The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
The EU's “Suicide by Reality Denial”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What had to happen did happen. The EU, being the chain of weak links it is, did eventually give in, and the Dutch people were the first one to vote against the association with the Ukraine. Of course, the Euroburocrats can now find some reason to declare the vote invalid, they can declare that some law was violated, they can even negotiate some minor change the to association agreement, or they might even decide that they can simply ignore this vote. But none of that will make any difference: the undeniable truth is that the Ukrainians are not welcome in the EU, not as associates and even less so as members. So no EU, no NATO no “European future” for the Ukraine. The entire hot air balloon which has been fueling the naïve and ugly hopes of the Euromaidan has burst and the Euro-Ukrainian project is crash and burning like the Hindenburg.

This disaster did not have to happen, it was entirely man made. In a saner world, the EU, Russia and the Ukraine could have negotiated a tripartite deal which would have given the Ukraine the role which geography and history have given it: to be a bridge between Russia and the EU. But the EU categorically rejected this option, several times, simply declaring that “the Ukraine is a sovereign state and Russia has no say in Ukrainian matters”. This zero sum game was forced on Russia against her will but now it is the EU which has lost it all, even if this is by no a victory for Russia either. The sad reality is that everybody has lost. Now the EU has to accept the total defeat of its Ukrainian policy, Russia is now alone looking at a dying failed state right across her border, while the Ukraine is simply falling apart and dying a painful death. Will the Eurobureaucrats accept this outcome?

Probably not.

They will do what they have always done. They will lie, deny, minimize and, most importantly, pretend like nothing has happened. They will say that 60% of 30% of a small EU nation do not get to make decisions for the entire continent. Or they will declare that instead of just an old fashioned “association” the EU will offer the Ukraine something much better – a “heartfelt friendship” maybe. Or a “love eternal”. Or even a “continental brotherhood”. But that will all be in vain because the people of Europe are clearly weary of the Ukronazis, even their Polish “friends” are now considering building a wall of their own, to keep their “Ukrainian friends” out of Poland; feel the love!

Consequence one: financial costs

But it is way too late for the Europeans. The really bad news for them is that they will have to pay most of the costs of more or less rebuilding the Ukraine. Russia simply cannot do it. Her economy is way too small, and she is already struggling with trying to restore law and order in Crimea (which is proving very hard, as the local mob is already trying to return the way it operated under Ukrainian control). Furthermore, Russia will have to pay for the Donbass, that is pretty obvious. So Russia is really maxed out.

The US could pay, but won’t. Even if Hillary is elected (aka appointed by the US ‘deeps state’), such a huge economic rescue program for the Ukraine will never pass Congress, not when the US themselves are in need of a similar program to rebuilt their own decrepit and neglected infrastructure and economy.

But most importantly, Russia does have the means to close her borders. The newly created Russian National Guard will now take over the responsibilities of several ministries and agencies including the Federal Migration Service. Russia already has a very capable Border Guard Service which is subordinated to the Federal Security Service (ex-KGB). It is estimated that the Border Guard Service currently includes 10 regional offices, 80+ border units, 950+ outposts, 400+ checkpoints. Every day the service conducts 11,000 patrols. In total, the task of preservation and protection of borders of the Russian Federation carried out by about 200’000 border guards. This service has its own air force, coastal navy, UAV, intelligence directorate, armored units and even its own Spetsnaz forces. The reality is that the Russian Border Guard Service is more powerful than most EU armies. And now it will have the full power of the National Guard to back it. Make no mistake, Russia can, and will, if needed, lock and protect her borders.

As for the USA, they have the best border protection on the planet: the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

So when the Ukraine turns into a black hole (the process is well under way) the only ones who will not be able to protect themselves but who will have the means to pay to fix this mess will be the Europeans. Yes, sure, the US and Russia will also have to help, and they both will, for different reasons. But the bulk of the costs will go directly to the European taxpayer. That is the price the EU will have to pay, sooner or later, for its arrogance and incompetence.

Second Consequence: security

There will also be another price to pay, this time a price in security. All the NATO sabre-rattling along the Russian border did, eventually, wake up the “Russian bear”. Not only has Russia now deployed her formidable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, she has now doubled the size of her already f ormidable Airborne Forces. Here is what I wrote about that in December 2014:

the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said “5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile”. A simplistic but basically correct formula. As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10’000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36’000 to 72’000 . This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction “spearhead” force of 10’000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72’000. And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5’000 NATO is struggling hard to put together . The US commanders fully understand that”.

But that is not all Russia did. Putin has ordered the re-creation of the ultimate Cold War Russian armor threat: the First Guards Tank Army. This Tank Army will include two Tank Division (the best ones in the Russian military – 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division and the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division), and a total of 500+ T-14 Armata tanks. This Tank Army will be supported by the 20th Guards Combined Arms Army.

ORDER IT NOW

Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII and the Cold War: “overcome difficult defensive dispositions in order to create a tactical penetration of sufficient breadth and depth to permit the commitment of mobile formations for deeper exploitation”.

Bravo Europe – you just painted a giant crosshair on your forehead!

Very little of that is reported in the western media, of course, and so the general public is utterly unaware of the fact that while NATO and western politicians pretended to play tough and tried to scare Russia, the Russians decided to take these threats seriously and took real, practical action.

For somebody like me who lived through the Cold War and who used to monitor the Soviet Forces in Eastern Germany, it is both distressing and sickening to see that the West has literally forced Russia into a new Cold War she neither wanted nor needed. Of course, I am absolutely confident that there is no “Russian threat” in East, and the only way to get this entire military power to strike would be to attack it first, but the sad reality is that the EU/NATO countries are now directly targeted by Russian forces.

To make it all much worse, there is now a strong possibility that Hillary and her Neocon gang will soon take over the White House. God only knows what these people are capable off. Hillary, whose only “success” in life seems to have push Bill to bomb the Serbs and making a ugly mess out of Libya, will have something to prove: that she is more of a man than Putin. She will try to scare and bully him into some kind of submission and nevermind that the Russian people now see the West as a degenerate, if arrogant, society of Conchita Wurst like poseurs who simply don’t have what it take to fight a real fight and who can only pick on the weak and humble. It is not fear which the Neocons inspire in Russians, but disgust. At most, they can elicit a sense of concern due to their seemingly infinite arrogance and self-defeating lack of foresight. As I have written many, many times already, Russian do fear war, no doubt about it, but, unlike the AngloZionists, they are nevertheless ready for it.

As for the Europeans, they are now slowly coming to realize that they are in for a long and very painful war against Wahabi terrorism. The attacks in Paris and Brussels are just the opening shots of a war which will last many years. It took Russia over a decade to finally crush the Wahabi terrorists in the Caucasus, and that was with a man like Vladimir Putin at the helm of the country. One look at Francois Hollande or Angela Merkel and you can feel in your guts that these two sad clowns will never prevail. Just contrast the reaction of Vladimir Putin to the downing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai with Frederica Mogherini’s sobbing following the bombings in Brussels. Now imagine that you are a Wahabi terrorist leader, and a hardcore lifelong sexist, would I add, and that you are looking at these two photos on the right. Would this influence your selection of targets?

Of course it would.

Saker-EU-Ukraine The same goes for the comparison of the US/NATO operations in Syria with the outcome of just under six months of Russian Aerospace forces. States, just like people, have their own “body language” and while the body language displayed by Russia is one of confident and formidable power, the body language of the EU and, to a marginally lesser extend, the USA is one of weakness, hubris and incompetence, often bordering on the suicidal (like Merkel’s policy towards immigration).

The Bottom Line

The bottom line of this mess is this: what the US and the EU did in the Ukraine (and elsewhere, really) was fantastically stupid. But the US can afford such mistakes, while the EU clearly cannot. As for Russia, yes, she most definitely has been hurt by these policies, but this pain has been channeled by the Kremlin to make Russia stronger on many levels, from the political, to the military and even the economy, although here the progress has been minimal and the 5th column is still very much in charge, though I remain hopeful of a much needed purge.

What the EU has done is essentially a form of “suicide by reality denial”. What follows next will have to be regime change, not for one country, but for the entire continent. I think that such regime change is inevitable, but the big question is how long this slow and painful EU agony will last. Alas, this could take many years, I think. EU leaders will not elegantly apologize and resign, there is an entire class of parasites which now lives from the EU structure which will desperately resist any meaningful reforms, nevermind regime change, and which will always put their narrow comprador class interests above their people or even common sense.

As for the people of the EU, they will find out that they don’t have the means to impose political change by the ballot, that they live in a pretend-democracy, and that everything they have been told and promised is just an empty, ugly, lie. The Ukraine did not become Europe, but Europe became the Ukraine.

Welcome to the real word, EU!

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: EU, Ukraine 
Hide 174 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Rehmat says:

    United Nations, EU, and NATO are all international tools created by the Western imperial powers to maintain their imperial agenda. Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tartars Muslims living in Ukraine, like Palestinians still remember how their ancestors were expelled from their motherland by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, who established the first Jewish state in Russia.

    In February 2016, Muslim Crimean Tatar singer Susana Jamaldinova , known as Jamala, won the contest to represent Ukraine at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest in Stockholm, Sweden. She sang song 1944 in the contest written and composed by herself. The song is about the plight of 238,000 Muslim Crimean Tartars expelled from their home in Southern Ukraine by Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin. Nearly 50% of them died during deportation. Today, Crimea is mostly populated by ethnic Russian Christians and Jews.

    On February 22, Vadim Dengin, first deputy chairman of the committee of Duma (Russian parliament) urged the jury of Eurovision to ban Jamaldinova from singing the 1944 song, which highlights deportation of her grandmother along with her four sons and one daughter. It’s not a political parody against Russia. The song opens with lyrics; When strangers are coming. They come to your house, they kill you all and say: ‘We are not guilty, not guilty. Listen the song below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/23/muslim-singer-represents-ukraine-at-eurovision-2016/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands.}

    Muslims occupy Christian lands of Asia Minor.
    Muslims occupy Middle East.
    Muslims, originally confined to Arabia, have invaded and wrecked dozens and dozens of countries, murdered and ethnically cleansed 10s and 10s of millions of Christians.
    Forcibly Islamized millions.

    As to so-called "Crimean" Tatars: they are invaders, nomad Turkic tribes, from East Asia.
    They are not indigenous to Crimea.
    Stalin expelled them: but most of those expelled were allowed to return, and returned.
    They were so thankful that they participated in terrorist acts against Crimea, by recently blowing up electric transmission towers to Crimea.
    Unlike Stalin, who merely expelled them, Muslims massacre and commit genocide against Christians, whose lands they invade and takeover.
    Everywhere they invade and massacre the indigenous peoples thereafter becomes "Muslim" lands.

    And some Muslims voluntarily leave those "Muslim" lands, and live safely and comfortably in Christian countries, such as Canada and US, and continue preaching the "wonders" of Islam.
    Apparently the ultimate goal being to make these Islamic States of America.
    , @Anonymous
    Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin

    Joe Stalin was Georgian, not Russian.
    , @anon
    The creation of the United Nations was the agency responsible for opening the west borders to people like you sport.
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/the-eus-suicide-by-reality-denial/#comment-1380879
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. […] The EU’s “Suicide by Reality Denial”, by the Saker. […]

    Read More
  3. In a saner world, the EU, Russia and the Ukraine could have negotiated a tripartite deal which would have given the Ukraine the role which geography and history have given it: to be a bridge between Russia and the EU … This zero sum game was forced on Russia against her will but now it is the EU which has lost it all, even if this is by no a victory for Russia either. The sad reality is that everybody has lost.

    Well, one party did win: NATO. Cold War II has given them a new lease on life. But can it last 45 years this time around? I’m doubtful.

    The Ukraine did not become Europe, but Europe became the Ukraine.

    Money quote! Another direct hit from the Saker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. anon says: • Disclaimer

    the Dutch have voted No to the European Union’s association agreement with Ukraine. In a referendum held in the Netherlands today to approve the agreement, 61% voted no, with a turnout of 32%. The EU and Ukraine are both in trouble. https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/1375/#more-1375

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Rehmat says:

    “As for the USA, they have the best border protection on the planet: the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”

    But not from Israeli and the Christian terrorists who committed 94% of terrorism on American soil during 1990-2004, as compared to Muslim extremists who were involved in the rest 6%.

    Most of American airports security is handled by Israeli security firms or Israeli manufactured surveillance apparatus.

    Some of these so-called ‘terrorist acts’ have been hilarious. For example, Noah Pozner, the Jewish kid who was killed at Sandy Hook School and a two year later at a military school in Pakistan.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/12/13/noah-pozner-us-jewish-boy-who-died-twice/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII

    Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing.

    NATO would crush your crappy army in a matter of hours. France by itself would probably beat you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
    Forgot Stalingrad, did you? But you're right in that if Germany hadn't lost they would have won.
    , @JamesWinstonSmith
    "Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing." I see someone has a fairly common anti-Russian understanding of WWII, in which the Soviet Red Army didn't claim 80% of the German casualties for the entire conflict, it was all the Royal Navy blockade sinking the Bismarck, or maybe the French Resistance. In fact one wonders how Hitler even lost at all and why the Wehrmacht didn't march all the way to Siberia and link up with the Japanese...

    "It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent." As Avery already partially pointed out, today's Germans are not the WWII era Germans, who incidentally besides fighting partisans in many parts of Europe nonetheless had a huge pool of manpower to draw on to help them, at least until late 1943 and 44 when most of the Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Hungarians had switched sides or quit the war. Some of the Ukro-Nazis and of course as we're always reminded by Ukrainian nationalists and Russophobes, Vlasovites fought to the end though, because the alternative was death (and they ended up being killed or sent to the Gulags thanks to Operation Keelhaul and Eisenhower reluctantly turning them over to Stalin's vengeance at war's end anyway).

    I think the bitterly anti-Russian commenters here greatly exaggerate modern Europeans willingness to die for the glory of greater Banderastan or in some sort of Barbarossa 2.0. Which is kind of the point of Russia now turning from overwhelmingly nuclear to strong conventional deterrence in the first place, calling NATO's bluff and deterring a Ukro-NATO hybrid force attacking Donbass or Crimea or Trasnistria.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    You are utterly ignorant of the history of WW II and probably of history in general. Why don't you do a Wikipedia search on Battle of Kursk, Siege of Stalingrad, Siege of Leningrad, etc., . Then you might consider reading up on Napoleon's successes in Russia (hint: Tsar Alexander was marching into Paris a year or so later.) When Europeans invade Russia they inevitably fail - e.g., the British expeditionary force after WW I - or get clobbered, e.g., Napoleon and Hitler. I loathe the old USSR, Stalin, and everything they represented but the fact remains that Russian armies played the predominant role in winning WW II and were beginning to prevail against Hitler even before allied intervention in continental Europe took some of the pressure off them. The Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk were decided and Stalin's armies were pushing the Wehrmacht back into Germany long before D-Day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Avery says:
    @Rehmat
    United Nations, EU, and NATO are all international tools created by the Western imperial powers to maintain their imperial agenda. Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tartars Muslims living in Ukraine, like Palestinians still remember how their ancestors were expelled from their motherland by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, who established the first Jewish state in Russia.

    In February 2016, Muslim Crimean Tatar singer Susana Jamaldinova , known as Jamala, won the contest to represent Ukraine at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest in Stockholm, Sweden. She sang song 1944 in the contest written and composed by herself. The song is about the plight of 238,000 Muslim Crimean Tartars expelled from their home in Southern Ukraine by Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin. Nearly 50% of them died during deportation. Today, Crimea is mostly populated by ethnic Russian Christians and Jews.

    On February 22, Vadim Dengin, first deputy chairman of the committee of Duma (Russian parliament) urged the jury of Eurovision to ban Jamaldinova from singing the 1944 song, which highlights deportation of her grandmother along with her four sons and one daughter. It’s not a political parody against Russia. The song opens with lyrics; When strangers are coming. They come to your house, they kill you all and say: ‘We are not guilty, not guilty. Listen the song below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/23/muslim-singer-represents-ukraine-at-eurovision-2016/

    {Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands.}

    Muslims occupy Christian lands of Asia Minor.
    Muslims occupy Middle East.
    Muslims, originally confined to Arabia, have invaded and wrecked dozens and dozens of countries, murdered and ethnically cleansed 10s and 10s of millions of Christians.
    Forcibly Islamized millions.

    As to so-called “Crimean” Tatars: they are invaders, nomad Turkic tribes, from East Asia.
    They are not indigenous to Crimea.
    Stalin expelled them: but most of those expelled were allowed to return, and returned.
    They were so thankful that they participated in terrorist acts against Crimea, by recently blowing up electric transmission towers to Crimea.
    Unlike Stalin, who merely expelled them, Muslims massacre and commit genocide against Christians, whose lands they invade and takeover.
    Everywhere they invade and massacre the indigenous peoples thereafter becomes “Muslim” lands.

    And some Muslims voluntarily leave those “Muslim” lands, and live safely and comfortably in Christian countries, such as Canada and US, and continue preaching the “wonders” of Islam.
    Apparently the ultimate goal being to make these Islamic States of America.

