting the EU with raw resources. But being a Negro of another Negro is a very pitiful position in the hierarchy.

    And what has been always overlooked is economy and the economic impact of the Russian militarization of the past 5-10 years. How long can the Russian economy withstand such a regime? Will it not result in an imminent breakdown? In 1985 the USSR was at its peak, still it simply couldn't take it no more and failed, economically in the first place.

    I'm sure the conflict between Russia and the NATO is very exaggerated and far from the reality. It is, as you say, a field Negro is trying to rebel against the master. Obviously, it will fail. The Negro is too weak and dependent, the Master is too strong. Nothing terrible will happen during the suppression of the rebellion, maybe some Negroes will be hurt, but who cares anyway? Probably, the Master will just eliminate the rebellious chiefs of the field Negroes, and that's it.

    [In 1985 the USSR was at its peak, still it simply couldn’t take it no more and failed, economically in the first place.]

    Nonsense. They decided life was too dull and fell for a scam.

    Read More
    • Agree: Glossy
    • Replies: @Boris N
    Life in the USSR was indeed too dull, but the great impact of the Soviet military onto the Soviet economy is a well-known fact. I think the Soviet officials admitted this themselves (though I cannot give you a citation right now). The Soviet economy was being slowly ruined from making too many tanks, while people had nothing in their life. Even if Perestroika and the 1990s were scams, this does not nullify the fact that the USSR was a world of insanity.
  92. @Rurik

    The European Union is richly deserved this plague

     

    banksters and Zionists end or destroy the lives of powerless people = other powerless people should pay the price?

    Dutch and German and French young women and working class communities caused all of this evil?

    The Fiend in the banking houses of the ECB and NATO and their minions like Obama and Merkel destroy (or end) millions of people's lives, and you think some poor guy who shovels horse manure for a living should pay for it all? That he or she 'richly deserves' it? Why, because he or she has blue eyes?

    From everything that I've been able to glimmer from my short time on this rock, is that the PTB that are slaughtering Muslims and others in these evil and monstrous wars for fun and profit, hate the working class people of Germany and France and Russia, far, far, far more than they hate the Muslims who they're bombing and mass-murdering. In fact I'd say it's not even close.

    So as these victims of Zion march on Europe and impose hell on earth and strife and intractable hatred,

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV_XKGZUsAAGQLy.jpg:large


    it's all just more divide and conquer to the infinite amusement and wet dreams of the Fiend. And all of these people are victims of the Fiend. I blame the Fiend, not it's victims. (even if they're white)

    All of us, Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, Syrian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Greek, Yemeni, Iranian, poor American (yes, there are tens of millions of them) .. and so many more who've lost their lives in these contrived wars imposed on us all by the Fiend, should be blaming the Fiend. Not the poor German teenager or impoverished American soldier whose been lied to. IMHO

    It is Merkel and Obama and all of those lying and corrupt politicians that know all of these wars are based on lies, just like they all know the downing of MH17 has all been a sewer of lies, just like the chemical weapon attack in Syria. It is the people in charge who "richly deserve" to pay for all of this. And then some. Not the poor schlub who's simply done what they considered right and good, (because they've been lied to).

    All of our collective and righteous hatred should be concentrated like a laser right at the people responsible.

    Obama. Hollande, Cameron and Blair and Bush and Clinton and the Zio-scumfucks at the Fed and ECB. They absolutely "richly deserve' to have justice visit their front door. And then some. Not, IMHO poor and middle and working class people from all over the world. Enough of them have suffered for the evil schemes of evil men and women who never seem to pay so much as hearing a harsh word offered in their general direction.

    Tony Blair should never be allowed to show his face. Same for Bush and Obama and all the rest. They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!

    They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!

    Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies. Along with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being a well-informed citizen. Why is it that Rurik, annamarina, et. al. are well informed while others are totally in the dark?

    So, while I agree that the peoples’ representatives deserve the lion’s share of the blame, the people themselves are not totally innocent. It would be a mistake to let them completely off the hook and allow them to plead ignorance. We need them to stop shirking their responsibility to be well-informed citizens.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies.
     
    was Pat Tillman guilty when he joined the army to kill the bastards who attacked us on 911?

    I say he was the best kind of human being there is

    this is the opening scene from one of my favorite war movies

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRjKkG35ogo

    were these boys to blame once they aged a few years and were sent to the trenches to slaughter each other for the benefit and agenda of powerful scumfucks?

    Why is it that Rurik, annamarina, et. al. are well informed while others are totally in the dark?
     

    because they don't have the wherewithal to sort though the lies. Pat Tillman was one of them, then he became like Annamarine and I, and they blew his head off for it.

    the people themselves are not totally innocent
     
    does that go for all Canadians too Geo? Are all your neighbors and fellow country men to blame?

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/07/canada-joins-failing-war-terror-bill-c51-150724092110473.html

    The putative reason Albright was giving for why those 5,000,000 Iraqi children's death were "worth it", was because they and their families should have taken it upon themselves to remove Saddam from power. It was their fault, you see, because they had not taken the initiative to remove a tyrant from power. It wasn't any of the leaders or diplomats who were to blame, but the children and their parents. That was the justification in her mind. And I hesitate, to point out in yours too.

    90%+ of Americans are completely lied to and have zero time or ability to sift through the lies. But they're catching on, and that's why the establishment is nearly apoplectic over the rise of Trump, who has been against the Eternal War from the beginning. Starting with Iraq.

    I never blame the victim, no matter how much the temptation to heap scorn upon admittedly arrogant and obnoxious Americans. If they knew the truth, and still wanted the wars, that'd be something, and it would change everything for me. But they are lied to from virtually every single Zionist owned media outlet, and that pretty much covers 98.3%

    Part of the other percent being the Internet and the Unz Review in particular. ; )

  93. @Avery
    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn't want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    No, but is “living space” so controversial a concept that it needs to be made into a Manichean myth? It is no more evil a concept that “Manifest Destiny” in the United States, perhaps less so, because those of European Christian descent could hardly claim ancestral ties to Wyoming or the Dakotas, while the Germanic peoples could certainly do so with regards to the western parts of Poland and Ukraine.

    “Lebensraum” is a perfectly reasonable concept which predated the National Socialists by decades. Jewish propaganda has given it an utterly distorted meaning, i.e., that it implies the destruction or total displacement of the indigenous peoples by those of “pure Aryan descent” whereas, in reality, it refers to the settling of sparsely populated regions by ethnic Germans, with no real negative consequences for the local indigenous populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    In your original post you claimed this:

    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    I wrote:

    {If Hitler didn’t want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?}

    Again: Hitler is not the only villain in history and Germans are not the only people in the world who have taken land - or attempted to take land - that belongs to somebody else.
    I am quite familiar with the concept from my ancestry: nomad Turkic tribes took about 90% of historic Armenian lands, after ethnically cleansing the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks)and Armenian Highlands, topped of with Genocide. No need for me to list the long list of Turk villains. For the record, if there can be such a thing, Nazi German killers were demonstrably civilized compared to the nomad savages. Germans killed quickly and with the least pain possible. The nomads murdered people while they were alive, with aim to cause maximum pain and suffering. Again, no need to list the long roster of depraved savagery of the Turkic tribes. Turks are still there, and all the indigenous Christians are gone - save for a few 10s of 1,000s.

    In modern times, Turkey invaded Republic of Cyprus and gobbled 40% of it.
    Turks are still there 40 years after the grab.

    I responded to your post because you claimed Hitler did not want war.
    He wanted to take the lands of Slavs in the East.
    Since those lands were already populated by Slavs for millennia, the indigenous peoples had to be killed off to make room for the Germanic peoples to come in and settle there.
    Since Nazis considered Slavs subhuman, killing and murdering millions was no issue for them.
    How else do you take somebody else's land if not by war.

    Note that Nazis conquered West Europe rather quickly and thoroughly. .
    But e.g. French people were not exterminated to take their land. Right?

  94. @ABCD
    What a distasteful anti-Polish trash. “Hienas” – 3 times, so the reader will remember. After Churchill, that impeccable expert in matters Eastern-European. “House Negroes,” borrowed from another impeccable scholar X. “No brains, no logical thinking.” “Always attacking Russia,” “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the same as the 1934 Polish-German Pact,” etc, etc.

    If the French and the British attacked on the Western front during the first 2 weeks of September 1939, there and then the war would be over. Stalin waited till September 17, 1939 to see if the Western front would be opened. Then attacked, seeing no reaction of the French and the British. Hitler's gambit paid off.

    The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn't attack the Soviets.

    The Poles took Zaolzie in 1938 to protect the Polish majority living in that area. Not very elegant move, to be sure, but “hienas”? Churchill, who admired Comrade Stalin – was always correct in his opinions, right?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie


    Now, this NATO business in Warsaw: neocons here in the US, perhaps? The “no brains, no logical thinking” Poles, 95% of the press in Poland belongs to German publishers. Thus the anti-Russian and pro-Bandero/Ukrainian propaganda. And in this context, what should we think about our intelligence when supporting the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Syria? We, average citizens, could have stopped those wars easily, right Mr. Sater?

    There are voices in Poland that warn against Poland being involved in yet another bloodbath. Hopefully they will not drown in the incessant propaganda and the machinations of the current administration backed up by … yes, our irreplaceable neocons.

    Most uncouth propaganda this article you have written. Reminds me of the voices before the first partition of Poland: They (the Poles) are incapable of running their own country, exclaimed the the partitioning powers after they prevented the Poles from reforming their military and government. Look at this drawing carefully: deja vu:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Picture_of_Europe_for_July_1772.PNG/1024px-Picture_of_Europe_for_July_1772.PNG

    [The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn’t attack the Soviets.]

    Yes, they did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ABCD
    Care to list the source (or sources)? Thank you.
    , @Bies Podkrakowski
    No, they didn't.
    , @fatty
    And kicked their socialist asses, you half a sissy.
  95. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Duplicate from another thread (I know, SmoothieX12 will disagree):
    Dear Mr. Revusky:
    Thank you for your detailed comment on my humble post.
    Here is my answer to your

    Now, obviously, if Stalin was in fact planning an attack towards the West, and Hitler simply beat him to the punch, that very much makes one reconsider the conventional interpretation of the whole conflict.
    What is your view on Suvorov’s thesis? (I personally simply don’t know.)
     

    I.f.f.U.: Communist government (party, or any other name) of the USSR had this goal, both, explicitly declared and actually in the process of most energetic implementation:
    the annexing of Europe into their big communist State. You can trace it from the activity of German and other European communists: they tried to do that in Germany in 1919, in Hungary in 1919; Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed in June of 1919. In 1919 Lenin and Trotsky created for that puropose Comintern, short name of “Communist International”.
    Lenin died in 1924, Trotsky lost power struggle to Stalin around 1928, but the work of Comintern continued and was supported by enormous financial infusions.
    Two five-year plans, 1927-32 and 1933-37 had the goal of industrialization of the USSR, and that goal was achieved, sure with the use of Western technology and with the help of Western engineers. The cost, both financial, and human, of such rapid industrialization, was robbery and Gulag-type slavery of peoples of USSR, famines and physical killing. Especially brutal was de-kulakization of 1930-1932, when about 20 million people “kulaks” (successful peasants) and their families, were moved to Siberia and died there almost to 100%; “Golodomor” (famine of 1934-35, especially strong in Ukraine), etc. Third five-year plan, 1938-41, was essentially militarization of industry. But even during first two five-year periods, 21,573 warplanes were produced.
    What is important to understand, Suvorov is not just a spy. By his professional education and his work in Chief Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of Soviet Army he is military analyst. The aggressive intention of Stalin are illustrated, e.g., by abundance of airborne assault troops in pre-war years in Soviet Army — in numbers larger than in the rest of the world combined. But airborne assault troops are good for offensive, there is no reason to transport troops by parachutes in the defense of your own territory.
    Key event of in the initiation of WW 2 was signing of Moscow pact on 23 August 1939 (known also as Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), according to which Stalin and Hitler divided between them the countries and territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . They also agreed to start military occupation of Poland in September of 1939. Before that, USSR and Germany did not have common border: Poland served as a buffer between them. Therefore sudden Soviet-German war was impossible before September of 1939. By hook and crook, Stalin delayed his action in Poland by couple of weeks, and so we all know now that it was Hitler, who “started” WW 2.
    All 1939-1941 was spent by Stalin’s USSR on further preparations to war. About a year after Moscow pact, Hitler understood that his defeat from Stalin’s offense would be inevitable. Feeble (and as we know now, unsuccessful) attempt to counter this threat was “Barbarossa plan”, December 1940.
    In the summer of 1941 Stalin concentrated large number of offensive (repeat: offensive) troops on that border, and planned to start his war on July 6. Hitler concentrated his offensive troops on the other side of the same border, and started the action on June 22 of 1941. Huge losses of Soviet Army in the Summer of 1941 were exactly due to offensive disposition of Soviet troops. If Stalin somehow would manage to start first, the same disadvantage would fell upon Hitler’s troops.

    To stop my description of Suvorov’s studies, I conclude with this definite advice. Buy Suvorov’s book(s), read it (them). On Amazon the book is about $ 20.00:
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    I can imagine that your (Revusky's) impression of Suvorov’s work may be different from mine. Still: buy it and read it.

    The book you mentioned, Immigrant from former USSR, is excellent.

    The only problem with Suvorov(Rezun) is that he basically only addresses the Soviet responsability for the war, leaving out the other 2 main culprits on the Allied side; The U.S F.D.R administration and Churchill and the rest of the British war mongering party(France to a less extent).

    The fools and propagandists here who try to dismiss Suvorov’s work are either stupid and ignorant or just dishonest. They think Suvorov is the only Russian who has advanced such a thesis, far from it;

    Since the 1990s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims. An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers include:
    Besides former Soviet intel officer , Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc.

    In fact, Suvorov’s more recent work, such as ‘The Chief Culprit”, benefits a lot from such research done by other Russian historians in the archives.

    Since the 1990s, many Western/European historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans such as Prof.Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi.
    German and Austrian historians such as Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, military historians such as Heinz Magenheimer, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof and Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, S. Scheil, Polish historian Bogdan Musial, Scott E. Mawdsley, French Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, etc.

    The official comic book, Roger Rabitt narrative re the Soviet-German clash during WWII does not have a leg to stand on.
    This is the reason behind Russia’s new legislation against ‘revising’ WWII history.
    The truth does not need to be shielded from scrutiny.

    Also most Soviet archives of the era remain sealed.
    Why? What is the Russian government hiding? A lot. As Rezun points out, many hundreds of thousands of top secret documents remain sealed.
    It is understandable that Russia, as the main heir to the Soviet Empire, does not wish to let go of its most important national myth, even more so when the Americans, Perfidious Albion, aka, the english pests and the French are of course not letting go of the “good war” myth either and will not face up to their decisive roles and responsabilities in fomenting and causing what eventually became a world war(II).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you, dear L.K , for your this and the next post, both very informative.
    I agree that Suvorov emphasized the Stalin's (USSR's) role in starting WW2.
    I will try to read something out of your list. Can you pinpoint one particular book,
    preferably in English ? My German is extremely rusty and by now is reduced to
    "Aber die ordnung muss sein".
    Most respectfully, I.f.f.U.
    , @utu
    'not letting go of the “good war” myth' - Only Germans could break that myth but so far they are not very inclined.
  96. W.Strauss details in his book ‘Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit”
    ( I highly recommend it for those able to read German ), the findings of several of those Russian researchers whom I mentioned in my previous post(from a review of it by D.Michaels):

    https://www.amazon.de/Unternehmen-Barbarossa-russische-Historikerstreit-Wolfgang/dp/3776620285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465160890&sr=8-1&keywords=Unternehmen+Barbarossa+und+der+russische+Historikerstreit

    Major findings:

    -Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. Stalin’s main intention is seen in his speech to the Politburo of August 19, 1939.
    -To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which: a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland, and b) evoked the declarations of war against Germany by Britain and France. But not against the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland taking half of it.
    -In the event Germany was defeated quickly by Britain and France, Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.
    -In the event France was defeated quickly by Germany, Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”
    -From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the Soviet conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.
    -With respect to a war of aggression, on May 15, 1941, the Red Army’s Main Political Directorate instructed troop commanders that every war the USSR engaged in, whether defensive or offensive, would have the character of a “just war.”
    -Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.
    -The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive.
    -In his speech of May 5, 1941, to graduate officers of the academies, Stalin said that war with Germany was inevitable, and characterized it as a war not only of a defensive nature but rather of an offensive nature.

    Read More
  97. Polish Prometheism. A policy to weaken Russia

    [quote]Its aim was to weaken the Russian Empire and its successor states, including the Soviet Union, by supporting nationalist independence movements among the major non-Russian peoples that lived within the borders of Russia and the Soviet Union.[1][/quote]

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

    Read More
  98. @HdC
    Instead of ad hominem attacks on Suvorov, why not rebuff his tome with your verifiable facts?

    HdC

    {Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).}
    {Instead of ad hominem attacks on Suvorov, why not rebuff his tome with your verifiable facts?}

    Are you serious?
    What do you think this is, a discussion panel for academics and historians?
    This is a blog: you actually think I am going to spend days, weeks referencing page and chapter of Suvorov’s book – a debunk it based on what ? If I reference archival material from say Soviet archives (if I had access), how are you going to verify it.

    Above you suggested I read Suvorov’s book.
    I in turn suggest you re-read my post: therein I wrote that Suvorov’s book has been rebutted, rebuffed, debunked by several historians and experts in the field.
    I am neither, so won’t even go there.

    Please read a book titled “Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Modern War Studies)” by David M. Glantz. And then rebuff his debunking of Suvorov’s bogus claim.

    Avery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Glantz was stage-managed by Soviet intelligence, who completely controlled his access to the archives (access which is generally unavailable to revisionist researchers). Another useful idiot.
  99. @5371
    [The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn’t attack the Soviets.]

    Yes, they did.

    Care to list the source (or sources)? Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Once the White armies had disappeared from everywhere but the Crimea, Poland promptly invaded the Ukraine. I'll charitably assume that you do know this fact but are confused in some way, since no narrative, certainly none produced outside Poland, ever claimed differently.
  100. @ABCD
    What a distasteful anti-Polish trash. “Hienas” – 3 times, so the reader will remember. After Churchill, that impeccable expert in matters Eastern-European. “House Negroes,” borrowed from another impeccable scholar X. “No brains, no logical thinking.” “Always attacking Russia,” “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the same as the 1934 Polish-German Pact,” etc, etc.

    If the French and the British attacked on the Western front during the first 2 weeks of September 1939, there and then the war would be over. Stalin waited till September 17, 1939 to see if the Western front would be opened. Then attacked, seeing no reaction of the French and the British. Hitler's gambit paid off.

    The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn't attack the Soviets.

    The Poles took Zaolzie in 1938 to protect the Polish majority living in that area. Not very elegant move, to be sure, but “hienas”? Churchill, who admired Comrade Stalin – was always correct in his opinions, right?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie


    Now, this NATO business in Warsaw: neocons here in the US, perhaps? The “no brains, no logical thinking” Poles, 95% of the press in Poland belongs to German publishers. Thus the anti-Russian and pro-Bandero/Ukrainian propaganda. And in this context, what should we think about our intelligence when supporting the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Syria? We, average citizens, could have stopped those wars easily, right Mr. Sater?

    There are voices in Poland that warn against Poland being involved in yet another bloodbath. Hopefully they will not drown in the incessant propaganda and the machinations of the current administration backed up by … yes, our irreplaceable neocons.

    Most uncouth propaganda this article you have written. Reminds me of the voices before the first partition of Poland: They (the Poles) are incapable of running their own country, exclaimed the the partitioning powers after they prevented the Poles from reforming their military and government. Look at this drawing carefully: deja vu:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Picture_of_Europe_for_July_1772.PNG/1024px-Picture_of_Europe_for_July_1772.PNG

    Dear Polish friend, I do not know what version of history you are taught in your Polish schools, but I’m sure it is very Polish-centric and very Polish nationalist. Like “Holy Poland is the last stronghold of the Western civilization against the Eastern barbarians”, or “the brave Poles have been fighting the Asiatic Tatar-Muscovite barbarians for the past 500 years”. Anyway, even I’m a sincere anti-Communist, I must admit that in the 1919-1921 War Poland was hardly a victim. Your national hero Pilsudski wanted to recreate the Great Poland “od morza do morza”, the version of 1772, if not 1618, by conquering today Ukraine and Belarus, which were then practically hardly controlled by anyone. Poland was indeed like a vulture picking up the flesh of the dead lion (the Russian Empire). Of course, the Bolsheviks saw in that war a possibility to push the Revolution westward, anyway even if the Bolsheviks were overthrown by Denikin or Wrangel, it would be absolutely logical for them to wage war against Poland to take control of White and Little Russias (Belarus and Ukraine were then phantom states), in that case the war would become another Russian-Polish. The Poles so eagerly “defended” Poland that they even took Kiev. Do you really think that Kiev, “the mother of Russian cities”, is somewhere in Poland? Finally, the Poles decided that Western Belarus and Ukraine were enough for them for now. Oh, sorry, I meant “Kresy Wschondnie”.

    As for 1939… Even if Stalin was the most terrible person of all Russian history, those moves of him were absolutely logical and legitimate. What Polish land did he take? How on Earth did the lands of historical White, Red and Little Russias become Polish? Poland always took these lands, when Russia was at its weakest. A true vulture.
    Even if it were not Stalin, but, say, a Russian Tsar or President, every Russian would support such a move. The bad side of Stalin’s moves was that he did not want united Russia, but added those conquered lands to made-up Belarus and Ukraine.

    And as for 1772… Again, what Polish lands did Empress Catherine take? It was only in 1815, after Poland had eagerly supported Napoleon against Russia (again in the hope to recreate the Great Poland) did the Russians decide to take control over Poland proper. But while Russian Tsars did everything in favour of Poland (Tsar Alexander opened the Warsaw University, how was it an oppression?), the Poles were never grateful or at least peaceful but rebelled in 1830. Only then Russians lost any illusions about Poland.

    After that, how does Poland dare to play again and again the role of a victim being in fact a vulture? And who will believe it? Russians certainly will not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ABCD
    “I do not know what version of history you are taught in your Polish schools, but I’m sure it is very Polish-centric and very Polish nationalist.”
    Well, either you know it or you don't – the law of the excluded middle.

    I'm not sure how to answer your rather rambling note: See, the lands between Russia and Poland had witnessed a constant friction between the two countries since “the time immemorial,” or about X A.D. There certainly has been some bad blood on both sides of the “isle.”

    That said, I limited my reply to the topics the article mentioned whereas you had to go all the way back to Napoleon.

    It's true that the Russian chunk of the partition was the least oppressive from the three. And yet, I see nothing wrong with the Poles trying to regain independence (3 uprisings). The reprisal for the uprisings were severe and a lot of Poles landed in Syberia.

    I asked you for the source of your statement about the 1920 Polish-Bolshevik war and got nothing. From what I've read, Petlura's army and the Polish army wanted (unsuccessfully) to stop Bolsheviks from taking Kiev and the rest of “Ukraine.”

    Then we have the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and de facto 4th partition of Poland in 1939. Then we have Katyn and the massacre of the Polish POWs. Then we have the bloody years of Communism...

    See, it's all history and I don't believe that using such words as hyena or vulture (your choice, it seems) is helpful to better understand history. However, I could say that overall the Poles never deported masses of Russians to, say, some Polish Syberia; they never occupied Russia for 134 years; they never executed Russian POWs in a Katyn-like butchery (the 1920 Russian POW died of typhus); and on and on.

    Ugly things happened as is always the case between 2 neighboring countries, each one having ambitions to dominate the region. Look at the maps (available on Wiki) from, say, X A.D. till now and see for yourself how fluid the borders of the region were.

    And thank you for the greetings, even though I am an American citizen, of Polish extraction, yes. Perhaps you'd like to know that I know many Russians living in the USA and we have no problems discussing our common history. But we don't use words like hyena, vulture, etc. Same with my many German friends.

    Finally, I am firmly convinced that most Poles in Poland have no axes to grind against Russians. And I believe the same applies to most Russians. We have to be careful to not allow unscrupulous politicians to play us against each other. Putin seems to be doing an excellent job to maintain stability (Crimea included) in the region. I wish Poland had a politician like him right now instead of those Warsaw puppets.

    Cheers. And peace.
  101. @Mulegino1
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    No, but is "living space" so controversial a concept that it needs to be made into a Manichean myth? It is no more evil a concept that "Manifest Destiny" in the United States, perhaps less so, because those of European Christian descent could hardly claim ancestral ties to Wyoming or the Dakotas, while the Germanic peoples could certainly do so with regards to the western parts of Poland and Ukraine.

    "Lebensraum" is a perfectly reasonable concept which predated the National Socialists by decades. Jewish propaganda has given it an utterly distorted meaning, i.e., that it implies the destruction or total displacement of the indigenous peoples by those of "pure Aryan descent" whereas, in reality, it refers to the settling of sparsely populated regions by ethnic Germans, with no real negative consequences for the local indigenous populations.

    In your original post you claimed this:

    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    I wrote:

    {If Hitler didn’t want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?}

    Again: Hitler is not the only villain in history and Germans are not the only people in the world who have taken land – or attempted to take land – that belongs to somebody else.
    I am quite familiar with the concept from my ancestry: nomad Turkic tribes took about 90% of historic Armenian lands, after ethnically cleansing the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks)and Armenian Highlands, topped of with Genocide. No need for me to list the long list of Turk villains. For the record, if there can be such a thing, Nazi German killers were demonstrably civilized compared to the nomad savages. Germans killed quickly and with the least pain possible. The nomads murdered people while they were alive, with aim to cause maximum pain and suffering. Again, no need to list the long roster of depraved savagery of the Turkic tribes. Turks are still there, and all the indigenous Christians are gone – save for a few 10s of 1,000s.

    In modern times, Turkey invaded Republic of Cyprus and gobbled 40% of it.
    Turks are still there 40 years after the grab.

    I responded to your post because you claimed Hitler did not want war.
    He wanted to take the lands of Slavs in the East.
    Since those lands were already populated by Slavs for millennia, the indigenous peoples had to be killed off to make room for the Germanic peoples to come in and settle there.
    Since Nazis considered Slavs subhuman, killing and murdering millions was no issue for them.
    How else do you take somebody else’s land if not by war.

    Note that Nazis conquered West Europe rather quickly and thoroughly. .
    But e.g. French people were not exterminated to take their land. Right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bunga
    "In modern times, Turkey invaded Republic of Cyprus and gobbled 40% of it.
    Turks are still there 40 years after the "


    Kudos to Turkey for grabbing that part of Cyprus . In 1974 Cyprus decided to join Greece ignoring the opinions of the Muslim citizen of Cyprus .
  102. @5371
    [In 1985 the USSR was at its peak, still it simply couldn’t take it no more and failed, economically in the first place.]

    Nonsense. They decided life was too dull and fell for a scam.

    Life in the USSR was indeed too dull, but the great impact of the Soviet military onto the Soviet economy is a well-known fact. I think the Soviet officials admitted this themselves (though I cannot give you a citation right now). The Soviet economy was being slowly ruined from making too many tanks, while people had nothing in their life. Even if Perestroika and the 1990s were scams, this does not nullify the fact that the USSR was a world of insanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    "Slowly ruined" is good, in the sense that we are all slowly dying ))
    I think you could find insanity closer to home than in the USSR, if you tried hard.
  103. @geokat62

    They are responsible. Not Joe sixpack. Please!
     
    Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies. Along with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being a well-informed citizen. Why is it that Rurik, annamarina, et. al. are well informed while others are totally in the dark?

    So, while I agree that the peoples' representatives deserve the lion's share of the blame, the people themselves are not totally innocent. It would be a mistake to let them completely off the hook and allow them to plead ignorance. We need them to stop shirking their responsibility to be well-informed citizens.

    Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies.

    was Pat Tillman guilty when he joined the army to kill the bastards who attacked us on 911?

    I say he was the best kind of human being there is

    this is the opening scene from one of my favorite war movies

    were these boys to blame once they aged a few years and were sent to the trenches to slaughter each other for the benefit and agenda of powerful scumfucks?

    Why is it that Rurik, annamarina, et. al. are well informed while others are totally in the dark?

    because they don’t have the wherewithal to sort though the lies. Pat Tillman was one of them, then he became like Annamarine and I, and they blew his head off for it.

    the people themselves are not totally innocent

    does that go for all Canadians too Geo? Are all your neighbors and fellow country men to blame?

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/07/canada-joins-failing-war-terror-bill-c51-150724092110473.html

    The putative reason Albright was giving for why those 5,000,000 Iraqi children’s death were “worth it”, was because they and their families should have taken it upon themselves to remove Saddam from power. It was their fault, you see, because they had not taken the initiative to remove a tyrant from power. It wasn’t any of the leaders or diplomats who were to blame, but the children and their parents. That was the justification in her mind. And I hesitate, to point out in yours too.

    90%+ of Americans are completely lied to and have zero time or ability to sift through the lies. But they’re catching on, and that’s why the establishment is nearly apoplectic over the rise of Trump, who has been against the Eternal War from the beginning. Starting with Iraq.

    I never blame the victim, no matter how much the temptation to heap scorn upon admittedly arrogant and obnoxious Americans. If they knew the truth, and still wanted the wars, that’d be something, and it would change everything for me. But they are lied to from virtually every single Zionist owned media outlet, and that pretty much covers 98.3%

    Part of the other percent being the Internet and the Unz Review in particular. ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... because they don’t have the wherewithal to sort though the lies.
     
    Do you mind unpacking this a little for us? What do you mean by "wherewithal"? Smarts, IQ, brains? If that's the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?

    ... does that go for all Canadians too Geo?
     
    Of course it does. I thought I stated it very clearly when I wrote: "Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies".

    That was the justification in her mind. And I hesitate, to point out in yours too.
     
    I'm glad you wrote "hesitate" because you know what my views are about the Fiend.

    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed. Are you suggesting they do not have this responsibility? And if you agree that they do indeed have this responsibility, should they not be held to account if they shirk it?
  104. @L.K
    The book you mentioned, Immigrant from former USSR, is excellent.

    The only problem with Suvorov(Rezun) is that he basically only addresses the Soviet responsability for the war, leaving out the other 2 main culprits on the Allied side; The U.S F.D.R administration and Churchill and the rest of the British war mongering party(France to a less extent).

    The fools and propagandists here who try to dismiss Suvorov's work are either stupid and ignorant or just dishonest. They think Suvorov is the only Russian who has advanced such a thesis, far from it;

    Since the 1990s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims. An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers include:
    Besides former Soviet intel officer , Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc.


    In fact, Suvorov's more recent work, such as 'The Chief Culprit", benefits a lot from such research done by other Russian historians in the archives.

    Since the 1990s, many Western/European historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans such as Prof.Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi.
    German and Austrian historians such as Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, military historians such as Heinz Magenheimer, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof and Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, S. Scheil, Polish historian Bogdan Musial, Scott E. Mawdsley, French Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, etc.

    The official comic book, Roger Rabitt narrative re the Soviet-German clash during WWII does not have a leg to stand on.
    This is the reason behind Russia’s new legislation against ‘revising’ WWII history.
    The truth does not need to be shielded from scrutiny.

    Also most Soviet archives of the era remain sealed.
    Why? What is the Russian government hiding? A lot. As Rezun points out, many hundreds of thousands of top secret documents remain sealed.
    It is understandable that Russia, as the main heir to the Soviet Empire, does not wish to let go of its most important national myth, even more so when the Americans, Perfidious Albion, aka, the english pests and the French are of course not letting go of the “good war” myth either and will not face up to their decisive roles and responsabilities in fomenting and causing what eventually became a world war(II).

    Thank you, dear L.K , for your this and the next post, both very informative.
    I agree that Suvorov emphasized the Stalin’s (USSR’s) role in starting WW2.
    I will try to read something out of your list. Can you pinpoint one particular book,
    preferably in English ? My German is extremely rusty and by now is reduced to
    “Aber die ordnung muss sein”.
    Most respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Hi, I.f.f.U.

    Let me think, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof's book has been translated into English, pretty good book and a very recent publication.
    1939 - The War That Had Many Fathers
    http://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X?ie=UTF8&keywords=the%20war%20that%20had%20many%20fathers&qid=1465343681&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

    Dr.Post's "Die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges - Ein Grundriß der internationalen Diplomatie von Versailles bis Pearl Harbor" is very good too, but only available in German.

    Dr.Hoffmann has been translated into English as 'Stalins War of Extermination", very good but focuses only on the Soviet-German conflict.

    "A Time for War" by Robert Smith Thompson focuses on Roosevelt.

    A pity that Bavendamm's "Roosevelts Krieg. Amerikanische Politik und Strategie 1937 - 1945" has never been published in English, only German.
    http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelts-Krieg-Amerikanische-Politik-Strategie/dp/3776620587?ie=UTF8&keywords=dirk%20bavendamm&qid=1465344592&ref_=sr_1_4&s=books&sr=1-4

    "Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor"
    http://www.amazon.com/Bankrupting-Enemy-Financial-Before-Harbor/dp/1591145201?ie=UTF8&keywords=bankrupting%20the%20enemy&qid=1465345347&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

    "The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II " by Thomas Fleming;
    https://www.amazon.com/New-Dealers-War-Within-World-ebook/dp/B00AFYV636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465345582&sr=1-1&keywords=the+new+dealer%27s+war

    'Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" ' by Patrick J. Buchanan is useful too.

    A.J.P.Taylors 'the origins of the second world war' is dated but still important.

    Dr.Klüver has a very good one on the English warmongers but only in German.

    Hope that helps,
    Best regards
  105. Trump wants the Europeans to pay their share for NATO.

    The US currently pays 70% of NATO’s costs.

    Read More
  106. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The commie days weren’t so bad.

    Released in US as HEY BABU RIBA.

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

    Back in commie days, the West could not win over Eastern European hearts by saying “Take tons of Muslims and Africans”.

    So, the West just talked about freedom. Now, it’s about pushing Diversity and Homomania on every country.

    Diversity weakens gentile unity and homomania favors the idea of elite minority rule(and that favors Jews who use homos as their collaborator-allies).

    Read More
  107. @Aixa
    England wanted to appease Germany by giving Germany rich awards - polish lands.
    No wonder that polish government refused.
    If England wanted that much to avoid war it could give Germany some English land, like Kent for example.
    It could show Mr. Hitler that he might achieve more if he refrained from force.

    As for polish government, it predicted that Germany would fail totally, loose war and with that Poland could grab vast territories from Germany. And this just happened and Poland did it.

    It was rational for Poland to start a war and gain territories in the West.
    Just some polish politicians outsmarted German and English idiot politicians.
    Instead of blaming Poles, you should blame yourself of your idiocy.

    The same with NATO and Russia.
    Poles know, who are the Americans, who are the Russians , Germans, English and French.
    And Poles play them the same way as in 1939.
    Very funny to see Putin's Russia and NATO all going frenzy and spending up milliards because some low level polish official is just talking them to do it and lol when reporting to polish PM.

    Nothing changes in Europe.

    Clearly, it was a brilliant plan.

    Read More
  108. @attonn
    Polish behavior - poking the bear, then pleading for American protection when consequences loom - is beyond revolting.

    True, and it’s also beyond stupid since even Polish liberals are surely aware the Americans will not lift a finger to help them in the event of actual war. That the comments of the FBI director re. Polish collaboration with Germans against Jews did not open Polish eyes, does not speak well of Polish sensibilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Polish collaboration with Germans against Jews did not open Polish eyes, does not speak well of Polish sensibilities." - Could you elaborate? What collaboration?
  109. @landlubber

    deserves a much better story teller
     
    For this particular article, I agree. The House Negro example may be apt, but it can only resonate badly with American readers. Liberals think nothing can fairly be compared to racism, and conservatives aren't going to see the world through the eyes of Malcolm X.

    Put bluntly, who gives a damn if it resonates poorly with Americans? A slap in the face (several, really) is exactly what they need.

    Read More
  110. I have a distinct impression that the author doesn’t like Poland for some reason or other. Maybe because he is a big fan of Russia?

    It is of course possible, that because of racial, inborn reasons Polish nation is so foul that it hates poor Russia without any reason. But why so many other countries also dislike noble Muscovites and invite evil Murricans? It is as if they didn’t have any experiences with Russians…

    …oh wait.

    More seriously. NATO Summit is starting soon. Increased activity by Russians and Russophiles is only to be expected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fatty
    Russians are drunk pussies-very tough, but used to getting pounded hard.
  111. @Avery
    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    If Hitler didn't want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?

    Lebensraum is not a myth, but there is no evidence what Hitler wrote in the 20′s (before he became German ruler) re. the THEN instability of the new Soviet state and prospects following its (wrongly) anticipated dissolution, played any role in the formulation of Barbarossa.

    Read More
  112. @Poles never learn

    NATO in Poland means more money flowing into Poland
     
    You mean, selling food, offering drinks and escorts to 5000-10000 GIs? Now how about losing millions of Russian tourists and zero trade? Poland quickly derails towards Ukraine - less production, more US/EU servitude and debt, and still hoping to see thy neighbor Russia failing. Once strong european country, now Poland's fate is depopulation, rustic existence and social decline.

    There is no need for Russia to attack poor Poland, but there is a chance to nuke NATO stationed in Poland, and there is always a chance of something happening - with only seconds in response.

    I seriously want to know where did you found million Russian tourists in Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fatty
    No need for Russians to visit Poland, cheaper and crappier vodka in their motherland.
  113. @5371
    [The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn’t attack the Soviets.]

    Yes, they did.

    No, they didn’t.

    Read More
  114. @HdC
    Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).

    It explains why Germany really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in order to forestall the SU invasion of Germany and all of Western Europe, which had been planned to commence one month after the German invasion. Consequently the German invasion was a preemptive attack in the truest sense of the definition.

    I would submit that a very large number of Soviet troops were murdered by their own rear-guard troops in order to stop retreat or surrender.

    Or they died in battle because of insufficient war material. Or through the stupidity of their commanders.

    I know it is politically correct to blame the Germans for all national and international ills in the world, but that doesn't mean it is true or, that the thinking portion of the population swallows this nonsense. HdC

    You are largely correct that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack, but come on, the shocking maltreatment of Soviet POWs by the Germans (granted they were rebuffed by Stalin in attempts to come to agreement re. treatment of prisoners) is well-known and a serous crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Stalin refused to sign the Geneva agreement regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. Thus Hitler ordered the treatment of Soviet prisoners to be the same as German prisoners were treated by the Soviets.

    I'll leave it to you to determine the percentage of German prisoners that returned in the mid 1950's. HdC
  115. German_reader, how much imagination does it take to justify a purely European defense organization? “Ya, USA gets blown up or pulls out, we’re on our own.” Not much.

    And yes, Saker’s a dick cheese. As are almost all of the Russophiles I encounter in alt-right circles.

    it wasn’t “Russians”, it was Soviets, and they were funded (and led) by NY Jewish bankers. And it was Churchill and FDR (also funded and controlled by Jews) who told Stalin that he could have Eastern Europe.

    Russian communism was very heavily Jewish before, during, and immediately after the revolution, but by the end of World War II, Stalin was firmly in charge. I don’t give a damn who told him he could take Eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it. Churchill and FDR told him one thing, while my grandpa told him to die like a dog, with a dick in every hole.

    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin’s Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn’t you noticed?

    If that was all supposed to follow from the embedded link, you should know that I have them blocked and don’t watch them.

    Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them? Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies.

    Compared to whom? Show us what the model of helping one’s allies looks like. Which country is so much better than than the US in this regard?

    My guess: *crickets chirping*

    Hitler thought Barbarossa would be a replay of the French campaign. It had taken around a month of fighting to defeat the French, and as Russia had around 4 to 5 times the population of France, he allowed himself 4 to 5 months to defeat the Russians. Assuming a launch date of May/June 1941, the campaign would be over by early autumn.

    Watching the Finns kick the Red Army’s ass didn’t help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    +1 for using "dick cheese" in a post.
    , @Rurik



    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin’s Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn’t you noticed?
     
    If that was all supposed to follow from the embedded link, you should know that I have them blocked and don’t watch them.
     
    No, it wasn't in the link, it was and is all around us. It's in the destruction of all the countries the Zio-West has destroyed on behalf of Israel since that false flag attack on 911.

    Was it Putin that destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and murdered and maimed millions?

    Was it Putin that destroyed Libya?

    Was it Putin that fomented a bloody coup Ukraine?

    Is it Putin that is funding and arming ISIS?

    Is it Putin that is flying terror drones all over Pakistan and Yemen?

    Is it Putin that lies about Syrian chemical attacks and MH17 and the violent seizure of Crimea and just about every thing else?

    No, it is not. Putin has been heroic and statesman-like in his assistance of Syria, who the Zio-West has targeted for destruction a la Libya so Israel can steal the Golan (and the "sultan" can steal oil fields) and carve up Syria between these assorted vultures.

    All of this is obvious to anyone who's been paying the minimal amount of attention to world affairs.
  116. You are largely correct that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack, but come on, the shocking maltreatment of Soviet POWs by the Germans (granted they were rebuffed by Stalin in attempts to come to agreement re. treatment of prisoners) is well-known and a serous crime.

    Germany had food shortages throughout the war. Feeding millions of Soviet POWs was of appropriately low priority. Soviets used their disregard of their own peoples’ lives (something for which they set the historical bar) as a weapon. So, ugly situation, but as you point out, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

    Read More
  117. @Rurik

    Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies.
     
    was Pat Tillman guilty when he joined the army to kill the bastards who attacked us on 911?

    I say he was the best kind of human being there is

    this is the opening scene from one of my favorite war movies

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRjKkG35ogo

    were these boys to blame once they aged a few years and were sent to the trenches to slaughter each other for the benefit and agenda of powerful scumfucks?

    Why is it that Rurik, annamarina, et. al. are well informed while others are totally in the dark?
     

    because they don't have the wherewithal to sort though the lies. Pat Tillman was one of them, then he became like Annamarine and I, and they blew his head off for it.

    the people themselves are not totally innocent
     
    does that go for all Canadians too Geo? Are all your neighbors and fellow country men to blame?

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/07/canada-joins-failing-war-terror-bill-c51-150724092110473.html

    The putative reason Albright was giving for why those 5,000,000 Iraqi children's death were "worth it", was because they and their families should have taken it upon themselves to remove Saddam from power. It was their fault, you see, because they had not taken the initiative to remove a tyrant from power. It wasn't any of the leaders or diplomats who were to blame, but the children and their parents. That was the justification in her mind. And I hesitate, to point out in yours too.

    90%+ of Americans are completely lied to and have zero time or ability to sift through the lies. But they're catching on, and that's why the establishment is nearly apoplectic over the rise of Trump, who has been against the Eternal War from the beginning. Starting with Iraq.

    I never blame the victim, no matter how much the temptation to heap scorn upon admittedly arrogant and obnoxious Americans. If they knew the truth, and still wanted the wars, that'd be something, and it would change everything for me. But they are lied to from virtually every single Zionist owned media outlet, and that pretty much covers 98.3%

    Part of the other percent being the Internet and the Unz Review in particular. ; )

    … because they don’t have the wherewithal to sort though the lies.

    Do you mind unpacking this a little for us? What do you mean by “wherewithal”? Smarts, IQ, brains? If that’s the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?

    … does that go for all Canadians too Geo?

    Of course it does. I thought I stated it very clearly when I wrote: “Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies“.

    That was the justification in her mind. And I hesitate, to point out in yours too.

    I’m glad you wrote “hesitate” because you know what my views are about the Fiend.

    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed. Are you suggesting they do not have this responsibility? And if you agree that they do indeed have this responsibility, should they not be held to account if they shirk it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    What do you mean by “wherewithal”?
     
    everything

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..

    things most people working to survive simple don't have


    If that’s the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?
     
    no, back then the universities and media were sympathetic to the cause of the reds in Viet Nam, and wanted the US out of there. So the media was the bullhorn against that war. How many newsreels do you see of Libya on the nightly news these days, eh?

    When's the last time you saw an American casket being unloaded from a plane on television?