    Read More
    • Agree: Marcus
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Well moronic history expert - people like you the whole world was Christian even the Crypto Jew Christopher Columbus who was sent by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella
    not to find a short-cut to 'spice land' of India but to liberate Jerusalem stolen from Christian Franks.

    On May 24, 2012, Charles Garcia, Jewish CEO of Garcia Trujillo, in a CNN Op-Ed claimed that Christopher Columbus (Cristóbal Colón in Spanish) was a secret Jew whose 1492 voyage was funded by a couple of rich Jews and not by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella as the Christian historian want the world to believe.

    Garcia also claimed that Columbus voyage was not meant to reach the spice-rich India but to liberate Jerusalem from Muslims.

    how is that truth from your Jewish history, Moshe?

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/10/15/columbus-sailed-to-liberate-jerusalem-from-muslims/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Greasy William

    Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII
     
    Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing.

    NATO would crush your crappy army in a matter of hours. France by itself would probably beat you.

    Forgot Stalingrad, did you? But you’re right in that if Germany hadn’t lost they would have won.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII.

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. }

    Red Army was busy grinding the "Master" scum into hamburger meat: takes a while to process it.

    “Master” scum garbage ready to fertilize rich Russian soil: Master Worm Food.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg

    Master scum scarecrow being owned by Russian ‘subhuman’: Nice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E0406-0022-011,_Russland,_deutscher_Kriegsgefangener.jpg

    Red Army flag over the Reichsruins of the “Master” scum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag#/media/File:Reichstag_flag_original.jpg


    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.

    ['Refugees' Harass Women in Russian Nightclub, Are Promptly Beaten and Sent to Prison
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/refugees-harass-women-russian-nightclub-are-promptly-beaten-and-sent-prison/ri12684
    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.
     
    Well, yes and no. The Red Army only really defended Ukraine and Russia. They blew out of the Baltics very quickly and expended a lot of energy further inland uprooting industry. One of the things that it's vitally important to remember is that the Russians have traditionally been very comfortable ceding territory because it's a huge country and winter will come eventually, at which point they have the clear advantage.

    Why did it take so long for the Soviets to re-take the territory lost in Barbarossa? Mainly because until 1943 there was no second front, and Hitler was fanatical about allowing his generals to retreat to defensible lines.
    , @Mark Eugenikos

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.
     
    And if you knew history, as you apparently don't, you'd realize that what allowed Wehrmacht to take that territory in five months was Russians leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon's armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did, which is why Germans never took Moscow. Yes, they came to within sight of it, but by then they had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes.

    When Russians made the stand, as they did in Stalingrad, they crushed German advance with their multi-layered defense.

    The reason it took Russians three and a half years to take the territory back was that Germans were actually resisting while retreating, i.e. exactly the opposite of the Russian approach under similar circumstances. Not that it did Germans any good in the end.

    If you want to avoid embarrassing yourself in public, try learning something about the topic at hand before you post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Avery says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII.
     
    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent.

    {It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. }

    Red Army was busy grinding the “Master” scum into hamburger meat: takes a while to process it.

    “Master” scum garbage ready to fertilize rich Russian soil: Master Worm Food.

    Master scum scarecrow being owned by Russian ‘subhuman’: Nice.

    Red Army flag over the Reichsruins of the “Master” scum.

    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.

    [‘Refugees’ Harass Women in Russian Nightclub, Are Promptly Beaten and Sent to Prison

    @Regnum Nostrum

    This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments. As a matter of fact you have not negated a single one. The fact is a fact. Yes, in the end the Red Army prevailed but only after long and exhaustive fight and with a lot of help. By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. My point, which you obviously did not get being blinded by personal feelings, was to show the contrast in situation during WW2 and a possible conflict today. If I were a bookmaker I would advise a bet against Russia. By the way when I bet on horses I do so without personal feelings. Affection for this or that horse plays no role. If it did I would not win many bets.
    , @Regnum Nostrum

    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.
     
    This is selective evidence and I am not sure why you call them my Neo-Nazi. They are not and never were the sort of people I would call mine. Here is a quote from BBC.

    Attacks on Germany's refugee shelters are increasingly common. Government statistics reveal that last year there were about 1,000 such attacks, five times the number reported in 2014.

     

    It looks like the German men are not as emasculated as you have concluded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @Avery
    {Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands.}

    Muslims occupy Christian lands of Asia Minor.
    Muslims occupy Middle East.
    Muslims, originally confined to Arabia, have invaded and wrecked dozens and dozens of countries, murdered and ethnically cleansed 10s and 10s of millions of Christians.
    Forcibly Islamized millions.

    As to so-called "Crimean" Tatars: they are invaders, nomad Turkic tribes, from East Asia.
    They are not indigenous to Crimea.
    Stalin expelled them: but most of those expelled were allowed to return, and returned.
    They were so thankful that they participated in terrorist acts against Crimea, by recently blowing up electric transmission towers to Crimea.
    Unlike Stalin, who merely expelled them, Muslims massacre and commit genocide against Christians, whose lands they invade and takeover.
    Everywhere they invade and massacre the indigenous peoples thereafter becomes "Muslim" lands.

    And some Muslims voluntarily leave those "Muslim" lands, and live safely and comfortably in Christian countries, such as Canada and US, and continue preaching the "wonders" of Islam.
    Apparently the ultimate goal being to make these Islamic States of America.

    Well moronic history expert – people like you the whole world was Christian even the Crypto Jew Christopher Columbus who was sent by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella
    not to find a short-cut to ‘spice land’ of India but to liberate Jerusalem stolen from Christian Franks.

    On May 24, 2012, Charles Garcia, Jewish CEO of Garcia Trujillo, in a CNN Op-Ed claimed that Christopher Columbus (Cristóbal Colón in Spanish) was a secret Jew whose 1492 voyage was funded by a couple of rich Jews and not by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella as the Christian historian want the world to believe.

    Garcia also claimed that Columbus voyage was not meant to reach the spice-rich India but to liberate Jerusalem from Muslims.

    how is that truth from your Jewish history, Moshe?

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/10/15/columbus-sailed-to-liberate-jerusalem-from-muslims/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Well moronic history expert …}

    You IslamoFascist parasitic idiot.
    You brainless troglodyte: you remember when you claimed Berezovsky is currently supporting Putin’s rival, when Berezovsky has been dead as a doornail for 3 years?
    Remember when you claimed Ottoman Turkey and Soviet Union had allegedly fought several wars?

    You are too stupid to comment about anything.
    Much less history.
    Your innate Christianophobia and IslamoFascism has fried the few malformed brain cells that you may have had.

    And why are you still living in Christian Canada, you IslamoFascist parasite.
    Go back to your homeland – Islamistan.
    Get out of our Christian lands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Avery says:
    @Rehmat
    Well moronic history expert - people like you the whole world was Christian even the Crypto Jew Christopher Columbus who was sent by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella
    not to find a short-cut to 'spice land' of India but to liberate Jerusalem stolen from Christian Franks.

    On May 24, 2012, Charles Garcia, Jewish CEO of Garcia Trujillo, in a CNN Op-Ed claimed that Christopher Columbus (Cristóbal Colón in Spanish) was a secret Jew whose 1492 voyage was funded by a couple of rich Jews and not by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella as the Christian historian want the world to believe.

    Garcia also claimed that Columbus voyage was not meant to reach the spice-rich India but to liberate Jerusalem from Muslims.

    how is that truth from your Jewish history, Moshe?

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/10/15/columbus-sailed-to-liberate-jerusalem-from-muslims/

    {Well moronic history expert …}

    You IslamoFascist parasitic idiot.
    You brainless troglodyte: you remember when you claimed Berezovsky is currently supporting Putin’s rival, when Berezovsky has been dead as a doornail for 3 years?
    Remember when you claimed Ottoman Turkey and Soviet Union had allegedly fought several wars?

    You are too stupid to comment about anything.
    Much less history.
    Your innate Christianophobia and IslamoFascism has fried the few malformed brain cells that you may have had.

    And why are you still living in Christian Canada, you IslamoFascist parasite.
    Go back to your homeland – Islamistan.
    Get out of our Christian lands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    I'm sorry Moshe - you forgot to mention the pages of your Talmud from where you copied the filthy Zionist rant.

    Israeli historian, late professor Israel Shahak in his epic book, Jewish History Jewish Religion, has exposed Talmud’s hatred of non-Jewish people, particularly hatred toward Jesus (as) his mother Saint Mary (as) and Christianity.

    Pope Francis, however, in an open letter published by Rome’s newspaper La Repubblica on September 11, 2013, defended Jewish scriptures, saying: Christians have rediscovered that the Jewish people are the holy root from which Jesus germinated.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/30/talmud-in-canadian-court/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Greasy William

    Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII
     
    Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing.

    NATO would crush your crappy army in a matter of hours. France by itself would probably beat you.

    “Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing.” I see someone has a fairly common anti-Russian understanding of WWII, in which the Soviet Red Army didn’t claim 80% of the German casualties for the entire conflict, it was all the Royal Navy blockade sinking the Bismarck, or maybe the French Resistance. In fact one wonders how Hitler even lost at all and why the Wehrmacht didn’t march all the way to Siberia and link up with the Japanese…

    “It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent.” As Avery already partially pointed out, today’s Germans are not the WWII era Germans, who incidentally besides fighting partisans in many parts of Europe nonetheless had a huge pool of manpower to draw on to help them, at least until late 1943 and 44 when most of the Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Hungarians had switched sides or quit the war. Some of the Ukro-Nazis and of course as we’re always reminded by Ukrainian nationalists and Russophobes, Vlasovites fought to the end though, because the alternative was death (and they ended up being killed or sent to the Gulags thanks to Operation Keelhaul and Eisenhower reluctantly turning them over to Stalin’s vengeance at war’s end anyway).

    I think the bitterly anti-Russian commenters here greatly exaggerate modern Europeans willingness to die for the glory of greater Banderastan or in some sort of Barbarossa 2.0. Which is kind of the point of Russia now turning from overwhelmingly nuclear to strong conventional deterrence in the first place, calling NATO’s bluff and deterring a Ukro-NATO hybrid force attacking Donbass or Crimea or Trasnistria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JamesWinstonSmith
    Oh and one more thing, with respect to RegnumNostrum's comment that Russia would have to fight any war with the USA alone while the US would have an endless pool of cannon fodder er NATO allies supporting it to the hilt...someone obviously hasn't read up on how the once mighty multiple 1980s armored divisions plus Landwehr national guard Bundeswehr is now training with broomsticks. Or looked at the RAND Corporation study of how anything less than 7 brigades permanently stationed in the Baltics and northeastern Poland including two heavy armored would basically be speed bumps to Russian troops rolling into Talinn or Riga in 72 hours

    Thank God, Russia isn't all that interested in risking a nuclear war for Narva, and unless the Balts go full Nazi on their ethnic Russian minority which is quite content to have EU passports while being able to visit Russian relatives whenever they like, that will never happen.

    https://southfront.org/reds-in-the-baltics/

    No IMO the real purpose of the 1st Guards Tank Army is to deter the U.S. Joint Chiefs, if not some neocon political leadership like Hillary divorced from reality, from the folly of combined NATO-Ukrainian forces hybrid war against Donbass or even more likely geographically vulnerable Transnistria. Given that a few thousand people (were likely paid to) recently rally in Chisinau for anschluss with Romania, which under different more peaceful circumstances Russia would have no problem with, I don't think we can exclude the possibility of the Romanians being exploited as cannon fodder against the pro-Russian exclave sandwiched between western Bessarabia aka Odessa region in Ukraine and Moldova. Again, I have no problem with Moldovans peacefully exercising their right of self-determination to join Romania. I do have a problem with that happening after Romanian tanks roll in and neocons gleefully citing the Crimea precedent while saying Putin is being hoisted by his own petard and soon Trasnistria will no longer exist due to blockade from both sides...the Moldovan border being pretty porous and open to smuggling and/or bribery at present, thus Kiev is unable to economically strangle pro-Russian Transnistria even if it were determined to do so. That is why there hasn't been war there since the early 1990s. But put Romanian tanks on Transnistria's border and start a blockade? That means war between Russia and Romania and Ukraine, if not with NATO since the Germans and French will never bleed and die for a Romanian offensive or consider occupied Moldova as opposed to Romania proper protected by NATO's Article V. Anyway let Moldova join Romania peacefully as long as Transnistria gets to join the Russian Federation, which it already kinda is.

    Clearly the EUrocrats and NATOists know that the politics of Moldova is tilting against them, as it is in Ukraine where the regime would collapse within months without the Donbass war to keep it going and excuse all of its manifold economic failures and corruption. Therefore 2017-2018 is probably the period of maximum danger for war between Russia and NATO, even if it doesn't escalate to full on direct combat between American and Russian troops, but more along the lines of the Ukrainian army suddenly getting a hell of a lot more skilled in combat than its prior inept record with GRU radio specialists detecting English, Polish and Croat coming from their lines. And then a bunch of 'Taliban suicide bombings' in Afghanistan that nobody actually films to cover up the body bags being flown back to Warsaw, Zagreb or elsewhere in Europe from Borispol airport in Kiev rather than Bagram.

    That is, the 1st Guards Tank Army is being put together for Moscow to tell Washington or more particularly the Pentagon, "Don't even think about trying to blockade Transnistria or an 'Operation Storm' repeat against Donetsk and Lugansk or we drop the hammer and this time unlike at Debaltsevo your 'vacationers' don't get out with the civilians but die where they stand or wind up on LifeNews and Zvezda with their inability to stammer out a sentence in Ukrainian or Russian as proof that YOU have been waging hybrid war in Ukraine like you alleged we've been doing".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @JamesWinstonSmith
    "Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing." I see someone has a fairly common anti-Russian understanding of WWII, in which the Soviet Red Army didn't claim 80% of the German casualties for the entire conflict, it was all the Royal Navy blockade sinking the Bismarck, or maybe the French Resistance. In fact one wonders how Hitler even lost at all and why the Wehrmacht didn't march all the way to Siberia and link up with the Japanese...

    "It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent." As Avery already partially pointed out, today's Germans are not the WWII era Germans, who incidentally besides fighting partisans in many parts of Europe nonetheless had a huge pool of manpower to draw on to help them, at least until late 1943 and 44 when most of the Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians and Hungarians had switched sides or quit the war. Some of the Ukro-Nazis and of course as we're always reminded by Ukrainian nationalists and Russophobes, Vlasovites fought to the end though, because the alternative was death (and they ended up being killed or sent to the Gulags thanks to Operation Keelhaul and Eisenhower reluctantly turning them over to Stalin's vengeance at war's end anyway).

    I think the bitterly anti-Russian commenters here greatly exaggerate modern Europeans willingness to die for the glory of greater Banderastan or in some sort of Barbarossa 2.0. Which is kind of the point of Russia now turning from overwhelmingly nuclear to strong conventional deterrence in the first place, calling NATO's bluff and deterring a Ukro-NATO hybrid force attacking Donbass or Crimea or Trasnistria.

    Oh and one more thing, with respect to RegnumNostrum’s comment that Russia would have to fight any war with the USA alone while the US would have an endless pool of cannon fodder er NATO allies supporting it to the hilt…someone obviously hasn’t read up on how the once mighty multiple 1980s armored divisions plus Landwehr national guard Bundeswehr is now training with broomsticks. Or looked at the RAND Corporation study of how anything less than 7 brigades permanently stationed in the Baltics and northeastern Poland including two heavy armored would basically be speed bumps to Russian troops rolling into Talinn or Riga in 72 hours

    Thank God, Russia isn’t all that interested in risking a nuclear war for Narva, and unless the Balts go full Nazi on their ethnic Russian minority which is quite content to have EU passports while being able to visit Russian relatives whenever they like, that will never happen.

    https://southfront.org/reds-in-the-baltics/

    No IMO the real purpose of the 1st Guards Tank Army is to deter the U.S. Joint Chiefs, if not some neocon political leadership like Hillary divorced from reality, from the folly of combined NATO-Ukrainian forces hybrid war against Donbass or even more likely geographically vulnerable Transnistria. Given that a few thousand people (were likely paid to) recently rally in Chisinau for anschluss with Romania, which under different more peaceful circumstances Russia would have no problem with, I don’t think we can exclude the possibility of the Romanians being exploited as cannon fodder against the pro-Russian exclave sandwiched between western Bessarabia aka Odessa region in Ukraine and Moldova. Again, I have no problem with Moldovans peacefully exercising their right of self-determination to join Romania. I do have a problem with that happening after Romanian tanks roll in and neocons gleefully citing the Crimea precedent while saying Putin is being hoisted by his own petard and soon Trasnistria will no longer exist due to blockade from both sides…the Moldovan border being pretty porous and open to smuggling and/or bribery at present, thus Kiev is unable to economically strangle pro-Russian Transnistria even if it were determined to do so. That is why there hasn’t been war there since the early 1990s. But put Romanian tanks on Transnistria’s border and start a blockade? That means war between Russia and Romania and Ukraine, if not with NATO since the Germans and French will never bleed and die for a Romanian offensive or consider occupied Moldova as opposed to Romania proper protected by NATO’s Article V. Anyway let Moldova join Romania peacefully as long as Transnistria gets to join the Russian Federation, which it already kinda is.