    Virtually the entire media in the US is owned and/or controlled by Jews and Zionists. They didn't like the Viet Nam war, but they do like the wars for Israel very much indeed. That is why there was such a stink over the war in Viet Nam vs. the wars in the Middle East. They control the narrative with control of the media. If the NYT and uber-Zionist Rupert Murdoch were to decide they didn't like the wars anymore, then they'd be over in no time.


    “Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies“.
     
    if you're an American who's been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled? When the school books print lies and all of your leaders and representatives all lie to you. Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world? Most people's heads would explode if they knew just how rotten and corrupt their governments really are.

    The average person on the street has been systematically and deliberately dumbed down. They don't think and they're encouraged not to. The universities are indoctrination centers. The media is the voice of Newspeak. We live in Orwellian times, and even before it got to this, still most Americans were lied into WWI with lies about the Lusitania and Belgian babies in German bayonets. It's all lies all the time. Lies about WWI, lies about WWII, lies about Viet Nam too. They lied about WMD, they lied about Iraqi incubators, they lied about Osama, they lied about MH17 and Syrian gas attacks and Crimea, and they lie and they lie and they lie. They lied about 911 and you believe their lies, yet you condemn the average schmo as complicit for the wars when you yourself refuse to look behind the curtain.


    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed.
     
    and yet when it comes to something as significant as 911, you are the poster child for head in the sand, Geo. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.

    I've rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who've honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious. So glass houses and all that..

  118. @Bies Podkrakowski
    I have a distinct impression that the author doesn't like Poland for some reason or other. Maybe because he is a big fan of Russia?

    It is of course possible, that because of racial, inborn reasons Polish nation is so foul that it hates poor Russia without any reason. But why so many other countries also dislike noble Muscovites and invite evil Murricans? It is as if they didn't have any experiences with Russians...

    ...oh wait.


    More seriously. NATO Summit is starting soon. Increased activity by Russians and Russophiles is only to be expected.

    Russians are drunk pussies-very tough, but used to getting pounded hard.

    Read More
  119. @5371
    [The Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920, two years after Poland reappeared on the map after being partitioned for 134 years by Russia, Prussia, and Austro-Hungary. No, the Poles didn’t attack the Soviets.]

    Yes, they did.

    And kicked their socialist asses, you half a sissy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Well, you get a prize for honesty, unlike your compatriots! But things didn't go so smoothly throughout that war, did they.
  120. @Bies Podkrakowski
    I seriously want to know where did you found million Russian tourists in Poland.

    No need for Russians to visit Poland, cheaper and crappier vodka in their motherland.

    Read More
  121. What a hate filled hatchet job. Why does the Faker have nothing truthful to say about Polish history? Consider this blatant deception:

    “The polish view of history is nothing short of bizarre. For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (for some reason not known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact”).”

    Contrary to this baseless innuendo, there was absolutely nothing shameful or wrong about the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (unless you’re opposed to peaceful diplomacy). And the reason it isn’t known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact” is because, unlike the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it didn’t contain a secret protocol to jointly attack and partition another nation. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact also included an agreement to murder the entire Polish leadership at all levels. Equating that satanic plan with a peace treaty is the only thing “bizarre” about any of the thinking on display here. By the way, the “polish view of history” is spelled with a capital letter. And would the Faker be happier if Poland had been the 4th or 5th nation to sign an agreement that only existed between two nations??!! His baseless innuendo continues by telling us to just take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Józef Piłsudski (gasp!), But if you read it you will discover a courageous patriot who, against all odds and amongst many other accomplishments, turned back the advancing Soviets at the 1920 Battle of Warsaw, thereby saving much of war weakened Europe from a bloody Bolshevik takeover. There are so many other falsehoods in this article but I only have so much time for correcting lies.

    Read More
  122. @Beefcake the Mighty
    True, and it's also beyond stupid since even Polish liberals are surely aware the Americans will not lift a finger to help them in the event of actual war. That the comments of the FBI director re. Polish collaboration with Germans against Jews did not open Polish eyes, does not speak well of Polish sensibilities.

    “Polish collaboration with Germans against Jews did not open Polish eyes, does not speak well of Polish sensibilities.” – Could you elaborate? What collaboration?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    The FBI director claimed that Poles bore some blame for the killing of Jews under German occupation. This is completely ridiculous, and the Americans were compelled to somewhat apologize, but the point is, if the Poles aren't now aware of the nature of their American benefactors, they sadly deserve everything coming their way. (I did not mean to say the Poles collaborated, they obviously did not.)
  123. @Jon Halpenny
    Professor Geoffrey Roberts has demonstrated that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was not a division of territory. At the time it was signed it was not clear Poland would collapse under German blitzkrieg. The Soviets had to reconsider the situation in September 1939 after the Polish army had already begun to collapse and German panzers were racing everywhere. Only then was a decision to intervene in Poland taken. Winston Churchill publicly declared it was a good thing that Soviet troops had denied occupation of eastern Poland to the Germans.


    http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Union-Origins-Second-World/dp/0333556976

    I believe Hitler entertained the idea of a Polish rump state but Stalin opposed this because of Ukrainian populations under Polish control.

    Read More
  124. @L.K
    The book you mentioned, Immigrant from former USSR, is excellent.

    The only problem with Suvorov(Rezun) is that he basically only addresses the Soviet responsability for the war, leaving out the other 2 main culprits on the Allied side; The U.S F.D.R administration and Churchill and the rest of the British war mongering party(France to a less extent).

    The fools and propagandists here who try to dismiss Suvorov's work are either stupid and ignorant or just dishonest. They think Suvorov is the only Russian who has advanced such a thesis, far from it;

    Since the 1990s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims. An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers include:
    Besides former Soviet intel officer , Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (Viktor Suvorow), Russian historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafow, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc.


    In fact, Suvorov's more recent work, such as 'The Chief Culprit", benefits a lot from such research done by other Russian historians in the archives.

    Since the 1990s, many Western/European historians have reached similar conclusions. Americans such as Prof.Albert Weeks, Richard Raack, John Mosier, R.H.S. Stolfi.
    German and Austrian historians such as Ernst Topitsch, Ernst Nolte, Dr.Werner Maser, Lothar Rühl, Fritz Becker, Dr.Walter Post, Dr.Max Klüver, Wolfgang Strauss, military historians such as Heinz Magenheimer, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof and Dr.Joachim Hoffmann, S. Scheil, Polish historian Bogdan Musial, Scott E. Mawdsley, French Stéphane Courtois, François Furet, etc.

    The official comic book, Roger Rabitt narrative re the Soviet-German clash during WWII does not have a leg to stand on.
    This is the reason behind Russia’s new legislation against ‘revising’ WWII history.
    The truth does not need to be shielded from scrutiny.

    Also most Soviet archives of the era remain sealed.
    Why? What is the Russian government hiding? A lot. As Rezun points out, many hundreds of thousands of top secret documents remain sealed.
    It is understandable that Russia, as the main heir to the Soviet Empire, does not wish to let go of its most important national myth, even more so when the Americans, Perfidious Albion, aka, the english pests and the French are of course not letting go of the “good war” myth either and will not face up to their decisive roles and responsabilities in fomenting and causing what eventually became a world war(II).

    ‘not letting go of the “good war” myth’ – Only Germans could break that myth but so far they are not very inclined.

    Read More
  125. @Tad
    Well, what are you supposed to do if you're Poland? The Poles are caught between two great powers that have both brutalized Poland in the recent past. Kiss up to Russia and you might anger the Germans and other Western nations; crawl in bed with the West and you upset Russia. And the current situation of relative peace is nice, but it is historical atypical, so any suggestion that Poland just kick back and enjoy things is naive, imo. Perhaps, Saker, you have a suggestion as to the strategic stance Poland should take, given its geography?

    They have no good choices, but surely, antagonizing the Russians while assuming the Americans have their back is a very poor one.

    Read More
  126. @Avery
    {Please read a book entitled ICEBREAKER by Viktor Suyerov (sp?).}
    {Instead of ad hominem attacks on Suvorov, why not rebuff his tome with your verifiable facts?}

    Are you serious?
    What do you think this is, a discussion panel for academics and historians?
    This is a blog: you actually think I am going to spend days, weeks referencing page and chapter of Suvorov's book - a debunk it based on what ? If I reference archival material from say Soviet archives (if I had access), how are you going to verify it.

    Above you suggested I read Suvorov's book.
    I in turn suggest you re-read my post: therein I wrote that Suvorov's book has been rebutted, rebuffed, debunked by several historians and experts in the field.
    I am neither, so won't even go there.

    Please read a book titled "Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Modern War Studies)" by David M. Glantz. And then rebuff his debunking of Suvorov's bogus claim.

    Avery.

    Glantz was stage-managed by Soviet intelligence, who completely controlled his access to the archives (access which is generally unavailable to revisionist researchers). Another useful idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Thanks for your post; saves me from having to research it for myself.

    Could you please point out your references for this? Thanks. HdC
  127. @Svigor
    German_reader, how much imagination does it take to justify a purely European defense organization? "Ya, USA gets blown up or pulls out, we're on our own." Not much.

    And yes, Saker's a dick cheese. As are almost all of the Russophiles I encounter in alt-right circles.

    it wasn’t “Russians”, it was Soviets, and they were funded (and led) by NY Jewish bankers. And it was Churchill and FDR (also funded and controlled by Jews) who told Stalin that he could have Eastern Europe.
     
    Russian communism was very heavily Jewish before, during, and immediately after the revolution, but by the end of World War II, Stalin was firmly in charge. I don't give a damn who told him he could take Eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it. Churchill and FDR told him one thing, while my grandpa told him to die like a dog, with a dick in every hole.

    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin’s Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn’t you noticed?
     
    If that was all supposed to follow from the embedded link, you should know that I have them blocked and don't watch them.

    Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them? Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies.
     
    Compared to whom? Show us what the model of helping one's allies looks like. Which country is so much better than than the US in this regard?

    My guess: *crickets chirping*

    Hitler thought Barbarossa would be a replay of the French campaign. It had taken around a month of fighting to defeat the French, and as Russia had around 4 to 5 times the population of France, he allowed himself 4 to 5 months to defeat the Russians. Assuming a launch date of May/June 1941, the campaign would be over by early autumn.
     
    Watching the Finns kick the Red Army's ass didn't help.

    +1 for using “dick cheese” in a post.

    Read More
  128. @utu
    "Polish collaboration with Germans against Jews did not open Polish eyes, does not speak well of Polish sensibilities." - Could you elaborate? What collaboration?

    The FBI director claimed that Poles bore some blame for the killing of Jews under German occupation. This is completely ridiculous, and the Americans were compelled to somewhat apologize, but the point is, if the Poles aren’t now aware of the nature of their American benefactors, they sadly deserve everything coming their way. (I did not mean to say the Poles collaborated, they obviously did not.)

    Read More
  129. “I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that the French and the Italians are, in Europe, those who are least influenced by the imperial propaganda machine,”

    How can you believe that, when a handful of Muslims can kill so many unarmed French?

    Look at the homeland of the imperial propaganda machine: a handful of Muslims kill so many unarmed Americans.

    A real leader of his people would have [in the second case] nuked a random Arab nation for starters; [in the first case] bulldozed the no go zones and deported Muslims.

    The whole sick white race is heavily influenced by ignorance.

    Yes, mistaken.

    Read More
  130. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Glantz was stage-managed by Soviet intelligence, who completely controlled his access to the archives (access which is generally unavailable to revisionist researchers). Another useful idiot.

    Thanks for your post; saves me from having to research it for myself.

    Could you please point out your references for this? Thanks. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Have a look here:

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4669

    In particular (this is a sympathetic reviewer):

    "Glantz's use of Russian sources seems exhaustive for what is openly available to the public today. Most of his unique sources lie in "a category midway between what Westerners considered as primary and secondary source material," i.e. military journals, training materials and memoirs mostly published in periods of relative openness before or after Brezhnev (p.345). Most actual archives effectively remain closed. Thus (and Glantz does address this), this particular book is not a first-person archival exposition of the topic, but depends on works edited by Soviet officials."

    The reviewer later notes the particular build-up of Soviet forces near the Romanian border, i.e. threatening the Wehrmacht's oil supply. Regardless of true Soviet intents, this situation could not have been tolerated by the Germans. Classic use-it-or-lose scenario.

    (BTW note that in general Glantz changes the subject from the question of whether the Soviets planned to attack to whether they were fully prepared for war, something very different.)
  131. @Regnum Nostrum
    Hitler and his generals had expected the campaign in Russia to be finished before the onset of winter hence their lack of preparations for winter activities. The invasion of USSR was supposed to start much earlier but was delayed by revolt in Yugoslavia. The length of USSR is of little significance. Most of the industrial production was concentrated in large cities like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. It is no coincidence that the heaviest fighting took place around these places. Without industrial production to support your war efforts the fight is over.

    After the Krauts saw the way the Finns held them up in that nasty little winter war, they figured it wouldn’t be too much of a struggle to grab Moscow. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Stalin off a bunch of military guys who had some good experience?

    Read More
  132. What a hate filled hatchet job. Why does the Faker have nothing truthful to say about Polish history? Consider this blatant deception:

    “The polish view of history is nothing short of bizarre. For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (for some reason not known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact”).”

    Contrary to this baseless innuendo, there was absolutely nothing shameful or wrong about the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (unless you’re opposed to peaceful diplomacy). And the reason it isn’t known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact” is because, unlike the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it didn’t contain a secret protocol to jointly attack and partition another nation. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact also included an agreement to murder the entire Polish leadership at all levels. Equating that satanic plan with a peace treaty is the only “bizarre” historical view involved here. By the way, the “polish view of history” is spelled with a capital letter. And would the Faker be happier if Poland had been the 4th or 5th nation to sign an agreement that only existed between two nations??!! His baseless innuendo continues by telling us to just take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Józef Piłsudski (gasp!). But if you read it you will discover a courageous patriot who, against all odds and amongst many other accomplishments, turned back the advancing Soviets at the 1920 Battle of Warsaw, thereby saving much of war weakened Europe from a bloody Bolshevik takeover. There are many other falsehoods in this article but I only have so much time for correcting lies.

    Read More
  133. @Cyrano
    Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them? Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies. If war broke out between NATO and Russia, the Americans will fight exactly like they did in ww2: Bomb endlessly for 4 years and if anybody asks them to do more they pretend that they are doing all they can. NATO is cannon fodder recruitment tool for US, it was designed to protect them, not Europe. I don’t see such generosity (protecting Europe) coming from people who like to show up late (1917 and 1944 instead of 1914 and 1939) and when they show up they don’t do all that much.

    So - sweet dreams Eastern Europe - US is there to “protect” you.

    @Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them?

    Unfortunately, they do.

    @Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies

    Unfortunately, they don’t.

    Read More
  134. After the Krauts saw the way the Finns held them up in that nasty little winter war, they figured it wouldn’t be too much of a struggle to grab Moscow. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Stalin off a bunch of military guys who had some good experience?

    Stalin killed, gulaged, or otherwise purged most Red Army officers, yes. The further up you went, the worse it was. The higher their worth, the likelier they were to go (having left a record of “shaky” loyalties by grumbling about this or that particular of commie bumbling.). Socialists eat their own, something that doesn’t show up in the death counts, but is of vital relevance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, Svigor.
    I am an “English learner”, and can not always grasp the meaning of English words. You wrote:

    Stalin killed, gulaged, or otherwise purged most Red Army officers, yes.
     
    English word “most”: did you it mean more than 80%? Or, may be, more than 51%? Or, may be, more than 30%?
    Actually, the total number of Red Army in 1937 was 1.1 million of all servicemen. The number of officers (commanders of various ranks) in 1937 was 206 thousand. Taking 30% out of 206,000 yields 61,800 people. Did you mean that number?
    Actual number of commanders of various rank who left Read Army in 1937 was 36,761, of them arrested 10,868. (I can give you the source; it is in Russian language though.) Still, ten thousand human beings is a staggering number, a tragedy.
    If you take arrested ones, it constitutes 5%. Did you mean that 5% is, as you wrote, “most”?

    When you mentioned


    Stalin off a bunch of military guys who had some good experience,
     
    did you mean Marshal Tukhachevsky, who ordered and practiced taking and shooting hostages (women, children) from peasants of Tambov region during Russian Civil War of 1917-1919 ?
    Did you mean Army Commander of 1-st rank Yakir, who was military ‘raj’ of Ukraine during 1925-1937, and oversaw the suppression of the population by military force during the famous famine of 1933-35 (“Holodomor”) ?
    Did you mean Army Commander of 1-st rank Frinovskiy (shot in 1939), who was actually not in Army, but was deputy of infamous Ezhov, minister of State Security ?

    Disclaimer: I (I.f.f.U.) consider Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as a bunch of greatest tyrants in history.
    My own uncle, radio- and early-television-engineer, was arrested and shot in 1937.
    But not all, whom Stalin purged, were saints and qualified people.

  135. […] “Led by Poland, the European “House Negroes” Compete for the Darwin Awards”  “Romania and Poland Are Ground Zero Now”  “How Russia Is Preparing for WWIII” (comment re Secretary of State Nudelman-Kagan). Here’s a hint for the slow-witted:  if you watch your politicians slowly and painstakingly paint a big bullseye on your country, perhaps you should find new politicians. […]

    Read More
  136. @HdC
    Thanks for your post; saves me from having to research it for myself.

    Could you please point out your references for this? Thanks. HdC

    Have a look here:

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4669

    In particular (this is a sympathetic reviewer):

    “Glantz’s use of Russian sources seems exhaustive for what is openly available to the public today. Most of his unique sources lie in “a category midway between what Westerners considered as primary and secondary source material,” i.e. military journals, training materials and memoirs mostly published in periods of relative openness before or after Brezhnev (p.345). Most actual archives effectively remain closed. Thus (and Glantz does address this), this particular book is not a first-person archival exposition of the topic, but depends on works edited by Soviet officials.”

    The reviewer later notes the particular build-up of Soviet forces near the Romanian border, i.e. threatening the Wehrmacht’s oil supply. Regardless of true Soviet intents, this situation could not have been tolerated by the Germans. Classic use-it-or-lose scenario.

    (BTW note that in general Glantz changes the subject from the question of whether the Soviets planned to attack to whether they were fully prepared for war, something very different.)

    Read More
  137. The House Negro, etc. Rip van Winkle there is the sacker.

    Right now we got the gangsta nigga, the AA affirmative action nigga, and the BLM, the black lies nigga.

    What are the equivalents in the Russia/ East Europe deal? Probably no plausible comparison, but the sacker is old I guess, and out of it.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  138. @Boris N
    Dear Polish friend, I do not know what version of history you are taught in your Polish schools, but I'm sure it is very Polish-centric and very Polish nationalist. Like "Holy Poland is the last stronghold of the Western civilization against the Eastern barbarians", or "the brave Poles have been fighting the Asiatic Tatar-Muscovite barbarians for the past 500 years". Anyway, even I'm a sincere anti-Communist, I must admit that in the 1919-1921 War Poland was hardly a victim. Your national hero Pilsudski wanted to recreate the Great Poland "od morza do morza", the version of 1772, if not 1618, by conquering today Ukraine and Belarus, which were then practically hardly controlled by anyone. Poland was indeed like a vulture picking up the flesh of the dead lion (the Russian Empire). Of course, the Bolsheviks saw in that war a possibility to push the Revolution westward, anyway even if the Bolsheviks were overthrown by Denikin or Wrangel, it would be absolutely logical for them to wage war against Poland to take control of White and Little Russias (Belarus and Ukraine were then phantom states), in that case the war would become another Russian-Polish. The Poles so eagerly "defended" Poland that they even took Kiev. Do you really think that Kiev, "the mother of Russian cities", is somewhere in Poland? Finally, the Poles decided that Western Belarus and Ukraine were enough for them for now. Oh, sorry, I meant "Kresy Wschondnie".

    As for 1939... Even if Stalin was the most terrible person of all Russian history, those moves of him were absolutely logical and legitimate. What Polish land did he take? How on Earth did the lands of historical White, Red and Little Russias become Polish? Poland always took these lands, when Russia was at its weakest. A true vulture.
    Even if it were not Stalin, but, say, a Russian Tsar or President, every Russian would support such a move. The bad side of Stalin's moves was that he did not want united Russia, but added those conquered lands to made-up Belarus and Ukraine.

    And as for 1772... Again, what Polish lands did Empress Catherine take? It was only in 1815, after Poland had eagerly supported Napoleon against Russia (again in the hope to recreate the Great Poland) did the Russians decide to take control over Poland proper. But while Russian Tsars did everything in favour of Poland (Tsar Alexander opened the Warsaw University, how was it an oppression?), the Poles were never grateful or at least peaceful but rebelled in 1830. Only then Russians lost any illusions about Poland.

    After that, how does Poland dare to play again and again the role of a victim being in fact a vulture? And who will believe it? Russians certainly will not.

    “I do not know what version of history you are taught in your Polish schools, but I’m sure it is very Polish-centric and very Polish nationalist.”
    Well, either you know it or you don’t – the law of the excluded middle.

    I’m not sure how to answer your rather rambling note: See, the lands between Russia and Poland had witnessed a constant friction between the two countries since “the time immemorial,” or about X A.D. There certainly has been some bad blood on both sides of the “isle.”

    That said, I limited my reply to the topics the article mentioned whereas you had to go all the way back to Napoleon.

    It’s true that the Russian chunk of the partition was the least oppressive from the three. And yet, I see nothing wrong with the Poles trying to regain independence (3 uprisings). The reprisal for the uprisings were severe and a lot of Poles landed in Syberia.

    I asked you for the source of your statement about the 1920 Polish-Bolshevik war and got nothing. From what I’ve read, Petlura’s army and the Polish army wanted (unsuccessfully) to stop Bolsheviks from taking Kiev and the rest of “Ukraine.”

    Then we have the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and de facto 4th partition of Poland in 1939. Then we have Katyn and the massacre of the Polish POWs. Then we have the bloody years of Communism…

    See, it’s all history and I don’t believe that using such words as hyena or vulture (your choice, it seems) is helpful to better understand history. However, I could say that overall the Poles never deported masses of Russians to, say, some Polish Syberia; they never occupied Russia for 134 years; they never executed Russian POWs in a Katyn-like butchery (the 1920 Russian POW died of typhus); and on and on.

    Ugly things happened as is always the case between 2 neighboring countries, each one having ambitions to dominate the region. Look at the maps (available on Wiki) from, say, X A.D. till now and see for yourself how fluid the borders of the region were.

    And thank you for the greetings, even though I am an American citizen, of Polish extraction, yes. Perhaps you’d like to know that I know many Russians living in the USA and we have no problems discussing our common history. But we don’t use words like hyena, vulture, etc. Same with my many German friends.

    Finally, I am firmly convinced that most Poles in Poland have no axes to grind against Russians. And I believe the same applies to most Russians. We have to be careful to not allow unscrupulous politicians to play us against each other. Putin seems to be doing an excellent job to maintain stability (Crimea included) in the region. I wish Poland had a politician like him right now instead of those Warsaw puppets.

    Cheers. And peace.

    Read More
  139. Maybe so, but by attacking first Hitler put himself in the wrong. This isn’t just an ethical issue BTW. For one thing, it ensured that the Japanese would refuse to help, since their pact with Germany and Italy was purely defensive and didn’t commit them to assist in an aggressive war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Valid point, but it points to the likelihood that Hitler must have had a very compelling reason to attack, beyond mere opportunism (although we know he grossly underestimated Soviet military capabilities), and rejecting the cartoon version of madman bent on world domination.
  140. For God’s sake, if you are going to quote someone, quote them accurately. Your Churchill quote is horribly botched. Churchill, who won the Nobel prize for literature, can be criticized for many things, but never for illiteracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I wrote:

    ‘And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State.’

    Of course, I didn't have the advantage of google translate.
  141. @fatty
    And kicked their socialist asses, you half a sissy.

    Well, you get a prize for honesty, unlike your compatriots! But things didn’t go so smoothly throughout that war, did they.

    Read More
  142. @ABCD
    Care to list the source (or sources)? Thank you.

    Once the White armies had disappeared from everywhere but the Crimea, Poland promptly invaded the Ukraine. I’ll charitably assume that you do know this fact but are confused in some way, since no narrative, certainly none produced outside Poland, ever claimed differently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    So, you are saying that Poland should not stop an offensive in 1919 and instead of ignoring pleas of whites and Western politicians demanding us to continue the offensive, we should join them in march to Moscow?

    Because, after all, war started with soviet units advancing from the east and attacking Polish local self-defense units.
  143. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @CanSpeccy
    For God's sake, if you are going to quote someone, quote them accurately. Your Churchill quote is horribly botched. Churchill, who won the Nobel prize for literature, can be criticized for many things, but never for illiteracy.

    I wrote:

    ‘And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State.’

    Of course, I didn’t have the advantage of google translate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I wrote:

    ‘And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had ...

    Yes, nicely put, Win.

    And the punctuation's good. The absence of a comma before the "which", in defiance of pedantry, drives the argument relentlessly forward to ‘the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State.’

  144. Just few words, bringing back some real facts into this discussion

    (1) Poland signed non-aggression pact with Soviet Russia in 1932
    (2) Poland signed non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934 (as part of “equal distances” policies). Poland also refused all offers from Germany of anti-soviet alliance.
    (3) Poland had not participated in Munich. Occupation of Zaolzie was devised as being counter-Munich (to show, that Poland refuses to divide European states into “great powers” and their satellites).
    (4) Soviet union acknowledged existence of secret protocols of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in 1989. There was nothing wrong with non-aggression official part of the pact itself and is comparable to Polish-Soviet non-agression pact from 1932 or Polish-German non-agression pact from 1934. However, the pact had secret protocols, of which _nothing_ comparable can be found in polish pacts with either USSR or Germany.
    (5) USSR cooperated with Nazi Germany before 1940, providing Nazis not just with raw materials and wheat, but also giving them access to Soviet ports. USSR also discussed whether to join Axis.
    (6) Polish-Soviet war started in 1919 at least. USSR declared partitiions as void (which means it renounced rights to pre-partition Polish territories). Poles living in those territories started to create “self-defense” units, even when those territories were still occupied by Germans. In some cities Polish were minorities and withdrew (as from Mińsk, were Polish self-defense units withdrew without fight). In some (as in Vilnius) Poles were majority.
    Those self-defense units were attacked by Soviet forces invading from the east in 1919.

    Somehow, soviet apologists managed to maintain that it was Poland who attacked USSR in 1920, ignoring the fact that Soviets attacked Poland in 1919.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You Poles love to wave around photos of Soviet and German soldiers meeting on formerly Polish territory in 1939 as irrefutable proof of a nefarious alliance. Do be so good as to tell us, in what way should we interpret the photos of Polish and German soldiers meeting on formerly Czech territory in 1938?
  145. @Melchior
    Maybe so, but by attacking first Hitler put himself in the wrong. This isn't just an ethical issue BTW. For one thing, it ensured that the Japanese would refuse to help, since their pact with Germany and Italy was purely defensive and didn't commit them to assist in an aggressive war.

    Valid point, but it points to the likelihood that Hitler must have had a very compelling reason to attack, beyond mere opportunism (although we know he grossly underestimated Soviet military capabilities), and rejecting the cartoon version of madman bent on world domination.

    Read More
  146. @szopen
    Just few words, bringing back some real facts into this discussion

    (1) Poland signed non-aggression pact with Soviet Russia in 1932
    (2) Poland signed non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934 (as part of "equal distances" policies). Poland also refused all offers from Germany of anti-soviet alliance.
    (3) Poland had not participated in Munich. Occupation of Zaolzie was devised as being counter-Munich (to show, that Poland refuses to divide European states into "great powers" and their satellites).
    (4) Soviet union acknowledged existence of secret protocols of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in 1989. There was nothing wrong with non-aggression official part of the pact itself and is comparable to Polish-Soviet non-agression pact from 1932 or Polish-German non-agression pact from 1934. However, the pact had secret protocols, of which _nothing_ comparable can be found in polish pacts with either USSR or Germany.
    (5) USSR cooperated with Nazi Germany before 1940, providing Nazis not just with raw materials and wheat, but also giving them access to Soviet ports. USSR also discussed whether to join Axis.
    (6) Polish-Soviet war started in 1919 at least. USSR declared partitiions as void (which means it renounced rights to pre-partition Polish territories). Poles living in those territories started to create "self-defense" units, even when those territories were still occupied by Germans. In some cities Polish were minorities and withdrew (as from Mińsk, were Polish self-defense units withdrew without fight). In some (as in Vilnius) Poles were majority.
    Those self-defense units were attacked by Soviet forces invading from the east in 1919.

    Somehow, soviet apologists managed to maintain that it was Poland who attacked USSR in 1920, ignoring the fact that Soviets attacked Poland in 1919.

    You Poles love to wave around photos of Soviet and German soldiers meeting on formerly Polish territory in 1939 as irrefutable proof of a nefarious alliance. Do be so good as to tell us, in what way should we interpret the photos of Polish and German soldiers meeting on formerly Czech territory in 1938?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    The difference is that there was a danger of real conflict in Zaolzie, no Polish radiostation provided a signal for German bombers, Poles have not been shooting to Czechs, and Czechs themselves offered day earlier a solution to Zaolzie (which Rydz ignored because he wanted a show). In addition, Poles were not cooperating with Germans in chasing Czech resistance.

    Also, no secret protocol was signed with Hitler about division of Czechoslovakia, and Hitler was not urging Poles to take an action against Czechoslovakia. Afterwards there were no common parades.
  147. @Boris N
    Life in the USSR was indeed too dull, but the great impact of the Soviet military onto the Soviet economy is a well-known fact. I think the Soviet officials admitted this themselves (though I cannot give you a citation right now). The Soviet economy was being slowly ruined from making too many tanks, while people had nothing in their life. Even if Perestroika and the 1990s were scams, this does not nullify the fact that the USSR was a world of insanity.

    “Slowly ruined” is good, in the sense that we are all slowly dying ))
    I think you could find insanity closer to home than in the USSR, if you tried hard.

    Read More
  148. @Svigor
    I know, right? It's not as if the Russians would ever grab eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it.

    After communism fell, how many Soviet war criminals and genocidaires were hunted down, a la the Nazis, and put on trial?

    Just curious.

    “After communism fell, how many Soviet war criminals and genocidaires were hunted down, a la the Nazis, and put on trial?”

    The lady doth protest too much. The recent count of the victims of the Middle Eastern wars has reached some 3 million (70 years after Nuremberg, btw). There are also some 10 million desperate refugees from the Middle East. Why was it so important to crush Iraq, Libya, Syria? These names should ring certain plan [Yinon] devised for certain small state, the one that munches freely on the US resources. Doubtless, there were “Soviet war criminals and genocidaires” in the Soviet Union, against other Soviets (i.e., internal affair). Now please tell us, how many “war criminals and genocidaires” of the US/EU extraction have been hunted down for their crimes against humanity in foreign countries during the last 15 years? Here are some names: Cheney, Blair, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Yoo, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Feith …..

    Read More
  149. @Svigor
    German_reader, how much imagination does it take to justify a purely European defense organization? "Ya, USA gets blown up or pulls out, we're on our own." Not much.

    And yes, Saker's a dick cheese. As are almost all of the Russophiles I encounter in alt-right circles.

    it wasn’t “Russians”, it was Soviets, and they were funded (and led) by NY Jewish bankers. And it was Churchill and FDR (also funded and controlled by Jews) who told Stalin that he could have Eastern Europe.
     
    Russian communism was very heavily Jewish before, during, and immediately after the revolution, but by the end of World War II, Stalin was firmly in charge. I don't give a damn who told him he could take Eastern Europe and make a totalitarian empire out of it. Churchill and FDR told him one thing, while my grandpa told him to die like a dog, with a dick in every hole.

    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin’s Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn’t you noticed?
     
    If that was all supposed to follow from the embedded link, you should know that I have them blocked and don't watch them.

    Do the fools in Eastern Europe really think that NATO was designed to protect them? Haven’t they learned from history how US “helps” their allies.
     
    Compared to whom? Show us what the model of helping one's allies looks like. Which country is so much better than than the US in this regard?

    My guess: *crickets chirping*

    Hitler thought Barbarossa would be a replay of the French campaign. It had taken around a month of fighting to defeat the French, and as Russia had around 4 to 5 times the population of France, he allowed himself 4 to 5 months to defeat the Russians. Assuming a launch date of May/June 1941, the campaign would be over by early autumn.
     
    Watching the Finns kick the Red Army's ass didn't help.

    compared to NATO and the bankster controlled West today, Putin’s Russia looks not just as the only adult in the room, but morally they look like saints compared to the murderous Zio-demon destroying country after country

    or hadn’t you noticed?

    If that was all supposed to follow from the embedded link, you should know that I have them blocked and don’t watch them.

    No, it wasn’t in the link, it was and is all around us. It’s in the destruction of all the countries the Zio-West has destroyed on behalf of Israel since that false flag attack on 911.

    Was it Putin that destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and murdered and maimed millions?

    Was it Putin that destroyed Libya?

    Was it Putin that fomented a bloody coup Ukraine?

    Is it Putin that is funding and arming ISIS?

    Is it Putin that is flying terror drones all over Pakistan and Yemen?

    Is it Putin that lies about Syrian chemical attacks and MH17 and the violent seizure of Crimea and just about every thing else?

    No, it is not. Putin has been heroic and statesman-like in his assistance of Syria, who the Zio-West has targeted for destruction a la Libya so Israel can steal the Golan (and the “sultan” can steal oil fields) and carve up Syria between these assorted vultures.

    All of this is obvious to anyone who’s been paying the minimal amount of attention to world affairs.

    Read More
  150. @geokat62

    ... because they don’t have the wherewithal to sort though the lies.
     
    Do you mind unpacking this a little for us? What do you mean by "wherewithal"? Smarts, IQ, brains? If that's the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?

    ... does that go for all Canadians too Geo?
     
    Of course it does. I thought I stated it very clearly when I wrote: "Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies".

    That was the justification in her mind. And I hesitate, to point out in yours too.
     
    I'm glad you wrote "hesitate" because you know what my views are about the Fiend.

    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed. Are you suggesting they do not have this responsibility? And if you agree that they do indeed have this responsibility, should they not be held to account if they shirk it?

    What do you mean by “wherewithal”?

    everything

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..

    things most people working to survive simple don’t have

    If that’s the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?

    no, back then the universities and media were sympathetic to the cause of the reds in Viet Nam, and wanted the US out of there. So the media was the bullhorn against that war. How many newsreels do you see of Libya on the nightly news these days, eh?

    When’s the last time you saw an American casket being unloaded from a plane on television?

    Virtually the entire media in the US is owned and/or controlled by Jews and Zionists. They didn’t like the Viet Nam war, but they do like the wars for Israel very much indeed. That is why there was such a stink over the war in Viet Nam vs. the wars in the Middle East. They control the narrative with control of the media. If the NYT and uber-Zionist Rupert Murdoch were to decide they didn’t like the wars anymore, then they’d be over in no time.

    “Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies“.

    if you’re an American who’s been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled? When the school books print lies and all of your leaders and representatives all lie to you. Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world? Most people’s heads would explode if they knew just how rotten and corrupt their governments really are.

    The average person on the street has been systematically and deliberately dumbed down. They don’t think and they’re encouraged not to. The universities are indoctrination centers. The media is the voice of Newspeak. We live in Orwellian times, and even before it got to this, still most Americans were lied into WWI with lies about the Lusitania and Belgian babies in German bayonets. It’s all lies all the time. Lies about WWI, lies about WWII, lies about Viet Nam too. They lied about WMD, they lied about Iraqi incubators, they lied about Osama, they lied about MH17 and Syrian gas attacks and Crimea, and they lie and they lie and they lie. They lied about 911 and you believe their lies, yet you condemn the average schmo as complicit for the wars when you yourself refuse to look behind the curtain.

    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed.

    and yet when it comes to something as significant as 911, you are the poster child for head in the sand, Geo. I’m sorry, but that’s how I see it.

    I’ve rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who’ve honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious. So glass houses and all that..

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..
     
    Apart from time, which is a legitimate constraint, the other factors are traits, the absence of which, that lead to apathy. If you combine apathy with a media that constantly spews lies, you have a deadly combination, indeed.

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled?
     
    This is indeed a lamentable situation, but I still think people should be held to account for their actions. Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons' preferred candidate? Isn't it because the North Carolinians were better informed? If that's the case, shouldn't we hold them up as an example other Americans should emulate? Or should we just throw in the towel and say that Joe 6 pack is absolved from all responsibility to be well informed? This is a recipe for disaster, IMHO. Notwithstanding the lies being spewed by the presstitutes, we need to hold people accountable for being well informed. The good news is more and more people are realizing they are being lied to and are rejecting the presstitute media in favour of internet sources. This is an encouraging trend that needs to continue. But we do ourselves no favors if we keep telling Joe 6-pack that he is completely blameless for continuing to dwell in a cave of ignorance. Rather than condoning this behaviour, we should be prodding him to "take an interest in politics, before politics takes an interest in him."

    Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world?
     
    I think I've clearly laid out, in another thread, the reasons why I'm not convinced the 3 bldgs were brought down by controlled demolition. If you'd like to continue that debate, you're welcome to do so by responding to my most recent comment there.

    I’ve rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who’ve honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious.
     
    I consider myself to be in good company since your own sibling isn't convinced 9/11 was an inside job, either.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    if you’re an American who’s been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?
     
    Reading The Panther, by Nelson de Mille.
    John Corey is Everyman, and demands that Everyman take responsibility for his judgments and his actions.
    regarding lies, Corey says:

    "Paranoid? Maybe. But we'd already been lied to. And lies are like cockroaches -- if you see one, there are more."

    that's neither rocket science nor Thomistic philosophy. It's common sense.

    re:


    if you believe the lies . . .are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us
     
    Yes, every person who voluntarily seeks and accepts employment in a military force whose known agenda is to kill people in another country, or to facilitate their colleagues in doing so, is guilty; is morally responsible; is culpable.
    No human person checks his moral agency at the door when he voluntarily applies for employment.

    To jump on Alexander's favorite hobby horse, didn't Nuremberg hand down the concept that "just following orders" is not a defense against doing wicked deeds?

    No one gets tossed in jail for not seeking employment with US military.

    If Americans did not voluntarily seek employment as killers in US military, then the lying leader-elites would have no one to carry out their evil deeds.

  151. @Svigor

    After the Krauts saw the way the Finns held them up in that nasty little winter war, they figured it wouldn’t be too much of a struggle to grab Moscow. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Stalin off a bunch of military guys who had some good experience?
     
    Stalin killed, gulaged, or otherwise purged most Red Army officers, yes. The further up you went, the worse it was. The higher their worth, the likelier they were to go (having left a record of "shaky" loyalties by grumbling about this or that particular of commie bumbling.). Socialists eat their own, something that doesn't show up in the death counts, but is of vital relevance.

    Hello, Svigor.
    I am an “English learner”, and can not always grasp the meaning of English words. You wrote:

    Stalin killed, gulaged, or otherwise purged most Red Army officers, yes.

    English word “most”: did you it mean more than 80%? Or, may be, more than 51%? Or, may be, more than 30%?
    Actually, the total number of Red Army in 1937 was 1.1 million of all servicemen. The number of officers (commanders of various ranks) in 1937 was 206 thousand. Taking 30% out of 206,000 yields 61,800 people. Did you mean that number?
    Actual number of commanders of various rank who left Read Army in 1937 was 36,761, of them arrested 10,868. (I can give you the source; it is in Russian language though.) Still, ten thousand human beings is a staggering number, a tragedy.
    If you take arrested ones, it constitutes 5%. Did you mean that 5% is, as you wrote, “most”?

    When you mentioned

    Stalin off a bunch of military guys who had some good experience,

    did you mean Marshal Tukhachevsky, who ordered and practiced taking and shooting hostages (women, children) from peasants of Tambov region during Russian Civil War of 1917-1919 ?
    Did you mean Army Commander of 1-st rank Yakir, who was military ‘raj’ of Ukraine during 1925-1937, and oversaw the suppression of the population by military force during the famous famine of 1933-35 (“Holodomor”) ?
    Did you mean Army Commander of 1-st rank Frinovskiy (shot in 1939), who was actually not in Army, but was deputy of infamous Ezhov, minister of State Security ?

    Disclaimer: I (I.f.f.U.) consider Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as a bunch of greatest tyrants in history.
    My own uncle, radio- and early-television-engineer, was arrested and shot in 1937.
    But not all, whom Stalin purged, were saints and qualified people.

    Read More
  152. @Anonymous
    I wrote:

    ‘And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State.’

    Of course, I didn't have the advantage of google translate.

    I wrote:

    ‘And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had …

    Yes, nicely put, Win.

    And the punctuation’s good. The absence of a comma before the “which”, in defiance of pedantry, drives the argument relentlessly forward to ‘the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State.’

    Read More
  153. The Saker says the Ukrainian state is Nazi; Clinton says Putin is Hitler. Who is right? Is fascism a useful concept? I mean if you look for some trace of fascism you can find it in any country you randomly pick. Therefore, a useless word. As to working with Hitler or Mussolini which country or tribe did not work for a while with them at some point during that era? Rapping the present issues in that history is stupid. Just focus on facts and issues of the present.

    Ok, history matters but the present matters more than history. So, what government on earth, fascist or democratic, willingly accept the annexation of its territory by brute force? Russia’s annexation of Crimea is illegal, and sets a dangerous precedent. But the people of Crimea have the right to self determination. There should be an internationally monitored referendum after a period of peace. The South Sudanese model is good. This should apply to East Ukraine region and Chechnya too. The model forces the powers in Kiev and Moscow to be good to their own citizens. It they want to win in a free referendum they have to offer a true democratic federal system to the regions. It is good too for every one else. But, I am talking logic, which does not always win over emotions.

    As to NATO and the US they are arrogant and dangerous. Let us hope the people of the world rebel against them. Have peaceful demonstrations everyday of the year in every country of the world until they stop their aggressive behaviours. I am dreaming!

    Read More
  154. @Rurik

    TPB?

    Absolutely real. I’m just saying that to tackle them one has to start from the basics of one’s own life.

     

    I did it?!

    I'm pointing out that it wasn't the guy in the street. The guy in the street has been so lied to from every direction that it's a miracle he knows which way is up.

    As near as I can tell, based on your logic, Madeleine Albright was right, and those half million children deserved to die because a scumfuck in Iraq was defying scumfucks in Washington/Tel Aviv.

    No, I don't blame myself for imposing those sanction and causing all that suffering and misery and death. I blame Madeleine Albright, (and her groupie Hillary).

    I don't blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.

    If you were Pat Tillman going to war to kill the bastards that did 911, you're not only blameless, you're f**king heroic! The best of the best. But then when you realize you've been lied to, and start to speak out against the war, and they blow your head off, and lie about it, I blame the ones who lied him into the wars. Not him. And then I blame the ones who blew his head off, and then lied about it.

    You see it is the murderous rotten liars who deserve to have their lying heads blown off, not the innocent who've been lied to, don't you think?

    Pat Tillman was a victim, even when he was killing the Taliban. Because he had been lied to.

    Just like we were all lied to about 911 and about everything else. I blame the liars. And I bet Sibel Edmonds would agree.

    Most Americans consider Edward Snowden a hero, even after they've been lied to about him. It's the PTB that want to torture him to death as an example, not the American people.

    I did it?! … I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.

    1. I lack time for blaming. If we’re truly in a crisis then people’s lives, health (and honours) are at stake. Therefore I lack time for high moral grounds.

    2. The powerless are powerful. That’s what the alternative media say. That’s what the quoted Quigley’s analysis says. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t ‘have your cake and eat it.’

    Most Americans consider Edward Snowden a hero, even after they’ve been lied to about him.

    Edward Snowden was mass-promoted on cover pages of establishment magazines and so on. Russel Tice has been saying for years much more than Snowden has spilled and got absolutely no coverage. Sibel Edmonds, and her website partners, and her audience, consider Snowden a complete phony.