    Clearly the EUrocrats and NATOists know that the politics of Moldova is tilting against them, as it is in Ukraine where the regime would collapse within months without the Donbass war to keep it going and excuse all of its manifold economic failures and corruption. Therefore 2017-2018 is probably the period of maximum danger for war between Russia and NATO, even if it doesn’t escalate to full on direct combat between American and Russian troops, but more along the lines of the Ukrainian army suddenly getting a hell of a lot more skilled in combat than its prior inept record with GRU radio specialists detecting English, Polish and Croat coming from their lines. And then a bunch of ‘Taliban suicide bombings’ in Afghanistan that nobody actually films to cover up the body bags being flown back to Warsaw, Zagreb or elsewhere in Europe from Borispol airport in Kiev rather than Bagram.

    That is, the 1st Guards Tank Army is being put together for Moscow to tell Washington or more particularly the Pentagon, “Don’t even think about trying to blockade Transnistria or an ‘Operation Storm’ repeat against Donetsk and Lugansk or we drop the hammer and this time unlike at Debaltsevo your ‘vacationers’ don’t get out with the civilians but die where they stand or wind up on LifeNews and Zvezda with their inability to stammer out a sentence in Ukrainian or Russian as proof that YOU have been waging hybrid war in Ukraine like you alleged we’ve been doing”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You've been paying attention to this, haven't you? This maneuvering reminds me of two previous wars. Around 1962 India and China fought a brief border war. The Indian politicians pushed Indian troops into militarily indefensible positions as a political move. The Chinese attack astounded the Indian politicans and routed the Indian military (who, to their credit fought bravely, but indefensible positions are indefensible). Similarly, in the run-up to the Falklands War, the Argentine politicians, and even military, invaded the Falklands as a political gesture. They were flabbergasted when the British responded militarily. The same effect was portrayed in Rocky I when one of Apollo Creed's cornermen says, "This guy don't know it's a show: he thinks it's a fight!"

    I could see something like this happening in the Baltic or Ukraine/Crimea/Transnistria/Whereever. The U.S. gets involved thinking that the situation can be finessed politically and the Russians come out swinging. Then President Hillary Clinton is confronted with either reaching for the nuclear option (insane, but it's there) or watching thousands of American prisoners marching into captivity. I hope that the Joint Chiefs can dissuade this kind of adventurism, but the girly-men may not be able to say no to Hillary and the other Horsegirls of the Apocalypse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @JamesWinstonSmith
    Oh and one more thing, with respect to RegnumNostrum's comment that Russia would have to fight any war with the USA alone while the US would have an endless pool of cannon fodder er NATO allies supporting it to the hilt...someone obviously hasn't read up on how the once mighty multiple 1980s armored divisions plus Landwehr national guard Bundeswehr is now training with broomsticks. Or looked at the RAND Corporation study of how anything less than 7 brigades permanently stationed in the Baltics and northeastern Poland including two heavy armored would basically be speed bumps to Russian troops rolling into Talinn or Riga in 72 hours

    Thank God, Russia isn't all that interested in risking a nuclear war for Narva, and unless the Balts go full Nazi on their ethnic Russian minority which is quite content to have EU passports while being able to visit Russian relatives whenever they like, that will never happen.

    https://southfront.org/reds-in-the-baltics/

    No IMO the real purpose of the 1st Guards Tank Army is to deter the U.S. Joint Chiefs, if not some neocon political leadership like Hillary divorced from reality, from the folly of combined NATO-Ukrainian forces hybrid war against Donbass or even more likely geographically vulnerable Transnistria. Given that a few thousand people (were likely paid to) recently rally in Chisinau for anschluss with Romania, which under different more peaceful circumstances Russia would have no problem with, I don't think we can exclude the possibility of the Romanians being exploited as cannon fodder against the pro-Russian exclave sandwiched between western Bessarabia aka Odessa region in Ukraine and Moldova. Again, I have no problem with Moldovans peacefully exercising their right of self-determination to join Romania. I do have a problem with that happening after Romanian tanks roll in and neocons gleefully citing the Crimea precedent while saying Putin is being hoisted by his own petard and soon Trasnistria will no longer exist due to blockade from both sides...the Moldovan border being pretty porous and open to smuggling and/or bribery at present, thus Kiev is unable to economically strangle pro-Russian Transnistria even if it were determined to do so. That is why there hasn't been war there since the early 1990s. But put Romanian tanks on Transnistria's border and start a blockade? That means war between Russia and Romania and Ukraine, if not with NATO since the Germans and French will never bleed and die for a Romanian offensive or consider occupied Moldova as opposed to Romania proper protected by NATO's Article V. Anyway let Moldova join Romania peacefully as long as Transnistria gets to join the Russian Federation, which it already kinda is.

    Clearly the EUrocrats and NATOists know that the politics of Moldova is tilting against them, as it is in Ukraine where the regime would collapse within months without the Donbass war to keep it going and excuse all of its manifold economic failures and corruption. Therefore 2017-2018 is probably the period of maximum danger for war between Russia and NATO, even if it doesn't escalate to full on direct combat between American and Russian troops, but more along the lines of the Ukrainian army suddenly getting a hell of a lot more skilled in combat than its prior inept record with GRU radio specialists detecting English, Polish and Croat coming from their lines. And then a bunch of 'Taliban suicide bombings' in Afghanistan that nobody actually films to cover up the body bags being flown back to Warsaw, Zagreb or elsewhere in Europe from Borispol airport in Kiev rather than Bagram.

    That is, the 1st Guards Tank Army is being put together for Moscow to tell Washington or more particularly the Pentagon, "Don't even think about trying to blockade Transnistria or an 'Operation Storm' repeat against Donetsk and Lugansk or we drop the hammer and this time unlike at Debaltsevo your 'vacationers' don't get out with the civilians but die where they stand or wind up on LifeNews and Zvezda with their inability to stammer out a sentence in Ukrainian or Russian as proof that YOU have been waging hybrid war in Ukraine like you alleged we've been doing".

    You’ve been paying attention to this, haven’t you? This maneuvering reminds me of two previous wars. Around 1962 India and China fought a brief border war. The Indian politicians pushed Indian troops into militarily indefensible positions as a political move. The Chinese attack astounded the Indian politicans and routed the Indian military (who, to their credit fought bravely, but indefensible positions are indefensible). Similarly, in the run-up to the Falklands War, the Argentine politicians, and even military, invaded the Falklands as a political gesture. They were flabbergasted when the British responded militarily. The same effect was portrayed in Rocky I when one of Apollo Creed’s cornermen says, “This guy don’t know it’s a show: he thinks it’s a fight!”

    I could see something like this happening in the Baltic or Ukraine/Crimea/Transnistria/Whereever. The U.S. gets involved thinking that the situation can be finessed politically and the Russians come out swinging. Then President Hillary Clinton is confronted with either reaching for the nuclear option (insane, but it’s there) or watching thousands of American prisoners marching into captivity. I hope that the Joint Chiefs can dissuade this kind of adventurism, but the girly-men may not be able to say no to Hillary and the other Horsegirls of the Apocalypse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    We need a coup. I want to see the military execute our traitorous globaliat politicians on national TV.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Avery
    {It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. }

    Red Army was busy grinding the "Master" scum into hamburger meat: takes a while to process it.

    “Master” scum garbage ready to fertilize rich Russian soil: Master Worm Food.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg

    Master scum scarecrow being owned by Russian ‘subhuman’: Nice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E0406-0022-011,_Russland,_deutscher_Kriegsgefangener.jpg

    Red Army flag over the Reichsruins of the “Master” scum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag#/media/File:Reichstag_flag_original.jpg


    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.

    ['Refugees' Harass Women in Russian Nightclub, Are Promptly Beaten and Sent to Prison
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/refugees-harass-women-russian-nightclub-are-promptly-beaten-and-sent-prison/ri12684

    This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments. As a matter of fact you have not negated a single one. The fact is a fact. Yes, in the end the Red Army prevailed but only after long and exhaustive fight and with a lot of help. By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. My point, which you obviously did not get being blinded by personal feelings, was to show the contrast in situation during WW2 and a possible conflict today. If I were a bookmaker I would advise a bet against Russia. By the way when I bet on horses I do so without personal feelings. Affection for this or that horse plays no role. If it did I would not win many bets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I would bet the farm on your not being able to get it up.
    , @Avery
    {This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments.}

    Show me exactly in which one of my posts did I say anything about Russian army being invincible.

    { By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. }

    "five times as many": not true.

    Military deaths from all causes:
    Germans: about 5 million.
    Soviets: about 10 million.

    Civilians deaths due to direct military activity:
    Germans: about 3 million.
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Civilians deaths due to ware related causes (famine, diseases):
    Germans: ?
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Considering that about 80% of German losses were on the Eastern front, we’ll say German military losses were 4 million there.
    So it is not 5-to-1. It's about 2.5-to-1.

    So the "fives times as many Russians" is your Nazis forefathers murdering Soviet civilians. No doubt you are proud.

    And nobody disputes that Nazi troops were better trained and better led when they invaded USSR.
    Nobody disputes that incompetent Stalin caused the unnecessary loss of millions of Soviet troops, as he forbade retreat, and caused the encirclement and annihilation of entire armies. Stalin’s one saving grace was that at some point he realized he is incompetent, and turned the management of the war to professional soldiers like Marshal Zhukov.

    And nobody disputes that Red Army banner was raised over the remains of the 1,000 year Reich, and that “subhumans” pissed on the ashes of your dear Fuhrer.

    Heil Hitler.

    , @bluedog
    Yes we here in the U.S. did give them a lot of help, but in my book and I'm sure to anyone with a rational mind it was a hell of a lot cheaper than the thousands of allied body bags that would have come floating home,and don't be obsessed with a war with Russia for its never going to happen for unlike Korea Nam Iraq and Afghanistan where we took a beating Russia can give us some real hurt,so you warmongers go back to your drawing board and try again.!!
    , @rod1963
    Remember that was 70 years ago dude. Times and armies have changed.

    The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest armies ever fielded prior to Stalingrad. Today it's non-existent.

    And our modern Army is in no way comparable to that machine either. It's small, infested with political commisars that make sure females and minorities are taken care of, casualty adverse because it's all-vol.

    Really how could we control Russia with say 4 Army and a Marine division and a couple hundred special ops goons?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Avery
    {It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. }

    Red Army was busy grinding the "Master" scum into hamburger meat: takes a while to process it.

    “Master” scum garbage ready to fertilize rich Russian soil: Master Worm Food.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg

    Master scum scarecrow being owned by Russian ‘subhuman’: Nice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E0406-0022-011,_Russland,_deutscher_Kriegsgefangener.jpg

    Red Army flag over the Reichsruins of the “Master” scum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag#/media/File:Reichstag_flag_original.jpg


    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.

    ['Refugees' Harass Women in Russian Nightclub, Are Promptly Beaten and Sent to Prison
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/refugees-harass-women-russian-nightclub-are-promptly-beaten-and-sent-prison/ri12684

    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.

    This is selective evidence and I am not sure why you call them my Neo-Nazi. They are not and never were the sort of people I would call mine. Here is a quote from BBC.

    Attacks on Germany’s refugee shelters are increasingly common. Government statistics reveal that last year there were about 1,000 such attacks, five times the number reported in 2014.

    It looks like the German men are not as emasculated as you have concluded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {It looks like the German men are not as emasculated as you have concluded.}

    I have no idea who they were attacking and what does "attack" really mean.
    Were they throwing stuff randomly at refugee camps, which might also contain women and children?

    When German girly-boys beat the s___ out of those young men mass-assaulting German women as in Cologne - the same kind of beating they got from Russian men - you can post it and I'll apologize and take my "German girly-boys" remark back.

    OK?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.

    The shortage of fuel and rubber that dogged Germany throughout the war? Wouldn’t have existed. The German war economy would have produced more weaponry than did Britain and Canada combined, historically; and that is without even considering all the resources Germany would have saved from not needing to fight the U-boat war and develop alternative fuels.

    The US and UK sent the Soviets massive amount of food, trucks, radios and machine tools. Without all this you are not just looking at a less effective Red Army, but probably outright famine in the Soviet Union and Soviet industry being unable to replace the massive material losses of the wars first 2 years, if they even made it that long.

    The US/UK also tied down the overwhelming majority of Italian and Japanese forces, who would themselves been dramatically more effective with no Allied blockade to cripple their industries. And the Russians can keep the US/UK from throwing their lot in with the Axis as well.

    And it was the Allies that tied down and ultimately destroyed the Luftwaffe, without which you can forget about the Soviet air supremacy in 1944 that allowed Operation Bagration to be such a massive success.

    It’s not that the Germans would have beaten the Soviets if not for the western Allies, it’s that it wouldn’t have even been remotely close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I beg to differ.

    After the initial impact of Barbarossa and the stalling of the Wehrmacht outside Moscow, the Soviets rallied. They even managed to relocate some industry from Ukraine and Belarus to the Soviet interior before those territories were entirely in Nazi hands. They were also sure to call for partisan warfare, which was both nearly guaranteed because of the way the Nazis comported themselves and quite effective in the long term, tying down Waffen-SS units and Wehrmacht units for months.

    With industry relocated and no need to worry about human rights, given its authoritarian system, the USSR proceeded to out-produce the Nazis, particularly in tanks, at a rate of at least two to one. Though the tanks were patently inferior to German tanks, in the end the sheer volume of them made them more effective.

    The Nazis, meanwhile, were chronically strapped for labor and didn't even mobilize their whole economy until after Stalingrad. Though it's possible that Germany might have mobilized for total war earlier without the UK and US in the picture, it isn't likely given what we know about Nazi economic policy from the first eight years of their rule.

    Given these factors, I rather think that US/UK involvement shortened the war considerably but did not guarantee the win for the Soviets. The Nazi failure to take Moscow in the first thrust took care of that; Halder and others in the high command expressed similar opinions. Moreover, it's likely that US/UK military policy in Europe was primarily designed to stop the USSR from swallowing Europe whole. Without the Western Allies in the fight, Europe would have been entirely under Soviet control by 1950. IMO
    , @Avery
    {No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.}

    The so-called serious-historians are Western revisionists, primarily British.
    The myth that Anglo-American help, such as it was, was the reason for Soviet victory over Nazi Germany has been debunked more than once.

    It's an open secret that Churchill was hoping that Hitler and Stalin would annihilate each other.
    That is the reason the Normandy landing was repeatedly delayed until 1944: Stalin kept practically begging US and UK to open a second front, as Nazis were driving deeper into USSR, but Churchill and Roosevelt (under Churchill's spell) kept stalling.

    By 1944 Red Army was closing in on Hitler's lair:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#/media/File:Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png

    Despite enormous losses in manpower since Nazi invasion, the Red Army still had seemingly inexhaustible supply of men. Germans had no fighting age men left by then.
    Here is what was left of German manpower in 1945.
    https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlerjugend#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J31305,_Auszeichnung_des_Hitlerjungen_Willi_H%C3%BCbner.jpg

    US and UK landed in Normandy not to help USSR, but to prevent the Red Army from reaching the English Channel.
    , @Jon Halpenny
    "No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support. "

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943. Remember the U boats were not defeated until mid 1943. In 1942 the British had to suspend the Arctic convoys because of the loss of convoy PQ 17. Also it was Britain not the USSR which received the most Lend-Lease supplies in 1942-43. Despite this, the USSR achieved the huge victories of Stalingrad and Kursk, largely on its own resources. By 1943, it was obvious Germany had lost the war on the Eastern front.
    , @Anonymous
    "Massive"western shipments of arms? The outsides estimates of US aid was about 4.5% of war material. There were planes but they were obsolete such as the Buffalo fighter of 1932 design and cloth wings. The items that were useful however were C ration, insulated boots and Studibaker trucks. There are monuments to the trucks in Eastern Europe. Western opinion that the US was the savior of the Red Army is common but it contradicts the archive records and policy of the times. The USSR was essentially fighting alone in a war that was almost entirely an Eastern Front war.
    War is coming, Clinton has a true passion for war and her horrible performance as SoS has even been admitted to by Obama who has stated in a recent interview that his biggest regret was allowing Clinton talk him into wars on Libya and others [meaning Ukraine and Syria] which created the new cold war. It is not much secret that he asked her to leave office. The neocons loyal to Cheney are well entrenched in the State Department so they will have reason to rejoice when one of their own becomes president. Victoria Nuland's husband is her chief foreign policy advisor and it is quite likely Nuland herself will become SoS under Clinton so an Era of empire expansion and larger wars begins. Russia knows this so is preparing. So are the Chinese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments. As a matter of fact you have not negated a single one. The fact is a fact. Yes, in the end the Red Army prevailed but only after long and exhaustive fight and with a lot of help. By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. My point, which you obviously did not get being blinded by personal feelings, was to show the contrast in situation during WW2 and a possible conflict today. If I were a bookmaker I would advise a bet against Russia. By the way when I bet on horses I do so without personal feelings. Affection for this or that horse plays no role. If it did I would not win many bets.

    I would bet the farm on your not being able to get it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    5371. Why do you always project your own experience onto others?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Greasy William
    No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.

    The shortage of fuel and rubber that dogged Germany throughout the war? Wouldn't have existed. The German war economy would have produced more weaponry than did Britain and Canada combined, historically; and that is without even considering all the resources Germany would have saved from not needing to fight the U-boat war and develop alternative fuels.

    The US and UK sent the Soviets massive amount of food, trucks, radios and machine tools. Without all this you are not just looking at a less effective Red Army, but probably outright famine in the Soviet Union and Soviet industry being unable to replace the massive material losses of the wars first 2 years, if they even made it that long.

    The US/UK also tied down the overwhelming majority of Italian and Japanese forces, who would themselves been dramatically more effective with no Allied blockade to cripple their industries. And the Russians can keep the US/UK from throwing their lot in with the Axis as well.

    And it was the Allies that tied down and ultimately destroyed the Luftwaffe, without which you can forget about the Soviet air supremacy in 1944 that allowed Operation Bagration to be such a massive success.

    It's not that the Germans would have beaten the Soviets if not for the western Allies, it's that it wouldn't have even been remotely close.

    I beg to differ.

    After the initial impact of Barbarossa and the stalling of the Wehrmacht outside Moscow, the Soviets rallied. They even managed to relocate some industry from Ukraine and Belarus to the Soviet interior before those territories were entirely in Nazi hands. They were also sure to call for partisan warfare, which was both nearly guaranteed because of the way the Nazis comported themselves and quite effective in the long term, tying down Waffen-SS units and Wehrmacht units for months.

    With industry relocated and no need to worry about human rights, given its authoritarian system, the USSR proceeded to out-produce the Nazis, particularly in tanks, at a rate of at least two to one. Though the tanks were patently inferior to German tanks, in the end the sheer volume of them made them more effective.

    The Nazis, meanwhile, were chronically strapped for labor and didn’t even mobilize their whole economy until after Stalingrad. Though it’s possible that Germany might have mobilized for total war earlier without the UK and US in the picture, it isn’t likely given what we know about Nazi economic policy from the first eight years of their rule.

    Given these factors, I rather think that US/UK involvement shortened the war considerably but did not guarantee the win for the Soviets. The Nazi failure to take Moscow in the first thrust took care of that; Halder and others in the high command expressed similar opinions. Moreover, it’s likely that US/UK military policy in Europe was primarily designed to stop the USSR from swallowing Europe whole. Without the Western Allies in the fight, Europe would have been entirely under Soviet control by 1950. IMO

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Although I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don't agree that Soviet tanks were patently inferior to their German counterparts. At the beginning of the war, the Germans were unpleasantly surprised by the T-34 and KV-1; nothing that the Germans had could compete: the Panzer III had only a 5cm cannon and the Panzer IV had a low velocity 7.5cm gun, neither of which had much capability to penetrate the T-34's or KV-1's frontal armor. The T-34 also had wide tracks that permitted it to move over ground that bogged down German tanks and a superior road wheel system (designed by an American engineer, J. Walter Christie, that the U.S. Army had rejected). The German response was to upgun the Panzer IV to a high-velocity 7.5cm gun and build the Panzer V Panther, Panzer VI Tiger I and II, plus a series of turretless tank destroyers. The Panther was superior to the T-34 (which the Russians upgunned to an 8.5cm cannon in place of the 7.6cm gun of the original), but the Germans produced only about 5,000, while the Russians produced over 50,000 T-34s, plus some turretless tank destroyers based on the T-34 chassis. The ease with which the T-34 could be produced was one of its oustanding features.

    So I would amend your post to say that German tanks were somewhat superior, on a tank-per-tank basis to the Soviet ones, but on the whole Soviet armor was better than German armor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:

    http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/99spring/hooker.htm

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk”

    Map just look at the ground covered by 9 July (ie before the unnecessary 6 week halt infront of the land bridge to Moscow. According to The Blitzkrieg Campaigns: Germany’s Lightning War Strategy in Action by John Delaney, at this point Stalin was informed by his military commander that the road to Moscow was essentially open, with the greatest weakness a no more tanks available.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.

    “In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies” Here.

    Germany is an advanced country and now Russia’s capital has managed to catch up with its namesake (55° North) Scottish village, and has a metaled road to it. The Russians had good weapons in WW2 but read ‘National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union’ to find out where the technology came from, and who designed those big factories in the USSR.

    Germany with nuclear weapons and thus able to fight a conventional war against Russia would crush it easily. Khrushchev knew this and that is why he was terrified when Eisenhower started moving toward giving Germany some say in nukes and maybe even their own, and started to try risky gambits like Cuba. See here and especially here. Lucky for Russia they now have nothing anybody wants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Long discredited rubbish from a fool.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    May you be visited by three ghosts who will speak to you on the perils of underestimating Russian military capability: Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.
    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.
     
    Interesting. Kiev didn't even fall until September. So are you saying that the general were going to have a go at Moscow without their rear area secure? Got to go with Hitler on that decision, then.
    , @Mark Eugenikos

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk
     
    I'll post a version of the comment I used to reply to #10, Regnum Nostrum:

    Ever heard of such a thing as leading someone into a trap? The reason Guderian and Hoth advanced that fast was that Russians were leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon's armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.
     
    Nonsense. By that time Germans had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes, courtesy of the aforementioned broken supply lines, courtesy of not having learned a lesson from Napoleon. What Hitler wanted or didn't want by that time was irrelevant. Read Otto Skorzeny's memoirs if you want first-hand account of why Germans never took Moscow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Those photos of the defense ministers are pure gold. Can’t stop laughing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Andrew E. Mathis
    I beg to differ.

    After the initial impact of Barbarossa and the stalling of the Wehrmacht outside Moscow, the Soviets rallied. They even managed to relocate some industry from Ukraine and Belarus to the Soviet interior before those territories were entirely in Nazi hands. They were also sure to call for partisan warfare, which was both nearly guaranteed because of the way the Nazis comported themselves and quite effective in the long term, tying down Waffen-SS units and Wehrmacht units for months.

    With industry relocated and no need to worry about human rights, given its authoritarian system, the USSR proceeded to out-produce the Nazis, particularly in tanks, at a rate of at least two to one. Though the tanks were patently inferior to German tanks, in the end the sheer volume of them made them more effective.

    The Nazis, meanwhile, were chronically strapped for labor and didn't even mobilize their whole economy until after Stalingrad. Though it's possible that Germany might have mobilized for total war earlier without the UK and US in the picture, it isn't likely given what we know about Nazi economic policy from the first eight years of their rule.

    Given these factors, I rather think that US/UK involvement shortened the war considerably but did not guarantee the win for the Soviets. The Nazi failure to take Moscow in the first thrust took care of that; Halder and others in the high command expressed similar opinions. Moreover, it's likely that US/UK military policy in Europe was primarily designed to stop the USSR from swallowing Europe whole. Without the Western Allies in the fight, Europe would have been entirely under Soviet control by 1950. IMO

    Although I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don’t agree that Soviet tanks were patently inferior to their German counterparts. At the beginning of the war, the Germans were unpleasantly surprised by the T-34 and KV-1; nothing that the Germans had could compete: the Panzer III had only a 5cm cannon and the Panzer IV had a low velocity 7.5cm gun, neither of which had much capability to penetrate the T-34′s or KV-1′s frontal armor. The T-34 also had wide tracks that permitted it to move over ground that bogged down German tanks and a superior road wheel system (designed by an American engineer, J. Walter Christie, that the U.S. Army had rejected). The German response was to upgun the Panzer IV to a high-velocity 7.5cm gun and build the Panzer V Panther, Panzer VI Tiger I and II, plus a series of turretless tank destroyers. The Panther was superior to the T-34 (which the Russians upgunned to an 8.5cm cannon in place of the 7.6cm gun of the original), but the Germans produced only about 5,000, while the Russians produced over 50,000 T-34s, plus some turretless tank destroyers based on the T-34 chassis. The ease with which the T-34 could be produced was one of its oustanding features.

    So I would amend your post to say that German tanks were somewhat superior, on a tank-per-tank basis to the Soviet ones, but on the whole Soviet armor was better than German armor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Right.

    The T-34, in addition to wide tracks and excellent Christie-design-based suspension system, as you noted, had revolutionary sloped armor, which increased its effective thickness, without adding unnecessary weight. Germans were so impressed with the T-34, that they copied it in the Panther, sloped armor and all.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H26258,_Panzer_V_%22Panther%22.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#/media/File:Char_T-34.jpg
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    Thanks for the correction.
    , @animalogic
    I agree with your assessment of German/Russian tanks. It's also worth noting that German tank tactics were generally more advanced than Russian tactics, especially in the early stages of the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Avery says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments. As a matter of fact you have not negated a single one. The fact is a fact. Yes, in the end the Red Army prevailed but only after long and exhaustive fight and with a lot of help. By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. My point, which you obviously did not get being blinded by personal feelings, was to show the contrast in situation during WW2 and a possible conflict today. If I were a bookmaker I would advise a bet against Russia. By the way when I bet on horses I do so without personal feelings. Affection for this or that horse plays no role. If it did I would not win many bets.

    {This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments.}

    Show me exactly in which one of my posts did I say anything about Russian army being invincible.

    { By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. }

    “five times as many”: not true.

    Military deaths from all causes:
    Germans: about 5 million.
    Soviets: about 10 million.

    Civilians deaths due to direct military activity:
    Germans: about 3 million.
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Civilians deaths due to ware related causes (famine, diseases):
    Germans: ?
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Considering that about 80% of German losses were on the Eastern front, we’ll say German military losses were 4 million there.
    So it is not 5-to-1. It’s about 2.5-to-1.

    So the “fives times as many Russians” is your Nazis forefathers murdering Soviet civilians. No doubt you are proud.

    And nobody disputes that Nazi troops were better trained and better led when they invaded USSR.
    Nobody disputes that incompetent Stalin caused the unnecessary loss of millions of Soviet troops, as he forbade retreat, and caused the encirclement and annihilation of entire armies. Stalin’s one saving grace was that at some point he realized he is incompetent, and turned the management of the war to professional soldiers like Marshal Zhukov.

    And nobody disputes that Red Army banner was raised over the remains of the 1,000 year Reich, and that “subhumans” pissed on the ashes of your dear Fuhrer.

    Heil Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
    You sound rather miffed. Since you have no credentials as a historian and since most historians put the losses from twenty seven to thirty millions for the Russians and six to seven millions for the Germans it seems that your ratio 2,5:1 is not a correct one. As far as killing civilians the Russians had their share once they reached Germany. I am also puzzled by your claim about my Nazi forefathers. My paternal grandfather was a Russian and my maternal grandfather was a Pole. As far as I know none of them was a member of NSDAP. My paternal grandmother was a German but she continued to send her children to Czech schools during occupation in spite of pressure from Gestapo to send them to German school. After the war she was one of the few Germans allowed to stay in the Czechoslovakia. By making unfounded and outrageous statements of this sort you only destroy your credibility. I am also not sure why I should be proud of Germans killing Russian civilians. When people go to war my only feeling is sadness at human inability to solve problems peacefully. We can argue back and forth but it will not change the fact that today Russia with its greatly diminished territory and population is confronted by a much larger array of enemies. It will most likely lose the struggle with the West whether we like it or not. Will I be proud of it? No.
    , @Marcus
    Stalin stubbornly refusing retreat was certainly a blessing in the long run, it bought the Soviets time to regroup, of course at a grievous cost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Avery says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    About your Neo-Nazi wannabes: pussyfied, emasculated German “men” stood around and watched while their women were sexually molested and raped by unarmed ‘rapefugees’.
    Thems German girly-boys will sure strike fear in the hearts of Russian men.
     
    This is selective evidence and I am not sure why you call them my Neo-Nazi. They are not and never were the sort of people I would call mine. Here is a quote from BBC.

    Attacks on Germany's refugee shelters are increasingly common. Government statistics reveal that last year there were about 1,000 such attacks, five times the number reported in 2014.

     

    It looks like the German men are not as emasculated as you have concluded.

    {It looks like the German men are not as emasculated as you have concluded.}

    I have no idea who they were attacking and what does “attack” really mean.
    Were they throwing stuff randomly at refugee camps, which might also contain women and children?

    When German girly-boys beat the s___ out of those young men mass-assaulting German women as in Cologne – the same kind of beating they got from Russian men – you can post it and I’ll apologize and take my “German girly-boys” remark back.

    OK?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Avery says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Although I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don't agree that Soviet tanks were patently inferior to their German counterparts. At the beginning of the war, the Germans were unpleasantly surprised by the T-34 and KV-1; nothing that the Germans had could compete: the Panzer III had only a 5cm cannon and the Panzer IV had a low velocity 7.5cm gun, neither of which had much capability to penetrate the T-34's or KV-1's frontal armor. The T-34 also had wide tracks that permitted it to move over ground that bogged down German tanks and a superior road wheel system (designed by an American engineer, J. Walter Christie, that the U.S. Army had rejected). The German response was to upgun the Panzer IV to a high-velocity 7.5cm gun and build the Panzer V Panther, Panzer VI Tiger I and II, plus a series of turretless tank destroyers. The Panther was superior to the T-34 (which the Russians upgunned to an 8.5cm cannon in place of the 7.6cm gun of the original), but the Germans produced only about 5,000, while the Russians produced over 50,000 T-34s, plus some turretless tank destroyers based on the T-34 chassis. The ease with which the T-34 could be produced was one of its oustanding features.

    So I would amend your post to say that German tanks were somewhat superior, on a tank-per-tank basis to the Soviet ones, but on the whole Soviet armor was better than German armor.

    Right.

    The T-34, in addition to wide tracks and excellent Christie-design-based suspension system, as you noted, had revolutionary sloped armor, which increased its effective thickness, without adding unnecessary weight. Germans were so impressed with the T-34, that they copied it in the Panther, sloped armor and all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    What I heard from a German whose father fought at the Eastern Front was that T-34 was using the same engine as the main Russian truck. So when a T-34 engine would fail, they would get troops out of a truck and the mechanics would transfer the engine from the truck into the tank, in something like 2 hours. The troops would have to walk, but at least they would be protected by a moving armor. The German tanks did not fail often, but when they did in the inhospitable Russian weather and muddy land, it was bye-bye armor and welcome mass surrender.

    The Germans really never had a chance to win the Eastern Front, with a negligible material contribution by the Western allies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Diversity Heretic
    Although I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don't agree that Soviet tanks were patently inferior to their German counterparts. At the beginning of the war, the Germans were unpleasantly surprised by the T-34 and KV-1; nothing that the Germans had could compete: the Panzer III had only a 5cm cannon and the Panzer IV had a low velocity 7.5cm gun, neither of which had much capability to penetrate the T-34's or KV-1's frontal armor. The T-34 also had wide tracks that permitted it to move over ground that bogged down German tanks and a superior road wheel system (designed by an American engineer, J. Walter Christie, that the U.S. Army had rejected). The German response was to upgun the Panzer IV to a high-velocity 7.5cm gun and build the Panzer V Panther, Panzer VI Tiger I and II, plus a series of turretless tank destroyers. The Panther was superior to the T-34 (which the Russians upgunned to an 8.5cm cannon in place of the 7.6cm gun of the original), but the Germans produced only about 5,000, while the Russians produced over 50,000 T-34s, plus some turretless tank destroyers based on the T-34 chassis. The ease with which the T-34 could be produced was one of its oustanding features.

    So I would amend your post to say that German tanks were somewhat superior, on a tank-per-tank basis to the Soviet ones, but on the whole Soviet armor was better than German armor.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Avery says:
    @Greasy William
    No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.

    The shortage of fuel and rubber that dogged Germany throughout the war? Wouldn't have existed. The German war economy would have produced more weaponry than did Britain and Canada combined, historically; and that is without even considering all the resources Germany would have saved from not needing to fight the U-boat war and develop alternative fuels.

    The US and UK sent the Soviets massive amount of food, trucks, radios and machine tools. Without all this you are not just looking at a less effective Red Army, but probably outright famine in the Soviet Union and Soviet industry being unable to replace the massive material losses of the wars first 2 years, if they even made it that long.

    The US/UK also tied down the overwhelming majority of Italian and Japanese forces, who would themselves been dramatically more effective with no Allied blockade to cripple their industries. And the Russians can keep the US/UK from throwing their lot in with the Axis as well.

    And it was the Allies that tied down and ultimately destroyed the Luftwaffe, without which you can forget about the Soviet air supremacy in 1944 that allowed Operation Bagration to be such a massive success.

    It's not that the Germans would have beaten the Soviets if not for the western Allies, it's that it wouldn't have even been remotely close.

    {No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.}

    The so-called serious-historians are Western revisionists, primarily British.
    The myth that Anglo-American help, such as it was, was the reason for Soviet victory over Nazi Germany has been debunked more than once.

    It’s an open secret that Churchill was hoping that Hitler and Stalin would annihilate each other.
    That is the reason the Normandy landing was repeatedly delayed until 1944: Stalin kept practically begging US and UK to open a second front, as Nazis were driving deeper into USSR, but Churchill and Roosevelt (under Churchill’s spell) kept stalling.