    I suspect that what stands for “the Jewish elite” is also a complex thing. Putin, in the speech you posted, says the “Soviet government Jews” were repressing other Jews. Well, what does that mean about their “Jewish” character? The Soviet government Jews had ideological motives different from those of today’s Israel. The former were revolutionary, Bolshevik, the latter are rabbinic.

    I’m glad we exchanged views and thoughts.

    The points I quoted are valid, I think. I can add other examples of the same pattern:
    - Hitler’s crimes were mostly things Hitler was kept in the dark by Himmler and Heydrich, and they were largely initiated by hundreds of low-level subordinates : those are David Irving’s latest findings in his ongoing writing of Himmler’s biography.
    - Stalin’s great crimes were probably mostly 1) made-up 2) Yezhov’s, whose purpose was provoking revolt and creating grounds for a pro-Nazi coup. (Grover Furr, building upon Thurston et al.). Again, it shows that the notion of evil elites misses important points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik


    … I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.
     
    1. I lack time for blaming. If we’re truly in a crisis then people’s lives, health (and honours) are at stake. Therefore I lack time for high moral grounds.

     

    assigning blame and accountability are important for restoring sanity and the rule of law

    the reason Obama should go to the Hague and ultimately rot in some kind of prison is because that's how you send a message. When Tony Blair is arrested by the British government and tried and convicted for treason, it'll send shock waves through the entire demonic establishment all the way right up to Rothschild's black and feculent heart.

    Look at Iceland, they didn't just wrest control of their banks and government from the scoundrels and crooks that were running it, they put their stinking arses in jail!
    That's what we need to do. For all the blood-stained war criminals and financial uber-criminal scum at Goldman Sachs and the Fed and the Treasury.

    It isn't for smug moralizing that we should assign blame and accountability, it's to show that there is a karmic price for evil, and that there is hope for justice in this world. Think how much cynicism that would remove from the hearts of good people.

    The Soviet government Jews had ideological motives different from those of today’s Israel. The former were revolutionary, Bolshevik, the latter are rabbinic.
     
    yes but the salient thing as far as the gentiles go is that they were both full to the brim with murderous hatred in their hearts for all the non-Jews.

    That is the part ab0ut the Jewish character that is troubling. Who cares if they manage to make tones of money or worship a mean and cruel God. The problem is their criminality and fraud and swindles like the Fed, and what they do with the power that kind of lucre gives them. It's always war and war and more wars. With torture and strife and hatred tossed in for good measure.

    I’m glad we exchanged views and thoughts.
     
    same here

    - Stalin’s great crimes were probably mostly 1) made-up 2) Yezhov’s, whose purpose was provoking revolt and creating grounds for a pro-Nazi coup. (Grover Furr, building upon Thurston et al.). Again, it shows that the notion of evil elites misses important points.
     
    I don't agree with that. Stalin was a monster. It was Stalin's genocidal communism (Jewish Bolshevism) that was responsible for the unimaginable horrors of the twentieth century, IMHO. Hitler and the Nazis were merely a survival mechanism of the German people, (representing the entire Western world) against that Satanic and anti-human creed.
  155. ” having megalomaniacal Fascist national heroes is not only a Ukrainian feature.”

    Hilarious. Go to Kyiv, criticize Poroshenko and see what happens. Then go to Moscow and do the same to the KGB punk who pretends to run the country, and your life will be in danger.

    Anyone claiming the Ukrainian government is a fascist regime is a liar. To make it quite explicit, Saker is a liar and lies for the sub-presidential dwarf that heads Russia’s fascist regime.

    Read More
  156. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Aixa
    England wanted to appease Germany by giving Germany rich awards - polish lands.
    No wonder that polish government refused.
    If England wanted that much to avoid war it could give Germany some English land, like Kent for example.
    It could show Mr. Hitler that he might achieve more if he refrained from force.

    As for polish government, it predicted that Germany would fail totally, loose war and with that Poland could grab vast territories from Germany. And this just happened and Poland did it.

    It was rational for Poland to start a war and gain territories in the West.
    Just some polish politicians outsmarted German and English idiot politicians.
    Instead of blaming Poles, you should blame yourself of your idiocy.

    The same with NATO and Russia.
    Poles know, who are the Americans, who are the Russians , Germans, English and French.
    And Poles play them the same way as in 1939.
    Very funny to see Putin's Russia and NATO all going frenzy and spending up milliards because some low level polish official is just talking them to do it and lol when reporting to polish PM.

    Nothing changes in Europe.

    The vast territories were not grabbed by Poland but given to Poland by Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Hardly. Stalin took east of the Curzon line, the territory he got in the non-aggression pact with Germany. Poland was pushed west, as was Belarus. Much of modern Poland was Germany, and much of old Poland is in Belarus and Ukraine.
  157. @5371
    You Poles love to wave around photos of Soviet and German soldiers meeting on formerly Polish territory in 1939 as irrefutable proof of a nefarious alliance. Do be so good as to tell us, in what way should we interpret the photos of Polish and German soldiers meeting on formerly Czech territory in 1938?

    The difference is that there was a danger of real conflict in Zaolzie, no Polish radiostation provided a signal for German bombers, Poles have not been shooting to Czechs, and Czechs themselves offered day earlier a solution to Zaolzie (which Rydz ignored because he wanted a show). In addition, Poles were not cooperating with Germans in chasing Czech resistance.

    Also, no secret protocol was signed with Hitler about division of Czechoslovakia, and Hitler was not urging Poles to take an action against Czechoslovakia. Afterwards there were no common parades.

    Read More
  158. @5371
    Once the White armies had disappeared from everywhere but the Crimea, Poland promptly invaded the Ukraine. I'll charitably assume that you do know this fact but are confused in some way, since no narrative, certainly none produced outside Poland, ever claimed differently.

    So, you are saying that Poland should not stop an offensive in 1919 and instead of ignoring pleas of whites and Western politicians demanding us to continue the offensive, we should join them in march to Moscow?

    Because, after all, war started with soviet units advancing from the east and attacking Polish local self-defense units.

    Read More
  159. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Location, location, location.

    Poland would not matter much to the West but for its location. Right between West and Russia. Some things never change in the game of Geo-Reaction.

    Korea serves the same role in Asia. I think Vietnam might come to play the same role in the Pivot against China.

    China now in serious geo-reaction mode.

    Read More
  160. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Saker needs to be more understanding of the Poles.

    Their bad history with Russians go much deeper.

    Poland was pretty much wiped off the map by Russians and Germans/Austrians, but mainly by Russia. So, it’s not just a resentment that goes back to the 20th century.

    Just like Russia has certain strong fears due to Napoleon and Hitler, Poles have their kneejerk reactions vis-a-vis Russians.

    Also, every nation has to have some outlet for its frustrations. I think current Poles are upset with Jews, Germans, and Americans who push crazy policy on EU.

    But Poland is too dependent on the US. (Also, US has a big Polish community).
    Poland depends on German economy.
    And Poles know that they better be cautious about speaking about Jews. Privately and even socially, there is a lot of talk among Poles that is critical of Jews. My Pole friends tell me all the time. But this kind of talk cannot be too public.

    So, how can Poland boost its nationalism and unity? The safe target is Russia.

    We see same thing among white American conzos. Many are really upset with black crime, Jewish Liberals, and fruitkin decadents. But Jews, Negroes, and homos are the holy three of PC. So, in order for white Conzos to feel big, tough, and strong, they need to find safe outlets, and they are Illegals(usually Mexicans), Chinese, Russians, and Iranians(and Muslims).

    Now, we all know Russia is no threat to Poland. Russia can barely manage itself.
    BUT, Russia is still an independent power. So, Poles still have some fear of it.
    In contrast, Poles know that Germany, despite its riches, is a political tool and puppet of the US. It is a whole nation. It is Whormany.

    Putin should make a public speech pledging that Russia will not attack or invade ANY nation that doesn’t attack Russia first. He should also say that it is not Russia that is pushing homomania on Poland. And it is not Russia that is demanding that Poland allow itself to be invaded by Africans and Muslims. Jews and EU are demanding that.

    But no real progress can happen unless the Global Narrative takes into account the role of Jewish Power.

    This is really a Jewish War on Russia. Jews fear the rise of gentile power as a threat to their model of ‘diversity’ they pushed on rest of Europe. Russia has its own diversity, but Russian Christians don’t operate on the premise of ‘guilt’ and apologetics.
    And it rejects the homo-imperialism funded by Wall Street and Hollywood.

    As for ‘hyena-ism’, what nation hasn’t acted like that?

    All nations looks for advantages and grabs what it can.

    Read More
  161. @Rurik

    What do you mean by “wherewithal”?
     
    everything

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..

    things most people working to survive simple don't have


    If that’s the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?
     
    no, back then the universities and media were sympathetic to the cause of the reds in Viet Nam, and wanted the US out of there. So the media was the bullhorn against that war. How many newsreels do you see of Libya on the nightly news these days, eh?

    When's the last time you saw an American casket being unloaded from a plane on television?

    Virtually the entire media in the US is owned and/or controlled by Jews and Zionists. They didn't like the Viet Nam war, but they do like the wars for Israel very much indeed. That is why there was such a stink over the war in Viet Nam vs. the wars in the Middle East. They control the narrative with control of the media. If the NYT and uber-Zionist Rupert Murdoch were to decide they didn't like the wars anymore, then they'd be over in no time.


    “Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies“.
     
    if you're an American who's been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled? When the school books print lies and all of your leaders and representatives all lie to you. Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world? Most people's heads would explode if they knew just how rotten and corrupt their governments really are.

    The average person on the street has been systematically and deliberately dumbed down. They don't think and they're encouraged not to. The universities are indoctrination centers. The media is the voice of Newspeak. We live in Orwellian times, and even before it got to this, still most Americans were lied into WWI with lies about the Lusitania and Belgian babies in German bayonets. It's all lies all the time. Lies about WWI, lies about WWII, lies about Viet Nam too. They lied about WMD, they lied about Iraqi incubators, they lied about Osama, they lied about MH17 and Syrian gas attacks and Crimea, and they lie and they lie and they lie. They lied about 911 and you believe their lies, yet you condemn the average schmo as complicit for the wars when you yourself refuse to look behind the curtain.


    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed.
     
    and yet when it comes to something as significant as 911, you are the poster child for head in the sand, Geo. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.

    I've rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who've honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious. So glass houses and all that..

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..

    Apart from time, which is a legitimate constraint, the other factors are traits, the absence of which, that lead to apathy. If you combine apathy with a media that constantly spews lies, you have a deadly combination, indeed.

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled?

    This is indeed a lamentable situation, but I still think people should be held to account for their actions. Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons’ preferred candidate? Isn’t it because the North Carolinians were better informed? If that’s the case, shouldn’t we hold them up as an example other Americans should emulate? Or should we just throw in the towel and say that Joe 6 pack is absolved from all responsibility to be well informed? This is a recipe for disaster, IMHO. Notwithstanding the lies being spewed by the presstitutes, we need to hold people accountable for being well informed. The good news is more and more people are realizing they are being lied to and are rejecting the presstitute media in favour of internet sources. This is an encouraging trend that needs to continue. But we do ourselves no favors if we keep telling Joe 6-pack that he is completely blameless for continuing to dwell in a cave of ignorance. Rather than condoning this behaviour, we should be prodding him to “take an interest in politics, before politics takes an interest in him.”

    Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world?

    I think I’ve clearly laid out, in another thread, the reasons why I’m not convinced the 3 bldgs were brought down by controlled demolition. If you’d like to continue that debate, you’re welcome to do so by responding to my most recent comment there.

    I’ve rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who’ve honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious.

    I consider myself to be in good company since your own sibling isn’t convinced 9/11 was an inside job, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik


    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..
     
    Apart from time, which is a legitimate constraint, the other factors are traits,

     

    well, not to split hairs, but 'means' is also an important constraint. It means we possess the means of spending time researching and posting our findings along with analysis when we're so inspired. Most people don't possess the means, (financial wherewithal, for instance) to do so. Most people have to grind in the trenches, (as I spent most of my life doing) for survival.

    If you combine apathy with a media that constantly spews lies, you have a deadly combination, indeed.
     
    it's the lies (and soul crushing ubiquitous and all pervasive mendacity) that causes the apathy

    people start to wonder that 'everything is rotten and everyone always lies about everything', that makes people lose heart.

    Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain
     
    because they're lied to

    because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for 'Israel' and make lurid promises of everlasting 'rapture'. These are people for whom being considered a 'sheep', is a good and noble thing. They talk of their ministers as 'shepherds' and themselves as 'the flock'. They bray their hosannas as one.

    It's the ministers who I blame, not these incredibly simple (stupid) people. Most people are like sheep Geo. That's how the Gods created us.

    And as for John McBloodstain, I have no accounting for the people who would vote for that thing. Perhaps you're right, in some cases, even the people on the very bottom, insofar as they'd vote for John McCain, deserve to die.

    But we do ourselves no favors if we keep telling Joe 6-pack that he is completely blameless
     
    most of these people are blameless. And I'm not just talking about the denizens of the US. But all people all over the world who struggle for a living and have no time for politics, because their baby is crying or sick or because they've just spent 12 hrs in the grind trying to make enough to cover the rent and expenses. This is most people Geo. They get their information from the television and radio and the others in their socio-economic circles with whom they speak and commiserate with.

    I like to bring up Pat Tillman because he is a perfect example of a honorable man who behaved honorably and even nobly when we were attacked on 911.

    Is there anything about what he did that you could find fault with?

    For a lot of people there is. He's an American! So he's guilty! He's white and so he part of the patriarchy and he's straight so he oppresses the LGBT people!

    There's a lot of chaff in the blame game these days, so you have to sift out the garbage, and that's one reason why I like to bring up Tillman. Because this was a man, from everything we know about him, was an impeccable person, and whose motivations and actions were even heroic. No?

    But he suited up ultimately to slaughter innocent people. But the crux is that he didn't know they were innocent. He had been lied to. So you tell me, was he blameless? Or should he have known that 911 was an inside job, (before even I did). And that his government was sending him there to murder people who had done us no harm.

    Do you blame him for not knowing all of that?

    Do you blame him for sacrificing a charmed life of wealth and fame to exact justice on the murderous cowards who had just slaughtered 3000 fellow Americans?

    Or do you condemn him because he should have known it was the Mossad and CIA all along?

    IF, I thought that most Americans were going along with the wars while knowing that they were being waged against innocent people who had done us no harm, then that would be different. Then I'd condemn them in the most harsh way possible. IF, for instance you were to ask them, 'hey, American, we're thinking about blowing up Iraq and slaughtering a million of them so we can steal their oil, and you can pay a dollar less at the pump, what do you say?' And if under those circumstances, the American people were saying 'hell yea, fuck those towelheads, let's take our oil! Then that would be something.

    But nothing like that is even remotely the case. The American people had to be lied to and a false flag attack was necessary to marshal them to war. And then as they began to have their doubts, they collectively held their noses and voted for a racist commie dirt bag from the notoriously corrupt Chicago street politics as president, only because he seemed less of a war monger than the Republicans. The American people are against the wars, and that's a huge reason for Trump's success. I have a hard time condemning them when I know their hearts are good, and that they've been lied to and are lied to from virtually every single msm outlet every minute of every hour of every day. Lies upon lies upon lies, always demanding war. (just writing those last three words does make me a little angry at the eternal Jew, alas)


    I consider myself to be in good company since your own sibling isn’t convinced 9/11 was an inside job, either.
     
    not apples and oranges

    they're far too consumed by career and family to find the time you have spent seeking understanding. I suspect that if they had a tiny fraction of the information that's been hurled your way, and with your gifts of erudition, that they'd have been swayed long ago.
  162. @Avery
    In your original post you claimed this:

    {The diplomatic history leading up to the outbreak of war pretty much demolishes the ridiculous idea that Hitler was a bloodthirsty villain who wanted war and planned to conquer the world.}

    I wrote:

    {If Hitler didn’t want war, then why did the Wehrmacht under orders of Hitler invade USSR?
    Why did Nazi invaders kill and murder ~10,000,000 Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs?
    (not counting military losses, another ~15 million)
    Is Lebensraum a myth?}

    Again: Hitler is not the only villain in history and Germans are not the only people in the world who have taken land - or attempted to take land - that belongs to somebody else.
    I am quite familiar with the concept from my ancestry: nomad Turkic tribes took about 90% of historic Armenian lands, after ethnically cleansing the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks)and Armenian Highlands, topped of with Genocide. No need for me to list the long list of Turk villains. For the record, if there can be such a thing, Nazi German killers were demonstrably civilized compared to the nomad savages. Germans killed quickly and with the least pain possible. The nomads murdered people while they were alive, with aim to cause maximum pain and suffering. Again, no need to list the long roster of depraved savagery of the Turkic tribes. Turks are still there, and all the indigenous Christians are gone - save for a few 10s of 1,000s.

    In modern times, Turkey invaded Republic of Cyprus and gobbled 40% of it.
    Turks are still there 40 years after the grab.

    I responded to your post because you claimed Hitler did not want war.
    He wanted to take the lands of Slavs in the East.
    Since those lands were already populated by Slavs for millennia, the indigenous peoples had to be killed off to make room for the Germanic peoples to come in and settle there.
    Since Nazis considered Slavs subhuman, killing and murdering millions was no issue for them.
    How else do you take somebody else's land if not by war.

    Note that Nazis conquered West Europe rather quickly and thoroughly. .
    But e.g. French people were not exterminated to take their land. Right?

    “In modern times, Turkey invaded Republic of Cyprus and gobbled 40% of it.
    Turks are still there 40 years after the ”

    Kudos to Turkey for grabbing that part of Cyprus . In 1974 Cyprus decided to join Greece ignoring the opinions of the Muslim citizen of Cyprus .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    So? No excuse for Turkey to invade a sovereign nation, set up a puppet republic and ethnically cleanse Greeks there while sending colonists to replace them
    , @Avery
    { ignoring the opinions of the Muslim citizen of Cyprus }

    The so-called Muslim "citizens" are illegal squatters, descendants of nomad Turkic tribes from Uyguristan: that's East and Central Asia for you geographically challenged Turcophiles.
    That is Turks' homeland.

    Turks ethnically cleansed part of the indigenous population of Cyprus, the Greeks, and took their land centuries ago. The Muslim "citizens" are illegal occupants.

    If some vagrants broke into your house, killed off part of your family, and just took a couple of the rooms for themselves and stayed - you'd "kudos" them too, Yes?
  163. @Rurik

    What do you mean by “wherewithal”?
     
    everything

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..

    things most people working to survive simple don't have


    If that’s the case, why were there so many people on the streets and campuses protesting the Vietnam War? Did they have higher IQs back then?
     
    no, back then the universities and media were sympathetic to the cause of the reds in Viet Nam, and wanted the US out of there. So the media was the bullhorn against that war. How many newsreels do you see of Libya on the nightly news these days, eh?

    When's the last time you saw an American casket being unloaded from a plane on television?

    Virtually the entire media in the US is owned and/or controlled by Jews and Zionists. They didn't like the Viet Nam war, but they do like the wars for Israel very much indeed. That is why there was such a stink over the war in Viet Nam vs. the wars in the Middle East. They control the narrative with control of the media. If the NYT and uber-Zionist Rupert Murdoch were to decide they didn't like the wars anymore, then they'd be over in no time.


    “Not sure I would agree to completely absolve from blame the average citizen living in so-called democracies“.
     
    if you're an American who's been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled? When the school books print lies and all of your leaders and representatives all lie to you. Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world? Most people's heads would explode if they knew just how rotten and corrupt their governments really are.

    The average person on the street has been systematically and deliberately dumbed down. They don't think and they're encouraged not to. The universities are indoctrination centers. The media is the voice of Newspeak. We live in Orwellian times, and even before it got to this, still most Americans were lied into WWI with lies about the Lusitania and Belgian babies in German bayonets. It's all lies all the time. Lies about WWI, lies about WWII, lies about Viet Nam too. They lied about WMD, they lied about Iraqi incubators, they lied about Osama, they lied about MH17 and Syrian gas attacks and Crimea, and they lie and they lie and they lie. They lied about 911 and you believe their lies, yet you condemn the average schmo as complicit for the wars when you yourself refuse to look behind the curtain.


    Look, my point is a simple one: citizens of a democracy must recognize that with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being well-informed.
     
    and yet when it comes to something as significant as 911, you are the poster child for head in the sand, Geo. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.

    I've rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who've honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious. So glass houses and all that..

    if you’re an American who’s been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?

    Reading The Panther, by Nelson de Mille.
    John Corey is Everyman, and demands that Everyman take responsibility for his judgments and his actions.
    regarding lies, Corey says:

    “Paranoid? Maybe. But we’d already been lied to. And lies are like cockroaches — if you see one, there are more.”

    that’s neither rocket science nor Thomistic philosophy. It’s common sense.

    re:

    if you believe the lies . . .are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us

    Yes, every person who voluntarily seeks and accepts employment in a military force whose known agenda is to kill people in another country, or to facilitate their colleagues in doing so, is guilty; is morally responsible; is culpable.
    No human person checks his moral agency at the door when he voluntarily applies for employment.

    To jump on Alexander’s favorite hobby horse, didn’t Nuremberg hand down the concept that “just following orders” is not a defense against doing wicked deeds?

    No one gets tossed in jail for not seeking employment with US military.

    If Americans did not voluntarily seek employment as killers in US military, then the lying leader-elites would have no one to carry out their evil deeds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Yes, every person who voluntarily seeks and accepts employment in a military force whose known agenda is to kill people in another country, or to facilitate their colleagues in doing so, is guilty
     
    then your dad was guilty

    or are you saying that if you were drafted, then your killing of others was/is morally innocent?

    is that how it works?

    sure, I just dropped a bomb on the denizens of Dresden, but I was drafted after all!

    No human person checks his moral agency at the door when he voluntarily applies for employment.
     
    and the men who stepped up after Pearl Harbor (having been lied to), and said sign me up! Those cowardly bastards will pay for this!'

    are they too guilty?