    By 1944 Red Army was closing in on Hitler’s lair:

    Despite enormous losses in manpower since Nazi invasion, the Red Army still had seemingly inexhaustible supply of men. Germans had no fighting age men left by then.
    Here is what was left of German manpower in 1945.

    US and UK landed in Normandy not to help USSR, but to prevent the Red Army from reaching the English Channel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Regnum Nostrum

    Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII.
     
    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent.

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.

    Well, yes and no. The Red Army only really defended Ukraine and Russia. They blew out of the Baltics very quickly and expended a lot of energy further inland uprooting industry. One of the things that it’s vitally important to remember is that the Russians have traditionally been very comfortable ceding territory because it’s a huge country and winter will come eventually, at which point they have the clear advantage.

    Why did it take so long for the Soviets to re-take the territory lost in Barbarossa? Mainly because until 1943 there was no second front, and Hitler was fanatical about allowing his generals to retreat to defensible lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I think that you meant in your last sentence that Hitler was fanatical about not allowing strategic retreats to more defensible lines. That's a major theme of Erich von Manstein's book Verlorne Siege (Lost Victories). A more flexible German defense based on retreat and counterattack would have delayed a Soviet victory, although it could not have prevented it--the resource disparity was just too great.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Sean
    http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/99spring/hooker.htm

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk”
     
    Map just look at the ground covered by 9 July (ie before the unnecessary 6 week halt infront of the land bridge to Moscow. According to The Blitzkrieg Campaigns: Germany's Lightning War Strategy in Action by John Delaney, at this point Stalin was informed by his military commander that the road to Moscow was essentially open, with the greatest weakness a no more tanks available.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.


    “In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies” Here.
     
    Germany is an advanced country and now Russia's capital has managed to catch up with its namesake (55° North) Scottish village, and has a metaled road to it. The Russians had good weapons in WW2 but read ‘National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union’ to find out where the technology came from, and who designed those big factories in the USSR.

    Germany with nuclear weapons and thus able to fight a conventional war against Russia would crush it easily. Khrushchev knew this and that is why he was terrified when Eisenhower started moving toward giving Germany some say in nukes and maybe even their own, and started to try risky gambits like Cuba. See here and especially here. Lucky for Russia they now have nothing anybody wants.

    Long discredited rubbish from a fool.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • A lot of the military related comments here are predictably obtuse:

    (1) The record of WW2 (least of all some people’s exclusively German General Staff-flavored perception of it) has next to zero bearing on today.

    (2) Russia has complete military dominance over its Near Abroad, including the Baltics. This is transparently obvious and even the Pentagon openly admits it.

    (3) In the frankly sci-fi scenario that all of NATO mobilizes to invade Russia then NATO will indeed “win” but not before it reduces everyone to playing Fallout, RLRPG edition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Very good points; World War II ended 71 years ago. Trying to predict the results of a present-day conflict involving Russia based on WWII are roughly akin to trying to predict the WWII outcome based on Russian Army performance in the Crimean War. People who think that NATO would have any chance against Russia in Russia's near-abroad need to get a military textbook and look up the term "extended lines of communication."

    France and Germany aren't spending more on defense. There's a serious debate in Great Britain about scrapping the four submarines that now constitute it's "nuclear deterrent."

    The WWII stuff is fun for us buffs, but I hope the Pentagon net assessors are contemplating more modern estimates.
    , @anon
    Well, it was foaming at the mouth commenter Avery who escalated things here, so that comments once again devolved into another fight about each one's preferred version of WW2. And he certainly didn't espouse the "German General Staff flavoured perception". More the "Ilya Ehrenburg flavoured perception".
    , @Sean
    It is twenty years since Ukraine got assurances from European powers and the US to defend it, if it abandoned nuclear weapons. They were worthless, just like any they could get now, because as Mearsheimer said, Ukraine was never going to get a meaningful security guarantee against Russia and that was why Ukraine needed nukes . They should have listened to him.

    Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.
     
    Germany is surrounded by fellow EU and Nato members and solid in that department they only have to control the EU to ahieve hegemony. and is aiming for economic dominance by the excellence of it's products, which the EU single currency enables them to bring to bear on every fellow member. The single currency EU has kept Europe from war “Merkel never tires of repeating this mantra" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-euro-would-europe-have-turned-to-war/2011/09/21/gIQAxGpZrK_story.html

    If Germany fails in its project for dominating Europe, it will be compelled to rearm, not with soft power, environmentalism, feats of humanitarian refugee acceptance and lessons for incomers on how to have sex with blondes, but with a real armed forces and nukes.

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country's population and any possibility of future resurgence. Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ? Nuclear war is another rung on the ladder to absolute war but don't think real conventional war can't be decisive.

    , @Anonymous
    What do you mean NATO would win?

    Not counting nuclear war do you mean because the US would go to war too? If so, I'm not sure I agree with that.

    Under the Sci fi version of a Nato war against Russia I think Russia would win since the US would not add much besides airial and naval support. It would be Russia against primarily European forces which would probably crumble after the first hard season.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Avery
    {This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments.}

    Show me exactly in which one of my posts did I say anything about Russian army being invincible.

    { By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. }

    "five times as many": not true.

    Military deaths from all causes:
    Germans: about 5 million.
    Soviets: about 10 million.

    Civilians deaths due to direct military activity:
    Germans: about 3 million.
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Civilians deaths due to ware related causes (famine, diseases):
    Germans: ?
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Considering that about 80% of German losses were on the Eastern front, we’ll say German military losses were 4 million there.
    So it is not 5-to-1. It's about 2.5-to-1.

    So the "fives times as many Russians" is your Nazis forefathers murdering Soviet civilians. No doubt you are proud.

    And nobody disputes that Nazi troops were better trained and better led when they invaded USSR.
    Nobody disputes that incompetent Stalin caused the unnecessary loss of millions of Soviet troops, as he forbade retreat, and caused the encirclement and annihilation of entire armies. Stalin’s one saving grace was that at some point he realized he is incompetent, and turned the management of the war to professional soldiers like Marshal Zhukov.

    And nobody disputes that Red Army banner was raised over the remains of the 1,000 year Reich, and that “subhumans” pissed on the ashes of your dear Fuhrer.

    Heil Hitler.

    You sound rather miffed. Since you have no credentials as a historian and since most historians put the losses from twenty seven to thirty millions for the Russians and six to seven millions for the Germans it seems that your ratio 2,5:1 is not a correct one. As far as killing civilians the Russians had their share once they reached Germany. I am also puzzled by your claim about my Nazi forefathers. My paternal grandfather was a Russian and my maternal grandfather was a Pole. As far as I know none of them was a member of NSDAP. My paternal grandmother was a German but she continued to send her children to Czech schools during occupation in spite of pressure from Gestapo to send them to German school. After the war she was one of the few Germans allowed to stay in the Czechoslovakia. By making unfounded and outrageous statements of this sort you only destroy your credibility. I am also not sure why I should be proud of Germans killing Russian civilians. When people go to war my only feeling is sadness at human inability to solve problems peacefully. We can argue back and forth but it will not change the fact that today Russia with its greatly diminished territory and population is confronted by a much larger array of enemies. It will most likely lose the struggle with the West whether we like it or not. Will I be proud of it? No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Greasy William
    No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.

    The shortage of fuel and rubber that dogged Germany throughout the war? Wouldn't have existed. The German war economy would have produced more weaponry than did Britain and Canada combined, historically; and that is without even considering all the resources Germany would have saved from not needing to fight the U-boat war and develop alternative fuels.

    The US and UK sent the Soviets massive amount of food, trucks, radios and machine tools. Without all this you are not just looking at a less effective Red Army, but probably outright famine in the Soviet Union and Soviet industry being unable to replace the massive material losses of the wars first 2 years, if they even made it that long.

    The US/UK also tied down the overwhelming majority of Italian and Japanese forces, who would themselves been dramatically more effective with no Allied blockade to cripple their industries. And the Russians can keep the US/UK from throwing their lot in with the Axis as well.

    And it was the Allies that tied down and ultimately destroyed the Luftwaffe, without which you can forget about the Soviet air supremacy in 1944 that allowed Operation Bagration to be such a massive success.

    It's not that the Germans would have beaten the Soviets if not for the western Allies, it's that it wouldn't have even been remotely close.

    “No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support. ”

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943. Remember the U boats were not defeated until mid 1943. In 1942 the British had to suspend the Arctic convoys because of the loss of convoy PQ 17. Also it was Britain not the USSR which received the most Lend-Lease supplies in 1942-43. Despite this, the USSR achieved the huge victories of Stalingrad and Kursk, largely on its own resources. By 1943, it was obvious Germany had lost the war on the Eastern front.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943.
     
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars
    Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 universal carriers,1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines, 600 radar and sonar sets, hundreds of naval guns, 15 million pairs of boots.
    You have a strange notion of modesty.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    The Convoy PQ17 debacle in June 1942 was the result of a bad misjudgment by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound, RN, the First Sea Lord. He wrongly believed that the battleship TIRPITZ was steaming to intercept the convoy. He dispatched the signal "Cruiser force to withdraw to the westward at high speed" followed shortly by "Convoy is to scatter."

    Two-thirds of the convoy was sunk by aircraft and U-boats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Sean
    http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/99spring/hooker.htm

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk”
     
    Map just look at the ground covered by 9 July (ie before the unnecessary 6 week halt infront of the land bridge to Moscow. According to The Blitzkrieg Campaigns: Germany's Lightning War Strategy in Action by John Delaney, at this point Stalin was informed by his military commander that the road to Moscow was essentially open, with the greatest weakness a no more tanks available.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.


    “In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies” Here.
     
    Germany is an advanced country and now Russia's capital has managed to catch up with its namesake (55° North) Scottish village, and has a metaled road to it. The Russians had good weapons in WW2 but read ‘National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union’ to find out where the technology came from, and who designed those big factories in the USSR.

    Germany with nuclear weapons and thus able to fight a conventional war against Russia would crush it easily. Khrushchev knew this and that is why he was terrified when Eisenhower started moving toward giving Germany some say in nukes and maybe even their own, and started to try risky gambits like Cuba. See here and especially here. Lucky for Russia they now have nothing anybody wants.

    May you be visited by three ghosts who will speak to you on the perils of underestimating Russian military capability: Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Andrew E. Mathis

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.
     
    Well, yes and no. The Red Army only really defended Ukraine and Russia. They blew out of the Baltics very quickly and expended a lot of energy further inland uprooting industry. One of the things that it's vitally important to remember is that the Russians have traditionally been very comfortable ceding territory because it's a huge country and winter will come eventually, at which point they have the clear advantage.

    Why did it take so long for the Soviets to re-take the territory lost in Barbarossa? Mainly because until 1943 there was no second front, and Hitler was fanatical about allowing his generals to retreat to defensible lines.

    I think that you meant in your last sentence that Hitler was fanatical about not allowing strategic retreats to more defensible lines. That’s a major theme of Erich von Manstein’s book Verlorne Siege (Lost Victories). A more flexible German defense based on retreat and counterattack would have delayed a Soviet victory, although it could not have prevented it–the resource disparity was just too great.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yes, sorry. There are repeated references in the literature of generals urging retreat to defensible positions and Hitler refusing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    A lot of the military related comments here are predictably obtuse:

    (1) The record of WW2 (least of all some people's exclusively German General Staff-flavored perception of it) has next to zero bearing on today.

    (2) Russia has complete military dominance over its Near Abroad, including the Baltics. This is transparently obvious and even the Pentagon openly admits it.

    (3) In the frankly sci-fi scenario that all of NATO mobilizes to invade Russia then NATO will indeed "win" but not before it reduces everyone to playing Fallout, RLRPG edition.

    Very good points; World War II ended 71 years ago. Trying to predict the results of a present-day conflict involving Russia based on WWII are roughly akin to trying to predict the WWII outcome based on Russian Army performance in the Crimean War. People who think that NATO would have any chance against Russia in Russia’s near-abroad need to get a military textbook and look up the term “extended lines of communication.”

    France and Germany aren’t spending more on defense. There’s a serious debate in Great Britain about scrapping the four submarines that now constitute it’s “nuclear deterrent.”

    The WWII stuff is fun for us buffs, but I hope the Pentagon net assessors are contemplating more modern estimates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Anatoly

    Nobody wants to invade Russia, but your boy, The Saker, keeps threatening to invade Europe.

    re the T-35

    The T-35 was clearly superior to the Panzer IV aside from the fact that it didn’t have radios, which are hugely important in armored warfare. The Soviets wouldn’t have large numbers of radio equipped T-35s until late 1942.

    re the pause on the road to Moscow

    The pause was pre planned, as Smolensk took AGC to it’s logistical limits. According to the original Barbarossa plan, organized Soviet resistance was supposed to have already collapsed by this time. The army wanted to continue towards Moscow whereas Hitler was more concerned with Leningrad and Kiev. In the event, only AGC’s panzergroups moved north and south, the rest of AGC stayed put and spent over a month beating off constant Soviet counterattacks while the railheads were moved up and supplies were stockpiled for the October push on Moscow.

    Given what we know now about the size and strength of the Soviet armies on the Smolensk/Moscow axis in August/September, there is no way that the Wehrmacht could have taken Moscow with only 2 panzergroups. All of AGC would be needed and all of AGC would not be ready until October, as it was done historically.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A lot of the military related comments here are predictably obtuse:

    (1) The record of WW2 (least of all some people's exclusively German General Staff-flavored perception of it) has next to zero bearing on today.

    (2) Russia has complete military dominance over its Near Abroad, including the Baltics. This is transparently obvious and even the Pentagon openly admits it.

    (3) In the frankly sci-fi scenario that all of NATO mobilizes to invade Russia then NATO will indeed "win" but not before it reduces everyone to playing Fallout, RLRPG edition.

    Well, it was foaming at the mouth commenter Avery who escalated things here, so that comments once again devolved into another fight about each one’s preferred version of WW2. And he certainly didn’t espouse the “German General Staff flavoured perception”. More the “Ilya Ehrenburg flavoured perception”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Of the five defense ministers shown, only the solitary guy still depends on an all-male draft. The Netherlands gave that up decades ago. Germany and Sweden ended theirs in 2010 rather than call up women. Norway did the opposite, becoming the first nation to draft the ladies just like their brothers.

    So Russia is the only society our great-grandfathers would even recognize today. The rest can trumpet “equality”.

    Pussy Riot is safe!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    United Nations, EU, and NATO are all international tools created by the Western imperial powers to maintain their imperial agenda. Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tartars Muslims living in Ukraine, like Palestinians still remember how their ancestors were expelled from their motherland by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, who established the first Jewish state in Russia.

    In February 2016, Muslim Crimean Tatar singer Susana Jamaldinova , known as Jamala, won the contest to represent Ukraine at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest in Stockholm, Sweden. She sang song 1944 in the contest written and composed by herself. The song is about the plight of 238,000 Muslim Crimean Tartars expelled from their home in Southern Ukraine by Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin. Nearly 50% of them died during deportation. Today, Crimea is mostly populated by ethnic Russian Christians and Jews.

    On February 22, Vadim Dengin, first deputy chairman of the committee of Duma (Russian parliament) urged the jury of Eurovision to ban Jamaldinova from singing the 1944 song, which highlights deportation of her grandmother along with her four sons and one daughter. It’s not a political parody against Russia. The song opens with lyrics; When strangers are coming. They come to your house, they kill you all and say: ‘We are not guilty, not guilty. Listen the song below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/23/muslim-singer-represents-ukraine-at-eurovision-2016/

    Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin

    Joe Stalin was Georgian, not Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was 'half-Jewish' (all his three wives were Jewish) was the 'iron-fist' leader of Soviet Russia.

    When Stalin’s Red Army occupied Poland during WWII, it turned the country into a Holocaust museum. Since 1950s more western leaders have visited Auschwitz Holocaust Memorial than the Vatican.

    Holocaust Industry claims that four million Jews were killed in several Nazi ‘concentration’ camps in Poland before 1945. However, it doesn’t acknowledge that three million Polish Christian, mostly Catholics, also died during the same period.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/01/poland-changes-holocaust-narrative/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • AndrewR says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    You've been paying attention to this, haven't you? This maneuvering reminds me of two previous wars. Around 1962 India and China fought a brief border war. The Indian politicians pushed Indian troops into militarily indefensible positions as a political move. The Chinese attack astounded the Indian politicans and routed the Indian military (who, to their credit fought bravely, but indefensible positions are indefensible). Similarly, in the run-up to the Falklands War, the Argentine politicians, and even military, invaded the Falklands as a political gesture. They were flabbergasted when the British responded militarily. The same effect was portrayed in Rocky I when one of Apollo Creed's cornermen says, "This guy don't know it's a show: he thinks it's a fight!"

    I could see something like this happening in the Baltic or Ukraine/Crimea/Transnistria/Whereever. The U.S. gets involved thinking that the situation can be finessed politically and the Russians come out swinging. Then President Hillary Clinton is confronted with either reaching for the nuclear option (insane, but it's there) or watching thousands of American prisoners marching into captivity. I hope that the Joint Chiefs can dissuade this kind of adventurism, but the girly-men may not be able to say no to Hillary and the other Horsegirls of the Apocalypse.

    We need a coup. I want to see the military execute our traitorous globaliat politicians on national TV.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    A calamitous military defeat could trigger a coup d'etat. In the 1990s there was an article "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," in which the triggering event of a coup was a humiliating defeat of U.S. armed forces by Iran.

    Another triggering event might be the military defying Presidential order to use nuclear weapons against Russia--if you're going to defy Presidential authority why not just go whole hog and take over?
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    The non-military "elites" of this country have shamelessly, hypocritically, and ruthlessly gutted the Constitution already. There is no hope of a political restoration of a constitutional republic at this point.

    One of the few reservoirs of respect for constitutional republicanism in this country may be the mid-level military ranks, captains through colonels. Higher ranks are mostly held by emasculated politicals. BO's administration has notoriously pruned out from the highest levels of the military all who might oppose his regime and future regimes like it.

    But the mid-level ranks are precisely those which traditionally have been able to stage successful coups. The only real hope for a return to constitutional republicanism in this country may be a military coup arising within these ranks. I never thought until recently that I would ever entertain such a thought, let alone express it. But such is the sad state to which this country has fallen that a military coup may be the only remaining plausible way to restore the Constitution and the Republic.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Not a coup but a counter-coup to restore the constitutional republic is what America needs.
    , @BenKenobi
    I read this comment and chuckled to myself how "Sailer would never let this one through."

    Then I saw it was you, AndrewR. Good thing there's no whim here, eh? I totally agree with you, btw.

    To everyone else on all sides of the WW2 discussion: this has been one entertaining and informative thread! Love this site.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Jon Halpenny
    "No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support. "

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943. Remember the U boats were not defeated until mid 1943. In 1942 the British had to suspend the Arctic convoys because of the loss of convoy PQ 17. Also it was Britain not the USSR which received the most Lend-Lease supplies in 1942-43. Despite this, the USSR achieved the huge victories of Stalingrad and Kursk, largely on its own resources. By 1943, it was obvious Germany had lost the war on the Eastern front.

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943.

    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars
    Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 universal carriers,1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines, 600 radar and sonar sets, hundreds of naval guns, 15 million pairs of boots.
    You have a strange notion of modesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    I agree with RN.

    The amount of material sent to Uncle Joe from the US through the Persian Corridor alone was enough to supply some 60 Soviet divisions if I remember correctly. The also US sent him, through Malmstrom AFB in Montana, tons of nuclear technology and supplies for the Soviet nuke program as well as everything needed to print money which was to be used to help undermine the German economy.

    Apparently the Soviets also printed American dollars with it and it came back into the US stuffed in suitcases and was used to buy and establish businesses in the US.

    For details read about Laughlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, Elizabeth Bentley, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and Maj Jordan's diaries to name just a few sources of the above info.
    , @Jon Halpenny
    "You have a strange notion of modesty."

    I stand by my earlier comment in full. Anglo-American(mostly American) aid to Russia only became a flood from late 1943 onwards. It is true this was a great help to the Soviet forces as they advanced westwards in 1944-5. But by then Germany was beaten.
    , @Chaban
    Thanks for the post, Regnum.

    Any person who has seriously studied this knows those stats. And they don't even include what was sent from Britain.

    Those morons don't even realize REAL Russians would have been better off had the Germans made it all the way to Moscow to remove the scum in power in the warm, luxurious palaces...

    That scum was using real Russians as cannon fodder to protect their system, their power.

    And after the war was over, they continued to persecute and kill real Russians by the millions. And Russia has never completely recovered demographically.

    As for "The Faker", the guy fights the "anglozionist" empire from Florida... sends his kids to American universities, etc.

    Need I say more?

    , @5371
    Let me explain something to you, moron. You cannot contest someone's assertion about what did not happen before 1943 with figures that apply to no period more restricted than than "between June 1941 and May 1945". That simple enough for you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @Anonymous
    Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin

    Joe Stalin was Georgian, not Russian.

    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was ‘half-Jewish’ (all his three wives were Jewish) was the ‘iron-fist’ leader of Soviet Russia.

    When Stalin’s Red Army occupied Poland during WWII, it turned the country into a Holocaust museum. Since 1950s more western leaders have visited Auschwitz Holocaust Memorial than the Vatican.

    Holocaust Industry claims that four million Jews were killed in several Nazi ‘concentration’ camps in Poland before 1945. However, it doesn’t acknowledge that three million Polish Christian, mostly Catholics, also died during the same period.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/01/poland-changes-holocaust-narrative/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was ‘half-Jewish’ (all his three wives were Jewish)
     
    No, he wasn't. Iosip Vissarionovich Jughashvili was 100% Georgian and raised an Orthodox Christian, as attested to by his seminary education. Moreover, he was married twice -- not three times -- first to Ekaterina Svanidze, who was Georgian like himself and whose brother, Aleksandr, attended seminary with Stalin; second to Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who was of combined Russian, Georgian, and German ancestry.

    There were numerous Bolsheviks who were Jewish,* and it appears Lenin himself might have been a quarter Jewish. Molotov's wife was Jewish. But Stalin? No.

    Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Litvinov, Radek, and Kaganovich, just to name a few.
    , @dcite
    Stalin's wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, was not Jewish. Her daughter with Stalin, Svetlana, did marry a Jewish man, which she said angered Stalin enough that he exiled his son in law, at least for a while. However, he was quite fond of his half-Jewish granddaughter, and laughed out loud when he first saw her. She must have been a pretty funny looking toddler (in a cute way) to make Stalin laugh out loud.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • OMG!!!

    This is pure brilliance, and it applies as well to the brainwashed, suckered masses in the US.

    “As for the people of the EU, they will find out that they don’t have the means to impose political change by the ballot, that they live in a pretend-democracy, and that everything they have been told and promised is just an empty, ugly, lie. The Ukraine did not become Europe, but Europe became the Ukraine.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @Avery
    {Well moronic history expert …}

    You IslamoFascist parasitic idiot.
    You brainless troglodyte: you remember when you claimed Berezovsky is currently supporting Putin’s rival, when Berezovsky has been dead as a doornail for 3 years?
    Remember when you claimed Ottoman Turkey and Soviet Union had allegedly fought several wars?

    You are too stupid to comment about anything.
    Much less history.
    Your innate Christianophobia and IslamoFascism has fried the few malformed brain cells that you may have had.

    And why are you still living in Christian Canada, you IslamoFascist parasite.
    Go back to your homeland – Islamistan.
    Get out of our Christian lands.

    I’m sorry Moshe – you forgot to mention the pages of your Talmud from where you copied the filthy Zionist rant.

    Israeli historian, late professor Israel Shahak in his epic book, Jewish History Jewish Religion, has exposed Talmud’s hatred of non-Jewish people, particularly hatred toward Jesus (as) his mother Saint Mary (as) and Christianity.

    Pope Francis, however, in an open letter published by Rome’s newspaper La Repubblica on September 11, 2013, defended Jewish scriptures, saying: Christians have rediscovered that the Jewish people are the holy root from which Jesus germinated.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/30/talmud-in-canadian-court/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @AndrewR
    We need a coup. I want to see the military execute our traitorous globaliat politicians on national TV.

    A calamitous military defeat could trigger a coup d’etat. In the 1990s there was an article “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,” in which the triggering event of a coup was a humiliating defeat of U.S. armed forces by Iran.

    Another triggering event might be the military defying Presidential order to use nuclear weapons against Russia–if you’re going to defy Presidential authority why not just go whole hog and take over?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Regnum Nostrum

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943.
     
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars
    Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 universal carriers,1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines, 600 radar and sonar sets, hundreds of naval guns, 15 million pairs of boots.
    You have a strange notion of modesty.

    I agree with RN.

    The amount of material sent to Uncle Joe from the US through the Persian Corridor alone was enough to supply some 60 Soviet divisions if I remember correctly. The also US sent him, through Malmstrom AFB in Montana, tons of nuclear technology and supplies for the Soviet nuke program as well as everything needed to print money which was to be used to help undermine the German economy.

    Apparently the Soviets also printed American dollars with it and it came back into the US stuffed in suitcases and was used to buy and establish businesses in the US.

    For details read about Laughlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, Elizabeth Bentley, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and Maj Jordan’s diaries to name just a few sources of the above info.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Regnum Nostrum

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943.
     
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars
    Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 universal carriers,1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines, 600 radar and sonar sets, hundreds of naval guns, 15 million pairs of boots.
    You have a strange notion of modesty.

    “You have a strange notion of modesty.”

    I stand by my earlier comment in full. Anglo-American(mostly American) aid to Russia only became a flood from late 1943 onwards. It is true this was a great help to the Soviet forces as they advanced westwards in 1944-5. But by then Germany was beaten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    Churchill diverted shipload of Canadian Valentine tanks from Britain to Russia in mid Atlantic when Germany invaded Russia. There were Valentine tanks defending Moscow in December. And the RAF had already broken th Luftwaffe's back in 1940 while Russia was still buying rubber on Germany's behalf.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Chaban says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943.
     
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars
    Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 universal carriers,1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines, 600 radar and sonar sets, hundreds of naval guns, 15 million pairs of boots.
    You have a strange notion of modesty.

    Thanks for the post, Regnum.

    Any person who has seriously studied this knows those stats. And they don’t even include what was sent from Britain.

    Those morons don’t even realize REAL Russians would have been better off had the Germans made it all the way to Moscow to remove the scum in power in the warm, luxurious palaces…

    That scum was using real Russians as cannon fodder to protect their system, their power.

    And after the war was over, they continued to persecute and kill real Russians by the millions. And Russia has never completely recovered demographically.

    As for “The Faker”, the guy fights the “anglozionist” empire from Florida… sends his kids to American universities, etc.

    Need I say more?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Has the ignore function button gone? Rehmat isn't funny anymore.
    , @rod1963
    The Nazis considered Slavs as sub-human and butchered them, prior to invading Russia, the German Army was told to treat the Russians as sub-human and they did. They butchery they committed was beyond belief.

    I'll give you a example since you have idea what you're talking about.

    When Poland was partitioned in '39, the part the Russians took over was rather bloodless, they did take over the property of the wealthy Jewish and Polish towns folk, installed Russian teachers in the schools, made the study of Russian language mandatory.

    When your precious Nazis rolled in '41, they leveled entire towns, butchered Poles and Jews like crazy, enslaved hundreds of thousands of others - men, women and children. Most of those brought into Germany as slave died as a result. What happened in Russia proper was even worse.

    Then there was General Pant Ost, that's what the Krauts really thought of "real Russians" and Slavs in general.

    Nice try white washing the Krauts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Regarding the picture of the defense ministers: that’s not the defense minister of Sweden. Just saying.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    that’s not the defense minister of Sweden. Just saying.
     
    At the time this photograph was taken, February 1, 2014, she was.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/female-defence-ministers-tweet-photograph

    As the link you provided indicates, Peter Hultqvist was appointed Minister for Defence 8 months later, on 3 October 2014.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Those morons don’t even realize REAL Russians would have been better off had the Germans made it all the way to Moscow to remove the scum in power …

    Oh yes: those Rooskies would have been soooo much better off under Generalplan Ost, isn’t that right?

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Greasy William

    Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII
     
    Which the Germans, fighting by themselves, effortless chewed up before being worn down by blockade and Western bombing.

    NATO would crush your crappy army in a matter of hours. France by itself would probably beat you.

    You are utterly ignorant of the history of WW II and probably of history in general. Why don’t you do a Wikipedia search on Battle of Kursk, Siege of Stalingrad, Siege of Leningrad, etc., . Then you might consider reading up on Napoleon’s successes in Russia (hint: Tsar Alexander was marching into Paris a year or so later.) When Europeans invade Russia they inevitably fail – e.g., the British expeditionary force after WW I – or get clobbered, e.g., Napoleon and Hitler. I loathe the old USSR, Stalin, and everything they represented but the fact remains that Russian armies played the predominant role in winning WW II and were beginning to prevail against Hitler even before allied intervention in continental Europe took some of the pressure off them. The Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk were decided and Stalin’s armies were pushing the Wehrmacht back into Germany long before D-Day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • The only way to stop the rot in Europe is for the US to walk away from NATO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • gdpbull says:

    Looks like the comment section has deteriorated into a somewhat off topic “who had the baddest ass soldiers in WWII?” Let me clear that up. The Germans did. Period. They were grossly outnumbered, out produced, and were stupidly and grossly over-extended. But man for man, they were the best. There could have been no other outcome other than their defeat. I am an old man. My father was an American soldier in the battle of the bulge. But I came to know many German WWII veterans in the 1950s and 60s. All of them fought the Soviets and many were in Soviet POW camps. At the start of the war, they all bought off on the untermensch thing, but it wasn’t long before most of them respected the Soviets, and some actually felt sorry for them, having been thrown at the German war machine with little training only to be slaughtered en masse. The really disgusting thing is that the German WWII soldier’s offspring are now the ones peeing on the German soldier’s graves. The present day German politicians and society are disgustingly PC. Yes, they were fighting for an evil regime, but so were the Soviets.

    Back to a more on topic comment. No one needs or should take care of Ukraine. Ukraine needs to learn how to take care of itself. The EU would be stupid to take on the Ukraine. If they thing Greece is bad, Ukraine would be much worse. It would be like getting a free puppy. Someone would have to feed it and clean up its messes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @AndrewR
    We need a coup. I want to see the military execute our traitorous globaliat politicians on national TV.

    The non-military “elites” of this country have shamelessly, hypocritically, and ruthlessly gutted the Constitution already. There is no hope of a political restoration of a constitutional republic at this point.

    One of the few reservoirs of respect for constitutional republicanism in this country may be the mid-level military ranks, captains through colonels. Higher ranks are mostly held by emasculated politicals. BO’s administration has notoriously pruned out from the highest levels of the military all who might oppose his regime and future regimes like it.

    But the mid-level ranks are precisely those which traditionally have been able to stage successful coups. The only real hope for a return to constitutional republicanism in this country may be a military coup arising within these ranks. I never thought until recently that I would ever entertain such a thought, let alone express it. But such is the sad state to which this country has fallen that a military coup may be the only remaining plausible way to restore the Constitution and the Republic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Higher ranks are mostly held by emasculated politicals

    And they were air-dropped in from somewhere, they were never captains, majors or colonels.

    The only real hope for a return to constitutional republicanism in this country may be a military coup

    What's the word? What is it? Oh! I remember. Oxymoron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    We need a coup. I want to see the military execute our traitorous globaliat politicians on national TV.

    Not a coup but a counter-coup to restore the constitutional republic is what America needs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943.
     
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars
    Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 universal carriers,1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines, 600 radar and sonar sets, hundreds of naval guns, 15 million pairs of boots.
    You have a strange notion of modesty.

    Let me explain something to you, moron. You cannot contest someone’s assertion about what did not happen before 1943 with figures that apply to no period more restricted than than “between June 1941 and May 1945″. That simple enough for you?

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • bluedog says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments. As a matter of fact you have not negated a single one. The fact is a fact. Yes, in the end the Red Army prevailed but only after long and exhaustive fight and with a lot of help. By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. My point, which you obviously did not get being blinded by personal feelings, was to show the contrast in situation during WW2 and a possible conflict today. If I were a bookmaker I would advise a bet against Russia. By the way when I bet on horses I do so without personal feelings. Affection for this or that horse plays no role. If it did I would not win many bets.

    Yes we here in the U.S. did give them a lot of help, but in my book and I’m sure to anyone with a rational mind it was a hell of a lot cheaper than the thousands of allied body bags that would have come floating home,and don’t be obsessed with a war with Russia for its never going to happen for unlike Korea Nam Iraq and Afghanistan where we took a beating Russia can give us some real hurt,so you warmongers go back to your drawing board and try again.!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Yevardian says:
    @Chaban
    Thanks for the post, Regnum.

    Any person who has seriously studied this knows those stats. And they don't even include what was sent from Britain.

    Those morons don't even realize REAL Russians would have been better off had the Germans made it all the way to Moscow to remove the scum in power in the warm, luxurious palaces...

    That scum was using real Russians as cannon fodder to protect their system, their power.

    And after the war was over, they continued to persecute and kill real Russians by the millions. And Russia has never completely recovered demographically.

    As for "The Faker", the guy fights the "anglozionist" empire from Florida... sends his kids to American universities, etc.

    Need I say more?

    Has the ignore function button gone? Rehmat isn’t funny anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • J1234 says:

    LOL! That photograph is worth a thousand…no, a million words!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A lot of the military related comments here are predictably obtuse:

    (1) The record of WW2 (least of all some people's exclusively German General Staff-flavored perception of it) has next to zero bearing on today.

    (2) Russia has complete military dominance over its Near Abroad, including the Baltics. This is transparently obvious and even the Pentagon openly admits it.

    (3) In the frankly sci-fi scenario that all of NATO mobilizes to invade Russia then NATO will indeed "win" but not before it reduces everyone to playing Fallout, RLRPG edition.