    Most, I'd say like 95%+ of the Americans that sign up for the military (aside from the heroes like Pat Tillman) do so out of economic necessity. They're poor kids from the heartland and Puerto Ricans and young urban minorities looking for a way out of poverty. They don't want to kill anyone, they're just looking for a way to pay for collage or get out of dodge. And as for the small percentage of psychopaths who join up to kill people, there's psychopaths in every nation.

    It isn't the American people that are the problem. They're people just like all people all over the world, no better, no worse.

    The problem with America is the government. And media, and the international banking cartels that own both the government and the media fee simple. They're the ones who're guilty. They're the ones who deserve to pay for all these wars and crimes and horrors. I draw a very distinct line between poor people who've been lied to and go to these contrived wars for the fun and profit of wealthy psychopaths and never come back in one piece, because even if they have their limbs and eyes, they're missing something from their souls, and that's why they're killing themselves in epidemic numbers today. Because they're just simple, good people that have been lied to by evil scumbags and sent to kill other simple, good people.

    If you blame the ones that were lied to for engaging in combat with the Taliban, then you have to also blame all soldiers for engaging in war. And I'm not willing to do that. There are times when fighting a Satanic demon is the most honorable and noble thing that a man (or woman) can do. IMHO
  164. “I would compare EU as a brothel masquerading as a continental alliance, a brothel where Americans get serviced for free.”

    Political prostitutes they may be, but don’t kid yourself, they’re not cheap. The cost of our empire is severely straining the economic prospects of a lot of people at home, even though there is a lot of profit for elites who benefit by and buy policy. The billionaire who can’t be bought having gained the popularity he has, despite personal flaws, is due to a severe discontent over economic displacement.

    Read More
  165. @Anonymous
    The vast territories were not grabbed by Poland but given to Poland by Stalin.

    Hardly. Stalin took east of the Curzon line, the territory he got in the non-aggression pact with Germany. Poland was pushed west, as was Belarus. Much of modern Poland was Germany, and much of old Poland is in Belarus and Ukraine.

    Read More
  166. @Ivan K.

    I did it?! ... I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.
     
    1. I lack time for blaming. If we're truly in a crisis then people's lives, health (and honours) are at stake. Therefore I lack time for high moral grounds.

    2. The powerless are powerful. That's what the alternative media say. That's what the quoted Quigley's analysis says. You can't have it both ways, you can't 'have your cake and eat it.'

    Most Americans consider Edward Snowden a hero, even after they’ve been lied to about him.
     
    Edward Snowden was mass-promoted on cover pages of establishment magazines and so on. Russel Tice has been saying for years much more than Snowden has spilled and got absolutely no coverage. Sibel Edmonds, and her website partners, and her audience, consider Snowden a complete phony.

    I suspect that what stands for "the Jewish elite" is also a complex thing. Putin, in the speech you posted, says the "Soviet government Jews" were repressing other Jews. Well, what does that mean about their "Jewish" character? The Soviet government Jews had ideological motives different from those of today's Israel. The former were revolutionary, Bolshevik, the latter are rabbinic.

    I'm glad we exchanged views and thoughts.

    The points I quoted are valid, I think. I can add other examples of the same pattern:
    - Hitler's crimes were mostly things Hitler was kept in the dark by Himmler and Heydrich, and they were largely initiated by hundreds of low-level subordinates : those are David Irving's latest findings in his ongoing writing of Himmler's biography.
    - Stalin's great crimes were probably mostly 1) made-up 2) Yezhov's, whose purpose was provoking revolt and creating grounds for a pro-Nazi coup. (Grover Furr, building upon Thurston et al.). Again, it shows that the notion of evil elites misses important points.

    … I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.

    1. I lack time for blaming. If we’re truly in a crisis then people’s lives, health (and honours) are at stake. Therefore I lack time for high moral grounds.

    assigning blame and accountability are important for restoring sanity and the rule of law

    the reason Obama should go to the Hague and ultimately rot in some kind of prison is because that’s how you send a message. When Tony Blair is arrested by the British government and tried and convicted for treason, it’ll send shock waves through the entire demonic establishment all the way right up to Rothschild’s black and feculent heart.

    Look at Iceland, they didn’t just wrest control of their banks and government from the scoundrels and crooks that were running it, they put their stinking arses in jail!
    That’s what we need to do. For all the blood-stained war criminals and financial uber-criminal scum at Goldman Sachs and the Fed and the Treasury.

    It isn’t for smug moralizing that we should assign blame and accountability, it’s to show that there is a karmic price for evil, and that there is hope for justice in this world. Think how much cynicism that would remove from the hearts of good people.

    The Soviet government Jews had ideological motives different from those of today’s Israel. The former were revolutionary, Bolshevik, the latter are rabbinic.

    yes but the salient thing as far as the gentiles go is that they were both full to the brim with murderous hatred in their hearts for all the non-Jews.

    That is the part ab0ut the Jewish character that is troubling. Who cares if they manage to make tones of money or worship a mean and cruel God. The problem is their criminality and fraud and swindles like the Fed, and what they do with the power that kind of lucre gives them. It’s always war and war and more wars. With torture and strife and hatred tossed in for good measure.

    I’m glad we exchanged views and thoughts.

    same here

    - Stalin’s great crimes were probably mostly 1) made-up 2) Yezhov’s, whose purpose was provoking revolt and creating grounds for a pro-Nazi coup. (Grover Furr, building upon Thurston et al.). Again, it shows that the notion of evil elites misses important points.

    I don’t agree with that. Stalin was a monster. It was Stalin’s genocidal communism (Jewish Bolshevism) that was responsible for the unimaginable horrors of the twentieth century, IMHO. Hitler and the Nazis were merely a survival mechanism of the German people, (representing the entire Western world) against that Satanic and anti-human creed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @ It was Stalin’s genocidal communism (Jewish Bolshevism) that was responsible for the unimaginable horrors of the twentieth century

    CHEKA, GPU, NKVD were not Stalin's creation, but of the Leninist-Trotskyist combo, the real 'Jewish Bolshevism' - the Comintern - from which Stalin actually slowly drifted away. How came that Stalin ended up in the Cominternist mythology, as a 'rabid antisemite', an exponent of 'Great Russian nationalism', a 'traitor of the Revolution'? Precisely because he cleaned the GPU, the Party, the Army Augean stables of the Jewish Bolshevik dung. A Herculean task indeed, a dirty and smelly job, but that has to be done. There is no doubt that Grover Furr is right. A historian like J.W. Wheeler-Bennett, observing the events in 1938, gave the best explanation of the purges:
    "Though it is almost impossible to extract any clear and undisputed facts from the mystery which surrounds the Moscow treason trials of 1936 and 1937, it does seem possible to detect in the mental processes and in the activities of the accused, particularly Radek, Sokolnikov and Piatakov, a tendency to return to the tactics of what may be called "primitive Leninism" and to the psychology of the Brest-Litovsk period. The Old Bolsheviks (Jews) believing that the principles of Lenin and the ideals of the November Revolution had been betrayed by Stalin, and convinced that the U.S.S.R. could not resist an attack by both Germany and Japan, appear to have reverted to the pre-revolutionary strategy of sabotage and subversion in order to overthrow the Stalinist regime, and to the Leninist policy of defeatism and national immolation in order to placate for the moment the aggressive policies of the two Imperialist-Fascist Powers. The crimes of which they were accused, and to which they pleaded guilty, were none other than those very principles of destruction and disintegration on which Lenin based his fight against the Liberal Government of Prince Lvov and the Socialist regime of Kerensky, while the policy of defeatism was exactly that followed by him in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
    This latter doctrine had been established by Lenin again and again. " It is impossible to attain this end [the Revolution] without wishing for the defeat of one's own government and without working for such a defeat ", he wrote in Against the Current ; and, again, he warned American
    workers that " he is no Socialist who will not sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the Social Revolution ". Nor was he content merely to preach the doctrine. Against the bitter opposition of the Left Communists, particularly Bukharin and Radek, within his own party, he pursued just this same policy in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
    What then would be more natural than for the Old Bolsheviks to fall back on these original principles ? Both Radek and Bukharin had publicly declared that in following the doctrine of defeatism Lenin had been right and they wrong. Is it not possible that the psychology of Brest-
    Litovsk reasserted itself and that, in negotiating with Germany and Japan for the cession of the Ukraine and the Maritime Province, they were reverting to the principle of the " breathing-space " in order to safeguard themselves from external aggression, while setting about the destruction of the Stalin regime which they regarded as having betrayed the Revolution? Moreover, had not Lenin himself accepted the facilities offered by Imperialist Germany on his return to Russia ? Was he not always prepared to spoil the Egyptians if by so doing he could strengthen or advance the Revolution?"

    Is it not what we see repeating today? Only that the Comintern rebaptized itself "The International Community?
  167. @geokat62

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..
     
    Apart from time, which is a legitimate constraint, the other factors are traits, the absence of which, that lead to apathy. If you combine apathy with a media that constantly spews lies, you have a deadly combination, indeed.

    what good does it do to live in a democracy when the entire media and government is owned and controlled?
     
    This is indeed a lamentable situation, but I still think people should be held to account for their actions. Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons' preferred candidate? Isn't it because the North Carolinians were better informed? If that's the case, shouldn't we hold them up as an example other Americans should emulate? Or should we just throw in the towel and say that Joe 6 pack is absolved from all responsibility to be well informed? This is a recipe for disaster, IMHO. Notwithstanding the lies being spewed by the presstitutes, we need to hold people accountable for being well informed. The good news is more and more people are realizing they are being lied to and are rejecting the presstitute media in favour of internet sources. This is an encouraging trend that needs to continue. But we do ourselves no favors if we keep telling Joe 6-pack that he is completely blameless for continuing to dwell in a cave of ignorance. Rather than condoning this behaviour, we should be prodding him to "take an interest in politics, before politics takes an interest in him."

    Even you Geo, who can not be convinced of the treachery that occurred on 911, expect the average citizen to magically know how the twists and turns of Deep State Machiavellian treachery works in the world?
     
    I think I've clearly laid out, in another thread, the reasons why I'm not convinced the 3 bldgs were brought down by controlled demolition. If you'd like to continue that debate, you're welcome to do so by responding to my most recent comment there.

    I’ve rarely in my life met someone who seems so intractably incapable of accepting what by now to the rest of us (who’ve honestly looked at it carefully) is obvious.
     
    I consider myself to be in good company since your own sibling isn't convinced 9/11 was an inside job, either.

    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..

    Apart from time, which is a legitimate constraint, the other factors are traits,

    well, not to split hairs, but ‘means’ is also an important constraint. It means we possess the means of spending time researching and posting our findings along with analysis when we’re so inspired. Most people don’t possess the means, (financial wherewithal, for instance) to do so. Most people have to grind in the trenches, (as I spent most of my life doing) for survival.

    If you combine apathy with a media that constantly spews lies, you have a deadly combination, indeed.

    it’s the lies (and soul crushing ubiquitous and all pervasive mendacity) that causes the apathy

    people start to wonder that ‘everything is rotten and everyone always lies about everything’, that makes people lose heart.

    Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain

    because they’re lied to

    because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for ‘Israel’ and make lurid promises of everlasting ‘rapture’. These are people for whom being considered a ‘sheep’, is a good and noble thing. They talk of their ministers as ‘shepherds’ and themselves as ‘the flock’. They bray their hosannas as one.

    It’s the ministers who I blame, not these incredibly simple (stupid) people. Most people are like sheep Geo. That’s how the Gods created us.

    And as for John McBloodstain, I have no accounting for the people who would vote for that thing. Perhaps you’re right, in some cases, even the people on the very bottom, insofar as they’d vote for John McCain, deserve to die.

    But we do ourselves no favors if we keep telling Joe 6-pack that he is completely blameless

    most of these people are blameless. And I’m not just talking about the denizens of the US. But all people all over the world who struggle for a living and have no time for politics, because their baby is crying or sick or because they’ve just spent 12 hrs in the grind trying to make enough to cover the rent and expenses. This is most people Geo. They get their information from the television and radio and the others in their socio-economic circles with whom they speak and commiserate with.

    I like to bring up Pat Tillman because he is a perfect example of a honorable man who behaved honorably and even nobly when we were attacked on 911.

    Is there anything about what he did that you could find fault with?

    For a lot of people there is. He’s an American! So he’s guilty! He’s white and so he part of the patriarchy and he’s straight so he oppresses the LGBT people!

    There’s a lot of chaff in the blame game these days, so you have to sift out the garbage, and that’s one reason why I like to bring up Tillman. Because this was a man, from everything we know about him, was an impeccable person, and whose motivations and actions were even heroic. No?

    But he suited up ultimately to slaughter innocent people. But the crux is that he didn’t know they were innocent. He had been lied to. So you tell me, was he blameless? Or should he have known that 911 was an inside job, (before even I did). And that his government was sending him there to murder people who had done us no harm.

    Do you blame him for not knowing all of that?

    Do you blame him for sacrificing a charmed life of wealth and fame to exact justice on the murderous cowards who had just slaughtered 3000 fellow Americans?

    Or do you condemn him because he should have known it was the Mossad and CIA all along?

    IF, I thought that most Americans were going along with the wars while knowing that they were being waged against innocent people who had done us no harm, then that would be different. Then I’d condemn them in the most harsh way possible. IF, for instance you were to ask them, ‘hey, American, we’re thinking about blowing up Iraq and slaughtering a million of them so we can steal their oil, and you can pay a dollar less at the pump, what do you say?’ And if under those circumstances, the American people were saying ‘hell yea, fuck those towelheads, let’s take our oil! Then that would be something.

    But nothing like that is even remotely the case. The American people had to be lied to and a false flag attack was necessary to marshal them to war. And then as they began to have their doubts, they collectively held their noses and voted for a racist commie dirt bag from the notoriously corrupt Chicago street politics as president, only because he seemed less of a war monger than the Republicans. The American people are against the wars, and that’s a huge reason for Trump’s success. I have a hard time condemning them when I know their hearts are good, and that they’ve been lied to and are lied to from virtually every single msm outlet every minute of every hour of every day. Lies upon lies upon lies, always demanding war. (just writing those last three words does make me a little angry at the eternal Jew, alas)

    I consider myself to be in good company since your own sibling isn’t convinced 9/11 was an inside job, either.

    not apples and oranges

    they’re far too consumed by career and family to find the time you have spent seeking understanding. I suspect that if they had a tiny fraction of the information that’s been hurled your way, and with your gifts of erudition, that they’d have been swayed long ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    geokat62 - Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons’ preferred candidate?

    Rurik - because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for ‘Israel’ and make lurid promises of everlasting ‘rapture’.
     
    For your argument to hold true, there should be more evangelicals in SC than there are in NC. But that's not the case, the number of evangelicals in both states is identical, at 35%. And if we look at AZ, the number of evangelicals is even smaller, at 25%. So the stats don't work in your favour.

    So, once again, my point is a simple one: with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being a well-informed citizen. Not sure why you're opposed to this fundamental principle of democratic government:

    Citizenship Responsibilities

    Citizenship is the state of being vested with the rights, privileges and duties of a citizen, but it can also be defined as the character of an individual viewed as a member of society. While U.S. citizenship provides many rights, it also involves many responsibilities.

    The U.S. government, as established in the Constitution, protects the rights of each individual regardless of background, culture or religion. Although all U.S. citizens enjoy the freedoms, protections and legal rights that the Constitution promises, citizens also have the responsibility, or “civic duty,” to meet certain societal standards and guidelines.

    Civic duties ensure that democratic values written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are upheld. Responsibilities include both those that are voluntary as well as those required by law.

    Mandatory Duties of U.S. Citizens

    Certain civic responsibilities considered central to the democratic philosophy of the country are required by law. U.S. citizens must comply with certain mandatory obligations, including:

    Obeying the law. Every U.S. citizen must obey federal, state and local laws, and pay the penalties that can be incurred when a law is broken.

    Paying taxes. All citizens must pay taxes in one form or another, including federal, state, local, Social Security, property and sales taxes. Each tax funds services and programs - i.e., schools, roads, police and fire protection, Medicare and national defense - that would be impossible to maintain without the support of tax payments.

    Serving on a jury when summoned. Whether a citizen or not, all persons have a right to a trial by jury made up of a panel of their peers. Jurors are drawn by lot from the general population of citizens in a jurisdiction, and once randomly summoned to jury duty are required to be available to serve. A citizen also may be summoned or subpoenaed to serve as a witness during a trial and, if called, has the responsibility to appear and testify under oath regarding information pertinent to a given event.

    Registering with the Selective Service. The Selective Service is a federal agency within the executive branch of government that exists to readily resume a draft, if necessary, to provide the number of men needed by the armed forces in the event of war or other national emergency. Federal law requires virtually all male U.S. citizens and male noncitizens who are ages 18 through 25 to register with the Selective Service. Men who do not register are subject to prosecution and, if convicted, may be fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison. Registration for Selective Service also is required to be eligible for various federal programs and benefits, including student loans, job training, federal employment and naturalization.

    Voluntary Responsibilities of U.S. Citizens

    Other civic responsibilities, while not mandatory, are central to democracy. U.S. citizens are encouraged to exercise certain responsibilities and privileges, including:

    Voting. While voting is a right and privilege of citizenship, it is also a duty or responsibility. U.S. citizens have a responsibility to participate in their government by registering to vote and voting in elections. By voting, citizens have a voice in their government and help ensure that the democratic representative system of government is maintained.

    Staying informed. Citizens have the responsibility to stay informed of the issues affecting their communities, as well as national and international issues, and to be active in the civic processes. This includes being well informed about the issues and candidates before voting in an election, getting involved in a political campaign or running for public office, or using their right to address the government through activism.

    Community involvement. Citizens also should contribute to the well-being of the community by recognizing where help or change is needed and by getting involved through offering their knowledge and talents to local organizations, committees and community projects.

    Practicing tolerance. With democracy comes diversity, and U.S. citizens have the responsibility to support and protect the rights of others and to respect the differences in opinions, religions, cultures and ethnic groups.

    Passing it on. It is the responsibility of citizens to pass along the importance of good citizenship to future generations. By teaching their children how to stay informed, to get involved, to obey the law, and the necessity of voting, parents and mentors demonstrate how to improve society.

    http://www.civics.ks.gov/kansas/citizenship/responsibilities-of-citizens.html

     

    I'd say that many of us, including myself, have fallen short of fulfilling many of these responsibilities. While all are important, I think the one that is of critical importance is "Passing it on." We all need to ensure the next generation is aware of the responsibilities that come along with the privilege of living in a democracy.. i.e., even Joe 6-pack must pass it on.

    not apples and oranges
     
    I think your sister is so smart, she'd arrive at the same conclusion. She'd simply ask you the same question I put to JR: why would the planners go to all the trouble of using a top-down demolition approach to create the illusion that airliners brought down the Twin Towers, just to use the traditional bottom-up approach for bldg 7 which resembles a classic controlled demolition job, that would give it all away? This simply makes no sense.
  168. @SolontoCroesus

    if you’re an American who’s been lied to about 911, and believe the lies, then are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us? Or are the liars to blame?
     
    Reading The Panther, by Nelson de Mille.
    John Corey is Everyman, and demands that Everyman take responsibility for his judgments and his actions.
    regarding lies, Corey says:

    "Paranoid? Maybe. But we'd already been lied to. And lies are like cockroaches -- if you see one, there are more."

    that's neither rocket science nor Thomistic philosophy. It's common sense.

    re:


    if you believe the lies . . .are you to blame when you suit up to go kill the bastards that attacked us
     
    Yes, every person who voluntarily seeks and accepts employment in a military force whose known agenda is to kill people in another country, or to facilitate their colleagues in doing so, is guilty; is morally responsible; is culpable.
    No human person checks his moral agency at the door when he voluntarily applies for employment.

    To jump on Alexander's favorite hobby horse, didn't Nuremberg hand down the concept that "just following orders" is not a defense against doing wicked deeds?

    No one gets tossed in jail for not seeking employment with US military.

    If Americans did not voluntarily seek employment as killers in US military, then the lying leader-elites would have no one to carry out their evil deeds.

    Yes, every person who voluntarily seeks and accepts employment in a military force whose known agenda is to kill people in another country, or to facilitate their colleagues in doing so, is guilty

    then your dad was guilty

    or are you saying that if you were drafted, then your killing of others was/is morally innocent?

    is that how it works?

    sure, I just dropped a bomb on the denizens of Dresden, but I was drafted after all!

    No human person checks his moral agency at the door when he voluntarily applies for employment.

    and the men who stepped up after Pearl Harbor (having been lied to), and said sign me up! Those cowardly bastards will pay for this!’

    are they too guilty?

    Most, I’d say like 95%+ of the Americans that sign up for the military (aside from the heroes like Pat Tillman) do so out of economic necessity. They’re poor kids from the heartland and Puerto Ricans and young urban minorities looking for a way out of poverty. They don’t want to kill anyone, they’re just looking for a way to pay for collage or get out of dodge. And as for the small percentage of psychopaths who join up to kill people, there’s psychopaths in every nation.

    It isn’t the American people that are the problem. They’re people just like all people all over the world, no better, no worse.

    The problem with America is the government. And media, and the international banking cartels that own both the government and the media fee simple. They’re the ones who’re guilty. They’re the ones who deserve to pay for all these wars and crimes and horrors. I draw a very distinct line between poor people who’ve been lied to and go to these contrived wars for the fun and profit of wealthy psychopaths and never come back in one piece, because even if they have their limbs and eyes, they’re missing something from their souls, and that’s why they’re killing themselves in epidemic numbers today. Because they’re just simple, good people that have been lied to by evil scumbags and sent to kill other simple, good people.

    If you blame the ones that were lied to for engaging in combat with the Taliban, then you have to also blame all soldiers for engaging in war. And I’m not willing to do that. There are times when fighting a Satanic demon is the most honorable and noble thing that a man (or woman) can do. IMHO

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Here's another one

    http://images.lawyerherald.com/data/images/full/1553/jessica-lynch.jpg?w=600

    a simple girl from poor W. Virginia who didn't join the army to kill anyone, but for economic realties. And I like to mention her too because like Pat Tillman, everything they said about her was a lie. (Because that's what they do! ; )

    and then when the whole machine churned up to sell the bullshit story about her as this warrior killer and hero, she told them all 'no thank you, I don't want to be the next Audie Murphy movie star, and I don't want a life of fortune and fame, because everything you people are saying is a lie'.