    It is twenty years since Ukraine got assurances from European powers and the US to defend it, if it abandoned nuclear weapons. They were worthless, just like any they could get now, because as Mearsheimer said, Ukraine was never going to get a meaningful security guarantee against Russia and that was why Ukraine needed nukes . They should have listened to him.

    Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.

    Germany is surrounded by fellow EU and Nato members and solid in that department they only have to control the EU to ahieve hegemony. and is aiming for economic dominance by the excellence of it’s products, which the EU single currency enables them to bring to bear on every fellow member. The single currency EU has kept Europe from war “Merkel never tires of repeating this mantra” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-euro-would-europe-have-turned-to-war/2011/09/21/gIQAxGpZrK_story.html

    If Germany fails in its project for dominating Europe, it will be compelled to rearm, not with soft power, environmentalism, feats of humanitarian refugee acceptance and lessons for incomers on how to have sex with blondes, but with a real armed forces and nukes.

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country’s population and any possibility of future resurgence. Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ? Nuclear war is another rung on the ladder to absolute war but don’t think real conventional war can’t be decisive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    I'm afraid by quoting Israeli propaganda filth, 'Washington Post' you admitted that you got no brain of yours to discuss anything related to Ukraine or the nukes for that matter.

    Ukraine prime minister just announced his resignation. Why? Because proved not to be a good 'Zionist dog'.

    Most possibly, he would be replaced by 'Zionist bitch', Natalie Jaresko.

    Born into a Ukrainian immigrant Jewish family, Natalie Jaresko is a former employee of US State Department. She took Ukraine nationality in 2014 to become a cabinet minister.

    Since she assumed the finance ministry portfolio, the Jewish-controlled media declared her an “economic genius”, however, according to financial documents filed with the US Internal Revenue Service last year, she robbed US taxpayers of $1.77 million.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/12/ukraine-to-get-us-jewess-pm/
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country’s population and any possibility of future resurgence.
     
    You are sadly delusional. Thank god you're not running NATO!

    Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ?
     
    Umm ... to hold down the other Warsaw Pact countries, perhaps? Look up 'Brezhnev Doctrine'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • rod1963 says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments. As a matter of fact you have not negated a single one. The fact is a fact. Yes, in the end the Red Army prevailed but only after long and exhaustive fight and with a lot of help. By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. My point, which you obviously did not get being blinded by personal feelings, was to show the contrast in situation during WW2 and a possible conflict today. If I were a bookmaker I would advise a bet against Russia. By the way when I bet on horses I do so without personal feelings. Affection for this or that horse plays no role. If it did I would not win many bets.

    Remember that was 70 years ago dude. Times and armies have changed.

    The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest armies ever fielded prior to Stalingrad. Today it’s non-existent.

    And our modern Army is in no way comparable to that machine either. It’s small, infested with political commisars that make sure females and minorities are taken care of, casualty adverse because it’s all-vol.

    Really how could we control Russia with say 4 Army and a Marine division and a couple hundred special ops goons?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thales the Milesian
    "The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest army ..."

    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of "the finest army" were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @Sean
    It is twenty years since Ukraine got assurances from European powers and the US to defend it, if it abandoned nuclear weapons. They were worthless, just like any they could get now, because as Mearsheimer said, Ukraine was never going to get a meaningful security guarantee against Russia and that was why Ukraine needed nukes . They should have listened to him.

    Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.
     
    Germany is surrounded by fellow EU and Nato members and solid in that department they only have to control the EU to ahieve hegemony. and is aiming for economic dominance by the excellence of it's products, which the EU single currency enables them to bring to bear on every fellow member. The single currency EU has kept Europe from war “Merkel never tires of repeating this mantra" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-euro-would-europe-have-turned-to-war/2011/09/21/gIQAxGpZrK_story.html

    If Germany fails in its project for dominating Europe, it will be compelled to rearm, not with soft power, environmentalism, feats of humanitarian refugee acceptance and lessons for incomers on how to have sex with blondes, but with a real armed forces and nukes.

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country's population and any possibility of future resurgence. Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ? Nuclear war is another rung on the ladder to absolute war but don't think real conventional war can't be decisive.

    I’m afraid by quoting Israeli propaganda filth, ‘Washington Post’ you admitted that you got no brain of yours to discuss anything related to Ukraine or the nukes for that matter.

    Ukraine prime minister just announced his resignation. Why? Because proved not to be a good ‘Zionist dog’.

    Most possibly, he would be replaced by ‘Zionist bitch’, Natalie Jaresko.

    Born into a Ukrainian immigrant Jewish family, Natalie Jaresko is a former employee of US State Department. She took Ukraine nationality in 2014 to become a cabinet minister.

    Since she assumed the finance ministry portfolio, the Jewish-controlled media declared her an “economic genius”, however, according to financial documents filed with the US Internal Revenue Service last year, she robbed US taxpayers of $1.77 million.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/12/ukraine-to-get-us-jewess-pm/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    If Zionists are stealing US taxpayers' money for Ukrainian schemes, that seems a very tangental way to help Israel , which is supposed to be their main mission.How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know, because it seems to me Israel has much more pressing matters to worry about than Ukraine.

    If Zionists have so much pull why don't they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ? If the Zionist movement is as powerful as you say they must be benignly humanitarian to willingly harbor within their border walls of Israel an Arab population that breeds terrorist killers of Jews.

    The Germans understand all this and so they choose to import the least desirable people in the world: malevolent misogynistic Muslims. It's just to show what nice people Germans are and how they have changed. In their traditional fashion the German leadership have mounted a (soft power) blitzkrieg that has outmaneuvered all their international rivals. It was decided quite recently.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/angela-merkel-criticises-pegida-far-right-group-germany

    Merkel and the German establishment were aghast at the Pegida marches. Merkel announced the open door just s few months later. Germany is haunted by WW2 and they will do whatever it takes to prevent Germany being seen as nationalist. Leading politicians proudly describe it as post nationalist.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • rod1963 says:
    @Chaban
    Thanks for the post, Regnum.

    Any person who has seriously studied this knows those stats. And they don't even include what was sent from Britain.

    Those morons don't even realize REAL Russians would have been better off had the Germans made it all the way to Moscow to remove the scum in power in the warm, luxurious palaces...

    That scum was using real Russians as cannon fodder to protect their system, their power.

    And after the war was over, they continued to persecute and kill real Russians by the millions. And Russia has never completely recovered demographically.

    As for "The Faker", the guy fights the "anglozionist" empire from Florida... sends his kids to American universities, etc.

    Need I say more?

    The Nazis considered Slavs as sub-human and butchered them, prior to invading Russia, the German Army was told to treat the Russians as sub-human and they did. They butchery they committed was beyond belief.

    I’ll give you a example since you have idea what you’re talking about.

    When Poland was partitioned in ’39, the part the Russians took over was rather bloodless, they did take over the property of the wealthy Jewish and Polish towns folk, installed Russian teachers in the schools, made the study of Russian language mandatory.

    When your precious Nazis rolled in ’41, they leveled entire towns, butchered Poles and Jews like crazy, enslaved hundreds of thousands of others – men, women and children. Most of those brought into Germany as slave died as a result. What happened in Russia proper was even worse.

    Then there was General Pant Ost, that’s what the Krauts really thought of “real Russians” and Slavs in general.

    Nice try white washing the Krauts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chaban
    That simply isn't true. The Germans and (real) Russians got along just fine. But zionists for over one hundred years have said (even publicly) that they could not allow Germany and Russia to work together...
    So who do you work for in keeping the lie alive, huh?

    As far as Restrum's main argument is concerned, those who are not too slow get it...

    Unlike previous attackers, NATO, which dwarfs any other organization militarily, would not even have to worry about its western flank (something both Napoleon and Hitler had to deal with).
    , @Philip Owen


    Katyn massacre wasn't bloodless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @5371
    I would bet the farm on your not being able to get it up.

    5371. Why do you always project your own experience onto others?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Ollie says:

    “As for the USA, they have the best border protection on the planet: the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”

    Such “protection” is of no use at the Rio Grande. How about some thought before sweeping statements?

    Read More
    • Agree: Regnum Nostrum
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "soarintothesky"] says:

    “EU, Russia and the Ukraine could have negotiated a tripartite deal”. The whole point is that Ukraine is not part of Russia. The French had this problem with Algeria; the British with more justification (the same Normans conquered both) with Ireland. Russia is still the most rabid 19th Century imperialist power on the planet. Germany, Austria, UK, France, Holland, Portugal have all largely adjusted. Russia still thinks it has a divine right to rule to a far greater extent than Hungary, Turkey, Serbia and similar Imperialist reactionaries. Russia’s resurgence was floating on oil. It’s accelerating collapse is being amplified by its failure to get past imperialism. Right now, the Kremlin is engaged on project to use only Russian software on state owned computers. This is just one of thousands of “import substitution” programmes using up non existent Russian capital to put Russia on a war footing. Russia’s purchasing power has fallen by 25% since 2014. Russian people are now significantly poorer than Turks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [It’s accelerating collapse]

    You may not be able to wean yourself off sick fantasies, but at least you could learn to write the English language correctly, cretin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @Rehmat
    I'm afraid by quoting Israeli propaganda filth, 'Washington Post' you admitted that you got no brain of yours to discuss anything related to Ukraine or the nukes for that matter.

    Ukraine prime minister just announced his resignation. Why? Because proved not to be a good 'Zionist dog'.

    Most possibly, he would be replaced by 'Zionist bitch', Natalie Jaresko.

    Born into a Ukrainian immigrant Jewish family, Natalie Jaresko is a former employee of US State Department. She took Ukraine nationality in 2014 to become a cabinet minister.

    Since she assumed the finance ministry portfolio, the Jewish-controlled media declared her an “economic genius”, however, according to financial documents filed with the US Internal Revenue Service last year, she robbed US taxpayers of $1.77 million.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/12/ukraine-to-get-us-jewess-pm/

    If Zionists are stealing US taxpayers’ money for Ukrainian schemes, that seems a very tangental way to help Israel , which is supposed to be their main mission.How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know, because it seems to me Israel has much more pressing matters to worry about than Ukraine.

    If Zionists have so much pull why don’t they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ? If the Zionist movement is as powerful as you say they must be benignly humanitarian to willingly harbor within their border walls of Israel an Arab population that breeds terrorist killers of Jews.

    The Germans understand all this and so they choose to import the least desirable people in the world: malevolent misogynistic Muslims. It’s just to show what nice people Germans are and how they have changed. In their traditional fashion the German leadership have mounted a (soft power) blitzkrieg that has outmaneuvered all their international rivals. It was decided quite recently.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/angela-merkel-criticises-pegida-far-right-group-germany

    Merkel and the German establishment were aghast at the Pegida marches. Merkel announced the open door just s few months later. Germany is haunted by WW2 and they will do whatever it takes to prevent Germany being seen as nationalist. Leading politicians proudly describe it as post nationalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know...
     
    Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with attacking Russia's near abroad. Here's a comment I posted previously:

    I couldn’t disagree more. As you well know, the neocons have been vilifying Putin, constantly provoking the Russian bear, and even pushing for regime change.

    Why are they pushing for regime change in Moscow? Because Russia is an ally of Syria and Iran, both staunch supporters of Hezbollah, Israel’s arch enemy.

    Here’s how NED President Carl Gershman put it in an opinion piece for the Washington Post:
    “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president…

    Other neocons threaten to carry Putin out of the Kremlin “feet first.” http://www.interpretermag.com/west-has-means-shor…

    BTW – who was the one handing out cookies in Maidan Square during the Feb 22 coup? Why it was none other than the cookie monster herself, Victoria Nudelman, spouse of Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, the group that pushed hard to invade Iraq!
     

    If Zionists have so much pull why don’t they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ?
     
    Patience, they're still working on it:

    Most Jews want to expel Palestinians — Pew’s ugly portrait of Israel - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/most-jews-want-to-expel-palestinians-pews-ugly-portrait-of-israel/#sthash.VBbvz0O6.dpuf
     
    P.S. I always get a kick whenever people refer to Arabs as anti-Semites!
    , @Rehmat
    Yes Moshe - you're right. "Israeli Jews have more pressing matters to worry about than Ukraine." You know why? Because Ukrainian are native people of the land while Israeli Jews are the UNWANTED PEOPLE of the West.

    How a Jewish occupied Ukraine would help Israel? You don't need a PhD to connect the dots. Just listen to Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the separatist Donesk People Republic who called the US-EU installed regime in Kiev as "controlled by miserable Jews."

    If that's not a good proof - then how about this one.

    In November 2014, UK’s most wanted woman terrorist, Northern-Ireland-born Samantha Lewthwaite is reportedly killed by a Russian sniper in Ukraine two weeks ago. She was involved in training the anti-Russian Ukrainian rebels fighting to defend the US-EU installed Jewish regime in Kiev.

    Moscow-based Regnum News Agency has also claimed that Kiev regime has posted one million dollar reward for the sniper who shot-down Ms Lewthwaite.

    A source at the UK’s foreign office told ITV News that “we are aware of reports that Samantha Lewthwaite has been killed in Ukraine“.

    Samantha Lewthwaite, 30, aka ‘White Widow’, a mother of four, became UK Jewish Lobby celebrity in 2005 when her Jamaican-born husband Germaine Lindsay was killed by Scotland Yard as one of the so-called “suicide bombers” involved in July 7, 2005 bombing in London. According to former Israeli Mossad operative, Juval Aviv, it was work of Mossad-MI6. In July 2014, Jane Calvari, investigative journalist and film-maker also told Iran’s Press TV that Mossad and MI6 were behind the 7/7 false flag operation to demonize British Muslim population and make Tony Blair’s military collaboration in Iraq for Israel.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/11/14/white-widow-mi6-mossad-agent-killed-in-ukraine/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Diversity Heretic
    I think that you meant in your last sentence that Hitler was fanatical about not allowing strategic retreats to more defensible lines. That's a major theme of Erich von Manstein's book Verlorne Siege (Lost Victories). A more flexible German defense based on retreat and counterattack would have delayed a Soviet victory, although it could not have prevented it--the resource disparity was just too great.

    Yes, sorry. There are repeated references in the literature of generals urging retreat to defensible positions and Hitler refusing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Chaban says:
    @rod1963
    The Nazis considered Slavs as sub-human and butchered them, prior to invading Russia, the German Army was told to treat the Russians as sub-human and they did. They butchery they committed was beyond belief.

    I'll give you a example since you have idea what you're talking about.

    When Poland was partitioned in '39, the part the Russians took over was rather bloodless, they did take over the property of the wealthy Jewish and Polish towns folk, installed Russian teachers in the schools, made the study of Russian language mandatory.

    When your precious Nazis rolled in '41, they leveled entire towns, butchered Poles and Jews like crazy, enslaved hundreds of thousands of others - men, women and children. Most of those brought into Germany as slave died as a result. What happened in Russia proper was even worse.

    Then there was General Pant Ost, that's what the Krauts really thought of "real Russians" and Slavs in general.

    Nice try white washing the Krauts.

    That simply isn’t true. The Germans and (real) Russians got along just fine. But zionists for over one hundred years have said (even publicly) that they could not allow Germany and Russia to work together…
    So who do you work for in keeping the lie alive, huh?

    As far as Restrum’s main argument is concerned, those who are not too slow get it…

    Unlike previous attackers, NATO, which dwarfs any other organization militarily, would not even have to worry about its western flank (something both Napoleon and Hitler had to deal with).

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    NATO couldn't conquer even India, tard, not to speak of Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • I tend to agree that in 1941 the Wehrmacht was possibly the finest army that has ever existed. However Operation Barbarossa failed nonetheless. Sir Basil Liddell Hart pointed out that after the appalling winter of 1941/42 many Wehrmacht divisions were at one third strength. The Germans were never able to bring them back to full strength. The solution was to reduce the number of troops in each division. Liddell Hart reckoned an American division of the middle war period was equal to two Wehrmacht divisions.

    http://www.amazon.com/History-Second-World-B-H-Liddell/dp/156852627X

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Sean
    It is twenty years since Ukraine got assurances from European powers and the US to defend it, if it abandoned nuclear weapons. They were worthless, just like any they could get now, because as Mearsheimer said, Ukraine was never going to get a meaningful security guarantee against Russia and that was why Ukraine needed nukes . They should have listened to him.

    Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.
     
    Germany is surrounded by fellow EU and Nato members and solid in that department they only have to control the EU to ahieve hegemony. and is aiming for economic dominance by the excellence of it's products, which the EU single currency enables them to bring to bear on every fellow member. The single currency EU has kept Europe from war “Merkel never tires of repeating this mantra" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-euro-would-europe-have-turned-to-war/2011/09/21/gIQAxGpZrK_story.html

    If Germany fails in its project for dominating Europe, it will be compelled to rearm, not with soft power, environmentalism, feats of humanitarian refugee acceptance and lessons for incomers on how to have sex with blondes, but with a real armed forces and nukes.

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country's population and any possibility of future resurgence. Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ? Nuclear war is another rung on the ladder to absolute war but don't think real conventional war can't be decisive.

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country’s population and any possibility of future resurgence.

    You are sadly delusional. Thank god you’re not running NATO!

    Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ?