    That is the kind of person who is in the American military. Simple, honest and decent people who've been forced by the Wall Street looters to find a way to survive.

    I find no fault with her. I even admire her for her honesty in the face of the Fiend.
  169. @Rurik

    Yes, every person who voluntarily seeks and accepts employment in a military force whose known agenda is to kill people in another country, or to facilitate their colleagues in doing so, is guilty
     
    then your dad was guilty

    or are you saying that if you were drafted, then your killing of others was/is morally innocent?

    is that how it works?

    sure, I just dropped a bomb on the denizens of Dresden, but I was drafted after all!

    No human person checks his moral agency at the door when he voluntarily applies for employment.
     
    and the men who stepped up after Pearl Harbor (having been lied to), and said sign me up! Those cowardly bastards will pay for this!'

    are they too guilty?

    Most, I'd say like 95%+ of the Americans that sign up for the military (aside from the heroes like Pat Tillman) do so out of economic necessity. They're poor kids from the heartland and Puerto Ricans and young urban minorities looking for a way out of poverty. They don't want to kill anyone, they're just looking for a way to pay for collage or get out of dodge. And as for the small percentage of psychopaths who join up to kill people, there's psychopaths in every nation.

    It isn't the American people that are the problem. They're people just like all people all over the world, no better, no worse.

    The problem with America is the government. And media, and the international banking cartels that own both the government and the media fee simple. They're the ones who're guilty. They're the ones who deserve to pay for all these wars and crimes and horrors. I draw a very distinct line between poor people who've been lied to and go to these contrived wars for the fun and profit of wealthy psychopaths and never come back in one piece, because even if they have their limbs and eyes, they're missing something from their souls, and that's why they're killing themselves in epidemic numbers today. Because they're just simple, good people that have been lied to by evil scumbags and sent to kill other simple, good people.

    If you blame the ones that were lied to for engaging in combat with the Taliban, then you have to also blame all soldiers for engaging in war. And I'm not willing to do that. There are times when fighting a Satanic demon is the most honorable and noble thing that a man (or woman) can do. IMHO

    Here’s another one

    http://images.lawyerherald.com/data/images/full/1553/jessica-lynch.jpg?w=600

    a simple girl from poor W. Virginia who didn’t join the army to kill anyone, but for economic realties. And I like to mention her too because like Pat Tillman, everything they said about her was a lie. (Because that’s what they do! ; )

    and then when the whole machine churned up to sell the bullshit story about her as this warrior killer and hero, she told them all ‘no thank you, I don’t want to be the next Audie Murphy movie star, and I don’t want a life of fortune and fame, because everything you people are saying is a lie’.

    That is the kind of person who is in the American military. Simple, honest and decent people who’ve been forced by the Wall Street looters to find a way to survive.

    I find no fault with her. I even admire her for her honesty in the face of the Fiend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Space shuttle Columbia with Israeli astronaut breaks up over Palestine, TX just before 2003 war and Jessica Lynch from Palestine, WV is captured and then rescued during the war few months later. Despite of MSM a true cause cause of that war was revealed twice in MSM by a mysterious process of Jungian synchronicity.
  170. saker goes:
    “The Polish view of history is nothing short of bizarre.”

    The saker, being the biased propagandist he has shown himself to be, time and again, is is no position to lecture the Poles or anybody, for that matter, on “bizarre historical views”.
    His own historical views are oftentimes RIDICULOUS, a mix of lies, distortions, false analogies, cheap stalinist propanganda, etc.
    Look into the mirror first, saker.

    He follows with his usual idiotic false analogies:

    “For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (for some reason not known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact”)….”

    Really?? This guy is really trying to compare the 2 pacts?!? The intellectual dishonesty of this saker guy is just mind–boggling.

    There is much to be criticized about certain Polish actions, then and now, but cheap polemicists/propagandists like the saker ain’t the answer.
    Very disappointing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    There is much to be criticized about certain Polish actions, then and now, but cheap polemicists/propagandists like the saker ain’t the answer.
     
    Sir, the problems of Poland are not in "certain actions then and now", the problem of Poland is fundamental and is what Correlli Barnett correctly identified as folie de grandeur, which is a defining characteristic of Poland's body politic. To the point of NATO scratching its head.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/militaermanoever-in-polen-mit-nato-staaten-aerger-um-anakonda-a-1096262.html

    Very few things are more dangerous then complete historical, military and political delusion. Or, as military professionals put it, the loss of situational awareness. As per propagandist, I think you fit the bill perfectly.
  171. @Rurik
    Here's another one

    http://images.lawyerherald.com/data/images/full/1553/jessica-lynch.jpg?w=600

    a simple girl from poor W. Virginia who didn't join the army to kill anyone, but for economic realties. And I like to mention her too because like Pat Tillman, everything they said about her was a lie. (Because that's what they do! ; )

    and then when the whole machine churned up to sell the bullshit story about her as this warrior killer and hero, she told them all 'no thank you, I don't want to be the next Audie Murphy movie star, and I don't want a life of fortune and fame, because everything you people are saying is a lie'.

    That is the kind of person who is in the American military. Simple, honest and decent people who've been forced by the Wall Street looters to find a way to survive.

    I find no fault with her. I even admire her for her honesty in the face of the Fiend.

    Space shuttle Columbia with Israeli astronaut breaks up over Palestine, TX just before 2003 war and Jessica Lynch from Palestine, WV is captured and then rescued during the war few months later. Despite of MSM a true cause cause of that war was revealed twice in MSM by a mysterious process of Jungian synchronicity.

    Read More
  172. @L.K
    saker goes:
    "The Polish view of history is nothing short of bizarre."

    The saker, being the biased propagandist he has shown himself to be, time and again, is is no position to lecture the Poles or anybody, for that matter, on "bizarre historical views".
    His own historical views are oftentimes RIDICULOUS, a mix of lies, distortions, false analogies, cheap stalinist propanganda, etc.
    Look into the mirror first, saker.

    He follows with his usual idiotic false analogies:

    "For example, Polish politicians constantly blame the Soviet Union for the 1939 Soviet-German non-aggression Treaty (aka “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”) of 1939. They conveniently “forget” that a full five years before 1939 Poland was the first to sign the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression treaty (for some reason not known as the “Piłsudski-Hitler Pact”)...."

    Really?? This guy is really trying to compare the 2 pacts?!? The intellectual dishonesty of this saker guy is just mind–boggling.

    There is much to be criticized about certain Polish actions, then and now, but cheap polemicists/propagandists like the saker ain't the answer.
    Very disappointing.

    There is much to be criticized about certain Polish actions, then and now, but cheap polemicists/propagandists like the saker ain’t the answer.

    Sir, the problems of Poland are not in “certain actions then and now”, the problem of Poland is fundamental and is what Correlli Barnett correctly identified as folie de grandeur, which is a defining characteristic of Poland’s body politic. To the point of NATO scratching its head.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/militaermanoever-in-polen-mit-nato-staaten-aerger-um-anakonda-a-1096262.html

    Very few things are more dangerous then complete historical, military and political delusion. Or, as military professionals put it, the loss of situational awareness. As per propagandist, I think you fit the bill perfectly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    As I have mentioned before, one factor influencing the foolish behaviour of Polish decision makers in the crisis of 1939 was their delusion that, if war between the western powers and Germany became inevitable, Hitler would be ousted by a military coup. Similar delusions were not confined to Poland. Within a few weeks of the outbreak of war, Britain suffered major embarrassment after falling for a hoax based on the same premise.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venlo_Incident
    , @L.K
    Ha, it took a while!

    SmoothieX12,
    Your propensity to project your worst tendencies onto others is amazing!

    Comrade Smoothie, during our little exchange months ago, it became quite clear that you, sir, are a cheap Soviet propagandist and a LIAR.
    Yes, I like to be exact, you r a liar and I caught you lying several times.

    Anyone interested can see for themselves @ http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/

    Next to you, even the saker sounds good.

    To be clear, the reason you dislike what I have to say is simply that you are a peddler of "the great patriotic war" BS, and I'm one of those who has been presenting facts here which debunk it, and u just hate that.

    ps: for those who have not read my posts, and may get the impression I'm some russophobic guy, I most certainly am NOT.
    For example, my positions re the Russian Fed. foreign policy are generally very favorable.
    However, that does not mean one should eat Russian propaganda by the spoonful and ask for seconds.
  173. @SmoothieX12

    There is much to be criticized about certain Polish actions, then and now, but cheap polemicists/propagandists like the saker ain’t the answer.
     
    Sir, the problems of Poland are not in "certain actions then and now", the problem of Poland is fundamental and is what Correlli Barnett correctly identified as folie de grandeur, which is a defining characteristic of Poland's body politic. To the point of NATO scratching its head.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/militaermanoever-in-polen-mit-nato-staaten-aerger-um-anakonda-a-1096262.html

    Very few things are more dangerous then complete historical, military and political delusion. Or, as military professionals put it, the loss of situational awareness. As per propagandist, I think you fit the bill perfectly.

    As I have mentioned before, one factor influencing the foolish behaviour of Polish decision makers in the crisis of 1939 was their delusion that, if war between the western powers and Germany became inevitable, Hitler would be ousted by a military coup. Similar delusions were not confined to Poland. Within a few weeks of the outbreak of war, Britain suffered major embarrassment after falling for a hoax based on the same premise.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @SmoothieX12

    As I have mentioned before, one factor influencing the foolish behaviour of Polish decision makers in the crisis of 1939 was their delusion that, if war between the western powers and Germany became inevitable, Hitler would be ousted by a military coup.
     
    How to put it mildly, geopolitical analysis at that time was not a strong point in the age of paper mail and telegraph (well, telephone too;-). But multiply it by this "megalomaniac coefficient" and voila'. I heard of Venlo incident but never got to know it closely.
  174. @Rurik


    time, inclination, means, bent, proclivity ..
     
    Apart from time, which is a legitimate constraint, the other factors are traits,

     

    well, not to split hairs, but 'means' is also an important constraint. It means we possess the means of spending time researching and posting our findings along with analysis when we're so inspired. Most people don't possess the means, (financial wherewithal, for instance) to do so. Most people have to grind in the trenches, (as I spent most of my life doing) for survival.

    If you combine apathy with a media that constantly spews lies, you have a deadly combination, indeed.
     
    it's the lies (and soul crushing ubiquitous and all pervasive mendacity) that causes the apathy

    people start to wonder that 'everything is rotten and everyone always lies about everything', that makes people lose heart.

    Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain
     
    because they're lied to

    because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for 'Israel' and make lurid promises of everlasting 'rapture'. These are people for whom being considered a 'sheep', is a good and noble thing. They talk of their ministers as 'shepherds' and themselves as 'the flock'. They bray their hosannas as one.

    It's the ministers who I blame, not these incredibly simple (stupid) people. Most people are like sheep Geo. That's how the Gods created us.

    And as for John McBloodstain, I have no accounting for the people who would vote for that thing. Perhaps you're right, in some cases, even the people on the very bottom, insofar as they'd vote for John McCain, deserve to die.

    But we do ourselves no favors if we keep telling Joe 6-pack that he is completely blameless
     
    most of these people are blameless. And I'm not just talking about the denizens of the US. But all people all over the world who struggle for a living and have no time for politics, because their baby is crying or sick or because they've just spent 12 hrs in the grind trying to make enough to cover the rent and expenses. This is most people Geo. They get their information from the television and radio and the others in their socio-economic circles with whom they speak and commiserate with.

    I like to bring up Pat Tillman because he is a perfect example of a honorable man who behaved honorably and even nobly when we were attacked on 911.

    Is there anything about what he did that you could find fault with?

    For a lot of people there is. He's an American! So he's guilty! He's white and so he part of the patriarchy and he's straight so he oppresses the LGBT people!

    There's a lot of chaff in the blame game these days, so you have to sift out the garbage, and that's one reason why I like to bring up Tillman. Because this was a man, from everything we know about him, was an impeccable person, and whose motivations and actions were even heroic. No?

    But he suited up ultimately to slaughter innocent people. But the crux is that he didn't know they were innocent. He had been lied to. So you tell me, was he blameless? Or should he have known that 911 was an inside job, (before even I did). And that his government was sending him there to murder people who had done us no harm.

    Do you blame him for not knowing all of that?

    Do you blame him for sacrificing a charmed life of wealth and fame to exact justice on the murderous cowards who had just slaughtered 3000 fellow Americans?

    Or do you condemn him because he should have known it was the Mossad and CIA all along?

    IF, I thought that most Americans were going along with the wars while knowing that they were being waged against innocent people who had done us no harm, then that would be different. Then I'd condemn them in the most harsh way possible. IF, for instance you were to ask them, 'hey, American, we're thinking about blowing up Iraq and slaughtering a million of them so we can steal their oil, and you can pay a dollar less at the pump, what do you say?' And if under those circumstances, the American people were saying 'hell yea, fuck those towelheads, let's take our oil! Then that would be something.

    But nothing like that is even remotely the case. The American people had to be lied to and a false flag attack was necessary to marshal them to war. And then as they began to have their doubts, they collectively held their noses and voted for a racist commie dirt bag from the notoriously corrupt Chicago street politics as president, only because he seemed less of a war monger than the Republicans. The American people are against the wars, and that's a huge reason for Trump's success. I have a hard time condemning them when I know their hearts are good, and that they've been lied to and are lied to from virtually every single msm outlet every minute of every hour of every day. Lies upon lies upon lies, always demanding war. (just writing those last three words does make me a little angry at the eternal Jew, alas)


    I consider myself to be in good company since your own sibling isn’t convinced 9/11 was an inside job, either.
     
    not apples and oranges

    they're far too consumed by career and family to find the time you have spent seeking understanding. I suspect that if they had a tiny fraction of the information that's been hurled your way, and with your gifts of erudition, that they'd have been swayed long ago.

    geokat62 – Tell me something, why is it that the constituents in SC and AZ repeatedly re-elect Lindsey Graham and John McCain, while those in North Carolina, who were subjected to millions of dollars of negative advertising against Walter Jones, were not swayed by it and still ended up rejecting the neocons’ preferred candidate?

    Rurik – because in S. Carolina they go into their evangelical churches and the ministers are bought and corrupt and shill for ‘Israel’ and make lurid promises of everlasting ‘rapture’.

    For your argument to hold true, there should be more evangelicals in SC than there are in NC. But that’s not the case, the number of evangelicals in both states is identical, at 35%. And if we look at AZ, the number of evangelicals is even smaller, at 25%. So the stats don’t work in your favour.

    So, once again, my point is a simple one: with the privilege of living in a democracy comes the responsibility of being a well-informed citizen. Not sure why you’re opposed to this fundamental principle of democratic government:

    [MORE]

    Citizenship Responsibilities

    Citizenship is the state of being vested with the rights, privileges and duties of a citizen, but it can also be defined as the character of an individual viewed as a member of society. While U.S. citizenship provides many rights, it also involves many responsibilities.

    The U.S. government, as established in the Constitution, protects the rights of each individual regardless of background, culture or religion. Although all U.S. citizens enjoy the freedoms, protections and legal rights that the Constitution promises, citizens also have the responsibility, or “civic duty,” to meet certain societal standards and guidelines.

    Civic duties ensure that democratic values written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are upheld. Responsibilities include both those that are voluntary as well as those required by law.

    Mandatory Duties of U.S. Citizens

    Certain civic responsibilities considered central to the democratic philosophy of the country are required by law. U.S. citizens must comply with certain mandatory obligations, including:

    Obeying the law. Every U.S. citizen must obey federal, state and local laws, and pay the penalties that can be incurred when a law is broken.

    Paying taxes. All citizens must pay taxes in one form or another, including federal, state, local, Social Security, property and sales taxes. Each tax funds services and programs – i.e., schools, roads, police and fire protection, Medicare and national defense – that would be impossible to maintain without the support of tax payments.

    Serving on a jury when summoned. Whether a citizen or not, all persons have a right to a trial by jury made up of a panel of their peers. Jurors are drawn by lot from the general population of citizens in a jurisdiction, and once randomly summoned to jury duty are required to be available to serve. A citizen also may be summoned or subpoenaed to serve as a witness during a trial and, if called, has the responsibility to appear and testify under oath regarding information pertinent to a given event.

    Registering with the Selective Service. The Selective Service is a federal agency within the executive branch of government that exists to readily resume a draft, if necessary, to provide the number of men needed by the armed forces in the event of war or other national emergency. Federal law requires virtually all male U.S. citizens and male noncitizens who are ages 18 through 25 to register with the Selective Service. Men who do not register are subject to prosecution and, if convicted, may be fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison. Registration for Selective Service also is required to be eligible for various federal programs and benefits, including student loans, job training, federal employment and naturalization.

    Voluntary Responsibilities of U.S. Citizens

    Other civic responsibilities, while not mandatory, are central to democracy. U.S. citizens are encouraged to exercise certain responsibilities and privileges, including:

    Voting. While voting is a right and privilege of citizenship, it is also a duty or responsibility. U.S. citizens have a responsibility to participate in their government by registering to vote and voting in elections. By voting, citizens have a voice in their government and help ensure that the democratic representative system of government is maintained.

    Staying informed. Citizens have the responsibility to stay informed of the issues affecting their communities, as well as national and international issues, and to be active in the civic processes. This includes being well informed about the issues and candidates before voting in an election, getting involved in a political campaign or running for public office, or using their right to address the government through activism.

    Community involvement. Citizens also should contribute to the well-being of the community by recognizing where help or change is needed and by getting involved through offering their knowledge and talents to local organizations, committees and community projects.

    Practicing tolerance. With democracy comes diversity, and U.S. citizens have the responsibility to support and protect the rights of others and to respect the differences in opinions, religions, cultures and ethnic groups.

    Passing it on. It is the responsibility of citizens to pass along the importance of good citizenship to future generations. By teaching their children how to stay informed, to get involved, to obey the law, and the necessity of voting, parents and mentors demonstrate how to improve society.

    http://www.civics.ks.gov/kansas/citizenship/responsibilities-of-citizens.html

    I’d say that many of us, including myself, have fallen short of fulfilling many of these responsibilities. While all are important, I think the one that is of critical importance is “Passing it on.” We all need to ensure the next generation is aware of the responsibilities that come along with the privilege of living in a democracy.. i.e., even Joe 6-pack must pass it on.

    not apples and oranges

    I think your sister is so smart, she’d arrive at the same conclusion. She’d simply ask you the same question I put to JR: why would the planners go to all the trouble of using a top-down demolition approach to create the illusion that airliners brought down the Twin Towers, just to use the traditional bottom-up approach for bldg 7 which resembles a classic controlled demolition job, that would give it all away? This simply makes no sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Not sure why you’re opposed to this fundamental principle of democratic government:
     
    because it was fine when the electorate were educated and principled men and women with a common goal of mutual prosperity and mutual respect.

    We no longer have that now do we Geo? Not even fucking close..

    Practicing tolerance. With democracy comes diversity, and U.S. citizens have the responsibility to support and protect the rights of others and to respect the differences in opinions, religions, cultures and ethnic groups.

     

    what this has come to mean is handing over your lands and possessions and future of your progeny to those who hate your guts and want to see you destroyed and dead.

    Worship at the alter of "diversity" has meant, (and was always intended to mean) white genocide. Where Jews have used financial fraud and swindles to wrest control of our vaunted 'democracies' and foisted madness, strife and hate upon the people of the West whose single greatest weakness is their eternal kindness and seemingly lack of any ability to practice the kind of ethno-centrism that is the hallmark of all other races and groups.

    Diversity for Sweden means watching the women of Sweden being humiliated on the streets, while the forces of diversity destroy their ancient way of life. Hardly a intelligent policy, don't you think?

    We all need to ensure the next generation is aware of the responsibilities that come along with the privilege of living in a democracy..
     
    good luck with that

    http://media.komonews.com/images/130627_Rachel_Jeantel_2.jpg

    (sorry)

    even Joe 6-pack must pass it on.
     
    Joe sixpack is too busy being 'in' and 'out' sourced to care about anything more that finding the cash to put gas in his rust bucket to get to his shit paying job.

    He's hardly the one to blame for all the wars and Wall Street uber-swindles and assorted atrocities the Fiend is committing everywhere it can today in the world.

    From the executives of Monsanto to the MIC to the abomination of morality and truth that is the media of the West to all the war pigs and assorted treasonous scum in our government, Joe sixpack can barely make heads or tails of the all-pervasive mendacity and corruption that is spiraling into the abyss these days and taking Joe with it.

    As btw it will take Poland with it too, as Poland embraces the Fiend and hopes for Kim Kardashian's ass in their children's faces. Poland needs to recognize that Putin today is their only hope for peace and to persevere. The West is rotten and twisted and savage beyond all hope.

    (trying to get on topic here a little late ; )
  175. Many have been said to prove propaganda of this article. I must also add that German-Russian dirty collaboration do not started in 1939, but in 1920′s, and in 1930′s it was full speed joint development of military equipment fir both armies, especially equipment forbidden for use by Germany, so Russia do everything to make nazi-frankenstein alive and nearly ended its own country by collaborating with III Reich in shaking world order. So it is not only Latvian or Ukrainian case of supporting Nazis (not forget Russian collaborates under Wlasow). In fact only Poland do not have it’s own Nazi-allied army. After 1990 Eastern Europe has gone to the Western sphere of influence, because even once archenemy Germany became friendly to them nation (with own interests of curse). Now those countries fight with expansionist Berlin. This an example how nervous those countries are, because of history.
    Russia also tries to shake world order, but same results here. Close relations with China and near vassalage meant that Russia have achieved strategic defeat. The best “circus” will be when western influence will not reach Eastern Europe. There will be Central Asia syndrome of fleeing under China aegis. In other world generally demilitarized European and Eastern European countries without NATO shield will militarize and will seek alliance with China. China now has started many projects aimed at European countries to bring them closer to China. This mean China will make their own rules in Eurasia. But still Europe (Russia included) will be taken anally and will end as Chine anus for their goods and will.

    Read More
  176. @5371
    As I have mentioned before, one factor influencing the foolish behaviour of Polish decision makers in the crisis of 1939 was their delusion that, if war between the western powers and Germany became inevitable, Hitler would be ousted by a military coup. Similar delusions were not confined to Poland. Within a few weeks of the outbreak of war, Britain suffered major embarrassment after falling for a hoax based on the same premise.

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

    As I have mentioned before, one factor influencing the foolish behaviour of Polish decision makers in the crisis of 1939 was their delusion that, if war between the western powers and Germany became inevitable, Hitler would be ousted by a military coup.

    How to put it mildly, geopolitical analysis at that time was not a strong point in the age of paper mail and telegraph (well, telephone too;-). But multiply it by this “megalomaniac coefficient” and voila’. I heard of Venlo incident but never got to know it closely.

    Read More
  177. @SmoothieX12

    There is much to be criticized about certain Polish actions, then and now, but cheap polemicists/propagandists like the saker ain’t the answer.
     
    Sir, the problems of Poland are not in "certain actions then and now", the problem of Poland is fundamental and is what Correlli Barnett correctly identified as folie de grandeur, which is a defining characteristic of Poland's body politic. To the point of NATO scratching its head.

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/militaermanoever-in-polen-mit-nato-staaten-aerger-um-anakonda-a-1096262.html

    Very few things are more dangerous then complete historical, military and political delusion. Or, as military professionals put it, the loss of situational awareness. As per propagandist, I think you fit the bill perfectly.

    Ha, it took a while!

    SmoothieX12,
    Your propensity to project your worst tendencies onto others is amazing!

    Comrade Smoothie, during our little exchange months ago, it became quite clear that you, sir, are a cheap Soviet propagandist and a LIAR.
    Yes, I like to be exact, you r a liar and I caught you lying several times.

    Anyone interested can see for themselves @ http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/

    Next to you, even the saker sounds good.

    To be clear, the reason you dislike what I have to say is simply that you are a peddler of “the great patriotic war” BS, and I’m one of those who has been presenting facts here which debunk it, and u just hate that.

    ps: for those who have not read my posts, and may get the impression I’m some russophobic guy, I most certainly am NOT.
    For example, my positions re the Russian Fed. foreign policy are generally very favorable.
    However, that does not mean one should eat Russian propaganda by the spoonful and ask for seconds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Mr. L.K !

    I will not make any attempt to enter the arguments between you and SmoothieX12.

    Duplicate of my previous request to you.
    Thank you, esteemed L.K , for your this and the next post, both very informative.
    I agree that Suvorov emphasized the Stalin’s (USSR’s) role in starting WW2.
    I will try to read something out of your list. Can you pinpoint one particular book,
    preferably in English ? My German is extremely rusty and by now is reduced to
    “Aber die Ordnung muß sein”.
    Respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    , @SmoothieX12

    Comrade Smoothie, during our little exchange months ago, it became quite clear that you, sir, are a cheap Soviet propagandist and a LIAR.
     
    Sure I am;-)

    http://s32.postimg.org/67yvaqkp1/Glantz_House_2015.jpg

    Good luck using your "latest archive data" on that.

    As per this:

    ps: for those who have not read my posts, and may get the impression I’m some russophobic guy, I most certainly am NOT.
     
    Yes, and I have a bridge to sell you and a unicorn living in my garage. Deal?

    To be clear, the reason you dislike what I have to say is simply that you are a peddler of “the great patriotic war” BS, and I’m one of those who has been presenting facts here which debunk it, and u just hate that.
     
    Judging by your reaction, I think it is the other way around but what do I know, I am a liar;-)
  178. @L.K
    Ha, it took a while!

    SmoothieX12,
    Your propensity to project your worst tendencies onto others is amazing!

    Comrade Smoothie, during our little exchange months ago, it became quite clear that you, sir, are a cheap Soviet propagandist and a LIAR.
    Yes, I like to be exact, you r a liar and I caught you lying several times.

    Anyone interested can see for themselves @ http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/

    Next to you, even the saker sounds good.

    To be clear, the reason you dislike what I have to say is simply that you are a peddler of "the great patriotic war" BS, and I'm one of those who has been presenting facts here which debunk it, and u just hate that.

    ps: for those who have not read my posts, and may get the impression I'm some russophobic guy, I most certainly am NOT.
    For example, my positions re the Russian Fed. foreign policy are generally very favorable.
    However, that does not mean one should eat Russian propaganda by the spoonful and ask for seconds.

    Mr. L.K !

    I will not make any attempt to enter the arguments between you and SmoothieX12.

    Duplicate of my previous request to you.
    Thank you, esteemed L.K , for your this and the next post, both very informative.
    I agree that Suvorov emphasized the Stalin’s (USSR’s) role in starting WW2.
    I will try to read something out of your list. Can you pinpoint one particular book,
    preferably in English ? My German is extremely rusty and by now is reduced to
    “Aber die Ordnung muß sein”.
    Respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
  179. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you, dear L.K , for your this and the next post, both very informative.
    I agree that Suvorov emphasized the Stalin's (USSR's) role in starting WW2.
    I will try to read something out of your list. Can you pinpoint one particular book,
    preferably in English ? My German is extremely rusty and by now is reduced to
    "Aber die ordnung muss sein".
    Most respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    Hi, I.f.f.U.

    Let me think, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s book has been translated into English, pretty good book and a very recent publication.
    1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers

    http://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X?ie=UTF8&keywords=the%20war%20that%20had%20many%20fathers&qid=1465343681&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

    Dr.Post’s “Die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges – Ein Grundriß der internationalen Diplomatie von Versailles bis Pearl Harbor” is very good too, but only available in German.

    Dr.Hoffmann has been translated into English as ‘Stalins War of Extermination”, very good but focuses only on the Soviet-German conflict.

    “A Time for War” by Robert Smith Thompson focuses on Roosevelt.

    A pity that Bavendamm’s “Roosevelts Krieg. Amerikanische Politik und Strategie 1937 – 1945″ has never been published in English, only German.

    http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelts-Krieg-Amerikanische-Politik-Strategie/dp/3776620587?ie=UTF8&keywords=dirk%20bavendamm&qid=1465344592&ref_=sr_1_4&s=books&sr=1-4

    “Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor”

    http://www.amazon.com/Bankrupting-Enemy-Financial-Before-Harbor/dp/1591145201?ie=UTF8&keywords=bankrupting%20the%20enemy&qid=1465345347&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

    “The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II ” by Thomas Fleming;

    https://www.amazon.com/New-Dealers-War-Within-World-ebook/dp/B00AFYV636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465345582&sr=1-1&keywords=the+new+dealer%27s+war

    ‘Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” ‘ by Patrick J. Buchanan is useful too.

    A.J.P.Taylors ‘the origins of the second world war’ is dated but still important.

    Dr.Klüver has a very good one on the English warmongers but only in German.

    Hope that helps,
    Best regards

    Read More
  180. Thank you, dear L.K !
    I have copy(ies) of Buchanan’s book ‘Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” ‘,
    read it and like it.
    I ordered two extra books from the list just advised by you.
    With gratitude, your I.f.f.U.

    Read More
  181. @Rurik


    … I don’t blame the powerless, I blame the powerful.
     
    1. I lack time for blaming. If we’re truly in a crisis then people’s lives, health (and honours) are at stake. Therefore I lack time for high moral grounds.

     

    assigning blame and accountability are important for restoring sanity and the rule of law

    the reason Obama should go to the Hague and ultimately rot in some kind of prison is because that's how you send a message. When Tony Blair is arrested by the British government and tried and convicted for treason, it'll send shock waves through the entire demonic establishment all the way right up to Rothschild's black and feculent heart.

    Look at Iceland, they didn't just wrest control of their banks and government from the scoundrels and crooks that were running it, they put their stinking arses in jail!
    That's what we need to do. For all the blood-stained war criminals and financial uber-criminal scum at Goldman Sachs and the Fed and the Treasury.

    It isn't for smug moralizing that we should assign blame and accountability, it's to show that there is a karmic price for evil, and that there is hope for justice in this world. Think how much cynicism that would remove from the hearts of good people.

    The Soviet government Jews had ideological motives different from those of today’s Israel. The former were revolutionary, Bolshevik, the latter are rabbinic.
     
    yes but the salient thing as far as the gentiles go is that they were both full to the brim with murderous hatred in their hearts for all the non-Jews.

    That is the part ab0ut the Jewish character that is troubling. Who cares if they manage to make tones of money or worship a mean and cruel God. The problem is their criminality and fraud and swindles like the Fed, and what they do with the power that kind of lucre gives them. It's always war and war and more wars. With torture and strife and hatred tossed in for good measure.

    I’m glad we exchanged views and thoughts.
     
    same here

    - Stalin’s great crimes were probably mostly 1) made-up 2) Yezhov’s, whose purpose was provoking revolt and creating grounds for a pro-Nazi coup. (Grover Furr, building upon Thurston et al.). Again, it shows that the notion of evil elites misses important points.
     
    I don't agree with that. Stalin was a monster. It was Stalin's genocidal communism (Jewish Bolshevism) that was responsible for the unimaginable horrors of the twentieth century, IMHO. Hitler and the Nazis were merely a survival mechanism of the German people, (representing the entire Western world) against that Satanic and anti-human creed.

    @ It was Stalin’s genocidal communism (Jewish Bolshevism) that was responsible for the unimaginable horrors of the twentieth century

    CHEKA, GPU, NKVD were not Stalin’s creation, but of the Leninist-Trotskyist combo, the real ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ – the Comintern – from which Stalin actually slowly drifted away. How came that Stalin ended up in the Cominternist mythology, as a ‘rabid antisemite’, an exponent of ‘Great Russian nationalism’, a ‘traitor of the Revolution’? Precisely because he cleaned the GPU, the Party, the Army Augean stables of the Jewish Bolshevik dung. A Herculean task indeed, a dirty and smelly job, but that has to be done. There is no doubt that Grover Furr is right. A historian like J.W. Wheeler-Bennett, observing the events in 1938, gave the best explanation of the purges:
    “Though it is almost impossible to extract any clear and undisputed facts from the mystery which surrounds the Moscow treason trials of 1936 and 1937, it does seem possible to detect in the mental processes and in the activities of the accused, particularly Radek, Sokolnikov and Piatakov, a tendency to return to the tactics of what may be called “primitive Leninism” and to the psychology of the Brest-Litovsk period. The Old Bolsheviks (Jews) believing that the principles of Lenin and the ideals of the November Revolution had been betrayed by Stalin, and convinced that the U.S.S.R. could not resist an attack by both Germany and Japan, appear to have reverted to the pre-revolutionary strategy of sabotage and subversion in order to overthrow the Stalinist regime, and to the Leninist policy of defeatism and national immolation in order to placate for the moment the aggressive policies of the two Imperialist-Fascist Powers. The crimes of which they were accused, and to which they pleaded guilty, were none other than those very principles of destruction and disintegration on which Lenin based his fight against the Liberal Government of Prince Lvov and the Socialist regime of Kerensky, while the policy of defeatism was exactly that followed by him in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
    This latter doctrine had been established by Lenin again and again. ” It is impossible to attain this end [the Revolution] without wishing for the defeat of one’s own government and without working for such a defeat “, he wrote in Against the Current ; and, again, he warned American
    workers that ” he is no Socialist who will not sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the Social Revolution “. Nor was he content merely to preach the doctrine. Against the bitter opposition of the Left Communists, particularly Bukharin and Radek, within his own party, he pursued just this same policy in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
    What then would be more natural than for the Old Bolsheviks to fall back on these original principles ? Both Radek and Bukharin had publicly declared that in following the doctrine of defeatism Lenin had been right and they wrong. Is it not possible that the psychology of Brest-
    Litovsk reasserted itself and that, in negotiating with Germany and Japan for the cession of the Ukraine and the Maritime Province, they were reverting to the principle of the ” breathing-space ” in order to safeguard themselves from external aggression, while setting about the destruction of the Stalin regime which they regarded as having betrayed the Revolution? Moreover, had not Lenin himself accepted the facilities offered by Imperialist Germany on his return to Russia ? Was he not always prepared to spoil the Egyptians if by so doing he could strengthen or advance the Revolution?”

    Is it not what we see repeating today? Only that the Comintern rebaptized itself “The International Community?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    FYI:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/
    , @Rurik

    NKVD were not Stalin’s creation
     
    are you suggesting that Stalin didn't use the NKVD for torture and murder and genocide? As a means of terrifying the entire populace of doomed and condemned citizenry to Soviet horrors and wide-spread terror?

    It was during Stalin's reign that the NKVD massacred the mind and soul of Poland at places like Katyn. It was during Stalin's foul and demonic reign that the NKVD visited so many horrors and death and misery upon the people that even today I suspect they're sill reeling in some residual way from the sheer evil of it all.

    I find it incomprehensible, with what we know about Stalin's sadistic and Orwellian reign - that anyone of good will could possibly try to act as an apologist for that satanic fiend.

    At least that's how I see it. And I have no cross to bear or dog in that hunt, being an American generations removed from that time or region.
  182. @L.K
    Ha, it took a while!

    SmoothieX12,
    Your propensity to project your worst tendencies onto others is amazing!

    Comrade Smoothie, during our little exchange months ago, it became quite clear that you, sir, are a cheap Soviet propagandist and a LIAR.
    Yes, I like to be exact, you r a liar and I caught you lying several times.

    Anyone interested can see for themselves @ http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/

    Next to you, even the saker sounds good.

    To be clear, the reason you dislike what I have to say is simply that you are a peddler of "the great patriotic war" BS, and I'm one of those who has been presenting facts here which debunk it, and u just hate that.

    ps: for those who have not read my posts, and may get the impression I'm some russophobic guy, I most certainly am NOT.
    For example, my positions re the Russian Fed. foreign policy are generally very favorable.
    However, that does not mean one should eat Russian propaganda by the spoonful and ask for seconds.

    Comrade Smoothie, during our little exchange months ago, it became quite clear that you, sir, are a cheap Soviet propagandist and a LIAR.

    Sure I am;-)

    http://s32.postimg.org/67yvaqkp1/Glantz_House_2015.jpg

    Good luck using your “latest archive data” on that.

    As per this:

    ps: for those who have not read my posts, and may get the impression I’m some russophobic guy, I most certainly am NOT.

    Yes, and I have a bridge to sell you and a unicorn living in my garage. Deal?

    To be clear, the reason you dislike what I have to say is simply that you are a peddler of “the great patriotic war” BS, and I’m one of those who has been presenting facts here which debunk it, and u just hate that.

    Judging by your reaction, I think it is the other way around but what do I know, I am a liar;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @ABCD
    re: Your exchange with L.K.
    Yeah, ridicule is the last escape hatch when one is cornered and has no arguments left. Shame on you.

    Same with Boris N. & this other guy with a number instead of a name: you guys lack a critical distance to the historical material. The trees prevent you from seeing the forest. Good luck at finding that distance -- without it you'll be reduced to sputtering out lists of facts, without any deeper understanding of a bigger picture, a parochial view of history -- quite common, to be sure. Try to do better.
    , @L.K
    Comrade Smoothie,
    with his mouth shut, a poet.
  183. @Seraphim
    @ It was Stalin’s genocidal communism (Jewish Bolshevism) that was responsible for the unimaginable horrors of the twentieth century

    CHEKA, GPU, NKVD were not Stalin's creation, but of the Leninist-Trotskyist combo, the real 'Jewish Bolshevism' - the Comintern - from which Stalin actually slowly drifted away. How came that Stalin ended up in the Cominternist mythology, as a 'rabid antisemite', an exponent of 'Great Russian nationalism', a 'traitor of the Revolution'? Precisely because he cleaned the GPU, the Party, the Army Augean stables of the Jewish Bolshevik dung. A Herculean task indeed, a dirty and smelly job, but that has to be done. There is no doubt that Grover Furr is right. A historian like J.W. Wheeler-Bennett, observing the events in 1938, gave the best explanation of the purges:
    "Though it is almost impossible to extract any clear and undisputed facts from the mystery which surrounds the Moscow treason trials of 1936 and 1937, it does seem possible to detect in the mental processes and in the activities of the accused, particularly Radek, Sokolnikov and Piatakov, a tendency to return to the tactics of what may be called "primitive Leninism" and to the psychology of the Brest-Litovsk period. The Old Bolsheviks (Jews) believing that the principles of Lenin and the ideals of the November Revolution had been betrayed by Stalin, and convinced that the U.S.S.R. could not resist an attack by both Germany and Japan, appear to have reverted to the pre-revolutionary strategy of sabotage and subversion in order to overthrow the Stalinist regime, and to the Leninist policy of defeatism and national immolation in order to placate for the moment the aggressive policies of the two Imperialist-Fascist Powers. The crimes of which they were accused, and to which they pleaded guilty, were none other than those very principles of destruction and disintegration on which Lenin based his fight against the Liberal Government of Prince Lvov and the Socialist regime of Kerensky, while the policy of defeatism was exactly that followed by him in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
    This latter doctrine had been established by Lenin again and again. " It is impossible to attain this end [the Revolution] without wishing for the defeat of one's own government and without working for such a defeat ", he wrote in Against the Current ; and, again, he warned American
    workers that " he is no Socialist who will not sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the Social Revolution ". Nor was he content merely to preach the doctrine. Against the bitter opposition of the Left Communists, particularly Bukharin and Radek, within his own party, he pursued just this same policy in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
    What then would be more natural than for the Old Bolsheviks to fall back on these original principles ? Both Radek and Bukharin had publicly declared that in following the doctrine of defeatism Lenin had been right and they wrong. Is it not possible that the psychology of Brest-
    Litovsk reasserted itself and that, in negotiating with Germany and Japan for the cession of the Ukraine and the Maritime Province, they were reverting to the principle of the " breathing-space " in order to safeguard themselves from external aggression, while setting about the destruction of the Stalin regime which they regarded as having betrayed the Revolution? Moreover, had not Lenin himself accepted the facilities offered by Imperialist Germany on his return to Russia ? Was he not always prepared to spoil the Egyptians if by so doing he could strengthen or advance the Revolution?"

    Is it not what we see repeating today? Only that the Comintern rebaptized itself "The International Community?

    FYI:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

    Read More
  184. The cunning Jewish Bolshevik mind is nothing without the Russian brawn – resentful masses, oppression and primitive class anger, pseudo-messianic chauvinism, rule by criminals, low level utopian theories, absence of the Enlightenment, cheap alcohol and pistols. All of those in one, however, – a terrible concoction, called The Soviet Communism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    >>bold text added<<

    The cunning Jewish Bolshevik (Zionist) mind is nothing without the Russian (bovine, cud-chewing, American) brawn – resentful masses, oppression and primitive class anger, pseudo-messianic chauvinism, rule by criminals, low level utopian theories, absence of the Enlightenment, cheap alcohol and pistols. All of those in one, however, – a terrible concoction, called The Soviet Communism (land of the exceptional people).
     
    it sounds eerily like you're describing America today, Latvian woman
    , @Seraphim
    Did you, by any chance, that one of the founders of the CHEKA was:

    "Yakov Khristoforovich Peters (Latvian: Jēkabs Peterss, Russian: Я́ков Христофо́рович Пе́терс, English: Jacob Peters, Jan Peters) (3 December [O.S. 21 November] 1886 — 25 April 1938), a Latvian Communist revolutionary who played a part in the establishment of the Soviet Union. Together with Felix Dzerzhinsky, he was one of the founders and chiefs of the Cheka (VChK), the secret police of the Soviet Union. He was the Deputy Chairman of the Cheka from 1918 and briefly the acting Chairman of the Cheka from 7 July to 22 August 1918.
    Peters was arrested and executed during the Great Purge on April 25, 1938. His conviction was overturned posthumously in 1956.
    In 1920 he represented the Cheka in the Northern Caucasus and served there as the Commissar of the Northern Caucasus Railways. In 1920-1922 was the Cheka plenipotentiary in Turkestan ASSR, where he also was the local party bureau member. There he led numerous operations against the anti-Bolshevik formations of Dutov, Annenkov, and Enver Pasha. He returned to Moscow in 1922 and worked as a high-ranking official in the OGPU, Rabkrin, and as the chief of the Eastern department of the GPU (created on June 2, 1922)."

    Did you also know that Latvian 'brawn' was terribly effective in "the terrible concoction, called The Soviet Communism? And why?
    "The reason why the Latvian Red Rifleman is sometimes called the core of the Red Army and the rescuers of communist revolution was their great discipline and will power. The Red Army units were often unorganized and cowardly. The Soviet commanders lacked talent. So the Soviet leadership sent Latvians to the most troublesome spots of the front where other Red Army units could not handle". The Russian 'brawn' was inadequate (they were reluctant to shot Russians).
    "In May 1917 the Latvian Regiments transferred their loyalty to the Bolsheviks. They became known as Red Latvian Riflemen (Latvian: Latviešu sarkanie strēlnieki, Russian: красные латышские стрелки) and actively participated in the Russian Civil War. The Riflemen took an active part in the suppression of anti-Bolshevik uprisings in Moscow and Yaroslavl in 1918. They fought against Estonia, Denikin, Yudenich, and Wrangel. After victory in Oryol-Kromy operation (ru:Орловско-Кромское сражение) against Denikin in October 1919 division of Latvian Riflemen received the highest military recognition of that time: the Honorable Red Flag of VTsIK. Jukums Vācietis (Russian: Иоаким Иоакимович Вацетис, Ioakim Ioakimovich Vatsetis), formerly a colonel in the Latvian Rifles became the first commander-in-chief of the Red Army.
    The Latvian Red Riflemen were instrumental in the attempt to establish Soviet rule in Latvia in 1919."
    Many of Latvian Riflemen like Vācietis, Bērziņš, Pētersons and others stayed in Soviet Russia and took high governmental posts. In the purges of 1937-1938 the remaining elite of the Latvian rifleman was eliminated. "

    Even if it is not sure enough that a squad of the Riflemen executed the Imperial Family in Ekaterinburg, it is (even grudgingly) admitted that "Latvians did took part in many Soviet atrocities", where they became notorious for their cruelty towards prisoners and their faithfulness to the new regime.
    I was wondering whether the Soviet era monument for the Latvian Riflemen in Riga (Strēlnieku piemineklis) is still standing! Well, it is!