    Umm … to hold down the other Warsaw Pact countries, perhaps? Look up ‘Brezhnev Doctrine’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Nuclear weapons make war less likely, but the superpowers don't act as if they think a conventional attack is obsolete. Tanks are expensive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    United Nations, EU, and NATO are all international tools created by the Western imperial powers to maintain their imperial agenda. Russia is one of the few remaining imperial and colonial powers. It still occupy over half a dozen Muslim lands. Hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tartars Muslims living in Ukraine, like Palestinians still remember how their ancestors were expelled from their motherland by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, who established the first Jewish state in Russia.

    In February 2016, Muslim Crimean Tatar singer Susana Jamaldinova , known as Jamala, won the contest to represent Ukraine at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest in Stockholm, Sweden. She sang song 1944 in the contest written and composed by herself. The song is about the plight of 238,000 Muslim Crimean Tartars expelled from their home in Southern Ukraine by Russian mass-killer Josef Stalin. Nearly 50% of them died during deportation. Today, Crimea is mostly populated by ethnic Russian Christians and Jews.

    On February 22, Vadim Dengin, first deputy chairman of the committee of Duma (Russian parliament) urged the jury of Eurovision to ban Jamaldinova from singing the 1944 song, which highlights deportation of her grandmother along with her four sons and one daughter. It’s not a political parody against Russia. The song opens with lyrics; When strangers are coming. They come to your house, they kill you all and say: ‘We are not guilty, not guilty. Listen the song below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/23/muslim-singer-represents-ukraine-at-eurovision-2016/

    The creation of the United Nations was the agency responsible for opening the west borders to people like you sport.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    So you really believe that Muslims won the WWII - because it were the victors of the WWII, all controlled by the Organized Jewry, who revamp the discredited League of Nations under the new kosher name - United Nations, which a few years later gave 56% of Palestinian land to Europe's UNWANTED Jews.

    "To understand the dysfunctional US-Israel relationship which has been plagued with self-deception, betrayal and false intent from its inception. To begin with, one must understand that the state of Israel was in large part created by those who despised Jews," says Janet C. Phelan, an investigative journalist and author.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/09/17/israel-was-created-to-solve-europes-jewish-problem/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer

    The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany all by itself without any help from anybody. Why would the Soviet peoples stop fighting given the genocidal policies of the Nazi invaders? The intelligence branch of the German army believed the USSR would not begin to break up until the Urals had been reached. This was twice as far Hitler’s “A-A line” and the Germans only got halfway to that point.The ignorance on the part of some posters here is amazing. The USSR would probably have won the war during the 1941-42 winter counter-offensive had they concentrated all resources against Army group Center as Zhukov wanted to do. Stalin unwisely insisted on an attack along the whole length of the line and let the Germans just get off the hook. They still suffered terribly. As for one poster commenting on ‘they took all this territory in 5 months and the Russian’s took 3 years to take it back’, well that is what happens when you attack with the element of surprise. It also took the USA about 3 years to push back the 6 month expansion of the Japanese empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A lot of the military related comments here are predictably obtuse:

    (1) The record of WW2 (least of all some people's exclusively German General Staff-flavored perception of it) has next to zero bearing on today.

    (2) Russia has complete military dominance over its Near Abroad, including the Baltics. This is transparently obvious and even the Pentagon openly admits it.

    (3) In the frankly sci-fi scenario that all of NATO mobilizes to invade Russia then NATO will indeed "win" but not before it reduces everyone to playing Fallout, RLRPG edition.

    What do you mean NATO would win?

    Not counting nuclear war do you mean because the US would go to war too? If so, I’m not sure I agree with that.

    Under the Sci fi version of a Nato war against Russia I think Russia would win since the US would not add much besides airial and naval support. It would be Russia against primarily European forces which would probably crumble after the first hard season.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    "You have a strange notion of modesty."

    I stand by my earlier comment in full. Anglo-American(mostly American) aid to Russia only became a flood from late 1943 onwards. It is true this was a great help to the Soviet forces as they advanced westwards in 1944-5. But by then Germany was beaten.

    Churchill diverted shipload of Canadian Valentine tanks from Britain to Russia in mid Atlantic when Germany invaded Russia. There were Valentine tanks defending Moscow in December. And the RAF had already broken th Luftwaffe’s back in 1940 while Russia was still buying rubber on Germany’s behalf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "..Valentine tanks defending Moscow.."

    ROTFLMAO. You seriously think the Germans were stopped by a few mediocre tanks the British gave them?

    "..the RAF had broken the Luftwaffe's back in 1940.."

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. NOT EVEN REMOTELY close to the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:

    “For somebody like me who lived through the Cold War and who used to monitor the Soviet Forces in Eastern Germany, it is both distressing and sickening to see that the West has literally forced Russia into a new Cold War she neither wanted nor needed.”

    Lot’s of wife beaters say “She made me do it”!. Saker clearly thinks is the same terms. “For somebody like me who lived through the Cold War and who used to monitor the Soviet Forces in Eastern Germany, it is both distressing and sickening to see that the West has literally forced Russia into a new Cold War she neither wanted nor needed.” Russia could have had a deal with the EU in 2004. Putin’s vanity and his spook’s confusion over the difference between the EU and the US (George Bush’s radar sits) lead it into the sand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @rod1963
    Remember that was 70 years ago dude. Times and armies have changed.

    The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest armies ever fielded prior to Stalingrad. Today it's non-existent.

    And our modern Army is in no way comparable to that machine either. It's small, infested with political commisars that make sure females and minorities are taken care of, casualty adverse because it's all-vol.

    Really how could we control Russia with say 4 Army and a Marine division and a couple hundred special ops goons?

    “The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest army …”

    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of “the finest army” were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    As usual about anti-German propaganda, zero proof for it.
    , @iffen
    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of “the finest army” were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    Did this help or hinder?
    , @Pseudonymous
    The Germans didn't have access to tea or coffee during the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Rehmat
    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was 'half-Jewish' (all his three wives were Jewish) was the 'iron-fist' leader of Soviet Russia.

    When Stalin’s Red Army occupied Poland during WWII, it turned the country into a Holocaust museum. Since 1950s more western leaders have visited Auschwitz Holocaust Memorial than the Vatican.

    Holocaust Industry claims that four million Jews were killed in several Nazi ‘concentration’ camps in Poland before 1945. However, it doesn’t acknowledge that three million Polish Christian, mostly Catholics, also died during the same period.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/01/poland-changes-holocaust-narrative/

    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was ‘half-Jewish’ (all his three wives were Jewish)

    No, he wasn’t. Iosip Vissarionovich Jughashvili was 100% Georgian and raised an Orthodox Christian, as attested to by his seminary education. Moreover, he was married twice — not three times — first to Ekaterina Svanidze, who was Georgian like himself and whose brother, Aleksandr, attended seminary with Stalin; second to Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who was of combined Russian, Georgian, and German ancestry.

    There were numerous Bolsheviks who were Jewish,* and it appears Lenin himself might have been a quarter Jewish. Molotov’s wife was Jewish. But Stalin? No.

    Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Litvinov, Radek, and Kaganovich, just to name a few.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    As you have discovered, Rehmat has the same relationship to historical facts as a devout Muslim man has to his four wives. Sort of a hit or miss proposition. Not especially faithful.
    , @Rehmat
    Moshe - Are you claiming that you know about Jewish-controlled Soviet Russia more than former KGB top gun Vladimir Putin who claims in 2013 that 85% members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.

    Try to lift your Zionist brain from lower part of your body.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/06/19/putin-i-smile-to-jews-will-they-smile-back/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    The non-military "elites" of this country have shamelessly, hypocritically, and ruthlessly gutted the Constitution already. There is no hope of a political restoration of a constitutional republic at this point.

    One of the few reservoirs of respect for constitutional republicanism in this country may be the mid-level military ranks, captains through colonels. Higher ranks are mostly held by emasculated politicals. BO's administration has notoriously pruned out from the highest levels of the military all who might oppose his regime and future regimes like it.

    But the mid-level ranks are precisely those which traditionally have been able to stage successful coups. The only real hope for a return to constitutional republicanism in this country may be a military coup arising within these ranks. I never thought until recently that I would ever entertain such a thought, let alone express it. But such is the sad state to which this country has fallen that a military coup may be the only remaining plausible way to restore the Constitution and the Republic.

    Higher ranks are mostly held by emasculated politicals

    And they were air-dropped in from somewhere, they were never captains, majors or colonels.

    The only real hope for a return to constitutional republicanism in this country may be a military coup

    What’s the word? What is it? Oh! I remember. Oxymoron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    In fairness to Jus' Sayin' didn't John Kerry refer to the Egyptian military coup as "restoring democracy?" The implicit threat of a military coup kept Turkey secular until recently. I remember William Safire saying that a military coup in Iran might have been a good idea in the 1980s. Lesser of evils and all that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Sean
    http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/99spring/hooker.htm

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk”
     
    Map just look at the ground covered by 9 July (ie before the unnecessary 6 week halt infront of the land bridge to Moscow. According to The Blitzkrieg Campaigns: Germany's Lightning War Strategy in Action by John Delaney, at this point Stalin was informed by his military commander that the road to Moscow was essentially open, with the greatest weakness a no more tanks available.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.


    “In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies” Here.
     
    Germany is an advanced country and now Russia's capital has managed to catch up with its namesake (55° North) Scottish village, and has a metaled road to it. The Russians had good weapons in WW2 but read ‘National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union’ to find out where the technology came from, and who designed those big factories in the USSR.

    Germany with nuclear weapons and thus able to fight a conventional war against Russia would crush it easily. Khrushchev knew this and that is why he was terrified when Eisenhower started moving toward giving Germany some say in nukes and maybe even their own, and started to try risky gambits like Cuba. See here and especially here. Lucky for Russia they now have nothing anybody wants.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.

    Interesting. Kiev didn’t even fall until September. So are you saying that the general were going to have a go at Moscow without their rear area secure? Got to go with Hitler on that decision, then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-09.png
    That operation was an excursion from and loss of momentum for Von Bock's drive to his objective , which was straight along the Moscow unpaved superhighway .. The orders from Von Bock were to go swiftly and ruthlessly forward with maximum use of motorised mobility. All the German war games predicting victory were based on the assumption of an uninterrupted drive by army group centre directly on Moscow. That was the German army's plan, but on the 21st August Hitler ordered them to do something else.

    Kiev was another army group's assignment, and not in the rear of army group centre. Like Leningrad it was supposed to be an economy of force operation and Again


    On 3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 mi (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk
     
    The Russians had run out of space. Guderian would have stopped for a fortnight to replenish and refit before pressing on. Hitler's order meant there was an additional six weeks on top of that. And despite 6 weeks to reinforce Russian defences, once he was allowed to do what he insisted he wanted to do and destroy the enemy's' army, Von Bock (who showed a flash of military genius at this point) seemed able to do just that to an army that has supposedly fought him to a standstill and then been reinforced for 6 weeks>

    The German attack went according to plan, with 3rd Panzer Army pushing through the middle nearly unopposed and then splitting its mobile forces north to complete the encirclement of Vyazma with 4th Panzer Army, and other units south to close the ring around Bryansk in conjunction with 2nd Panzer Army. The Soviet defense, still under construction, was overrun and spearheads of the Second and Third Panzer Groups met at Vyazma on 10 October 1941.[21] Four Soviet armies (the 19th, 20th, 24th and 32nd) were trapped in a large pocket just west of the city.[22
     
    Think about that; moreover:-

    On 15 October, Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow to Kuibyshev (now Samara), leaving only a limited number of officials behind. The evacuation caused panic among Muscovites. On 16–17 October, much of the civilian population tried to flee, mobbing the available trains and jamming the roads from the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#The_Battles_of_Vyazma_and_Bryansk
     
    Adolf Hitler's directive of 21st August, and to a lesser extent the record winter of 1941 (-40 degrees near Moscow) rescued the Russians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sean
    If Zionists are stealing US taxpayers' money for Ukrainian schemes, that seems a very tangental way to help Israel , which is supposed to be their main mission.How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know, because it seems to me Israel has much more pressing matters to worry about than Ukraine.

    If Zionists have so much pull why don't they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ? If the Zionist movement is as powerful as you say they must be benignly humanitarian to willingly harbor within their border walls of Israel an Arab population that breeds terrorist killers of Jews.

    The Germans understand all this and so they choose to import the least desirable people in the world: malevolent misogynistic Muslims. It's just to show what nice people Germans are and how they have changed. In their traditional fashion the German leadership have mounted a (soft power) blitzkrieg that has outmaneuvered all their international rivals. It was decided quite recently.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/angela-merkel-criticises-pegida-far-right-group-germany

    Merkel and the German establishment were aghast at the Pegida marches. Merkel announced the open door just s few months later. Germany is haunted by WW2 and they will do whatever it takes to prevent Germany being seen as nationalist. Leading politicians proudly describe it as post nationalist.

    How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know…

    Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it has something to do with attacking Russia’s near abroad. Here’s a comment I posted previously:

    I couldn’t disagree more. As you well know, the neocons have been vilifying Putin, constantly provoking the Russian bear, and even pushing for regime change.

    Why are they pushing for regime change in Moscow? Because Russia is an ally of Syria and Iran, both staunch supporters of Hezbollah, Israel’s arch enemy.

    Here’s how NED President Carl Gershman put it in an opinion piece for the Washington Post:
    “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president

    Other neocons threaten to carry Putin out of the Kremlin “feet first.” http://www.interpretermag.com/west-has-means-shor

    BTW – who was the one handing out cookies in Maidan Square during the Feb 22 coup? Why it was none other than the cookie monster herself, Victoria Nudelman, spouse of Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, the group that pushed hard to invade Iraq!

    If Zionists have so much pull why don’t they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ?

    Patience, they’re still working on it:

    Most Jews want to expel Palestinians — Pew’s ugly portrait of Israel – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/most-jews-want-to-expel-palestinians-pews-ugly-portrait-of-israel/#sthash.VBbvz0O6.dpuf

    P.S. I always get a kick whenever people refer to Arabs as anti-Semites!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Israel’s arch enemy is the Arabs in the West Bank, who cannot be given full rights or kept without them, the alternatives are (1) withdrawal from the West Bank, (2) creating a state for the Arabs out of what is now Israel, (3)The Arabs giving up and leaving Israel. The originally favored solution in Israel was 3, but no one can seriously expect that now. Wars oft times lead to populations moving.

    It is possible that the neocons see the destruction of countries supporting the Arabs in the West Bank like Iraq was (Saddam Hussein gave bounties to the families of suicide bombers) and Iran still is, as making Israel safer, because it makes 3 more likely. But no country in the region is an arch enemy of Israel. Put out of your mind any idea that the rag tag ill-equipped force of Hezbollah, which has no effective heavy weapons, is a problem worth bringing Russia into the Middle East for; in the 2006 war Israel was accused of deliberately leaving Hezbollah rockets units alone to fire on Israel to give an excuse for large scale infrastructure destruction.

    Neocon don't even mention any of this, and like most people they think first and mainly of themselves. I think you should remember that they are Americans who enjoy enviable positions in society through their allegiance to Israel, not actual Israelis. It is wrong to think neocons will target whatever is the greatest problem to Israeli. No, neocons go after whatever makes what them look good. Cognitive dissonance lets them think the are fearless, but it's quite clear that were they truly fearless they would advocate a withdrawal from the occupied territories like Martin Van Creveld does, or expulsion of Arabs in the West Bank (at least) as Benny Morris .

    Morris said


    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.
     
    They will get it too, unless something alone the lines of what Van Creveld or Morris suggests is carried out, but the necons, focused on their own personal aggrandizement, don't dare to consider either possibility. It is only Israelis who are seriously thinking about this stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Regnum Nostrum

    Make no mistake, this is a huge, heavy and powerful force whose purpose will be very similar to the famous Soviet “Shock” Armies during WWII.
     
    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months. That in spite of the fact that Germany was under daily bombardment, fighting guerrilla forces in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland and France and Soviet Union received a huge amount of material help from the Allies. This time Russia will be alone, without all its former Soviet republics whose resources and manpower it could use, fighting not just Germany but on top of that all the former Allies and will receive no material help. Make no mistake but the only reason why Russia is not under military attack is its rusting nuclear deterrent.

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.

    And if you knew history, as you apparently don’t, you’d realize that what allowed Wehrmacht to take that territory in five months was Russians leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon’s armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did, which is why Germans never took Moscow. Yes, they came to within sight of it, but by then they had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes.

    When Russians made the stand, as they did in Stalingrad, they crushed German advance with their multi-layered defense.

    The reason it took Russians three and a half years to take the territory back was that Germans were actually resisting while retreating, i.e. exactly the opposite of the Russian approach under similar circumstances. Not that it did Germans any good in the end.

    If you want to avoid embarrassing yourself in public, try learning something about the topic at hand before you post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Considering the huge quantities of prisoners the Germans took in 1941, it's hard to argue that it was a clever Russian plot to lure the Wehrmacht deeper into Russia. The retreats of 1942 were, by contrast, much better organized and didn't involve the huge prisoner "bags" of 1941.
    , @Regnum Nostrum
    Do not try to teach me about the history of WW2. I have heard plenty of eye witnesses and participants of that war. I have read even a greater number of history books written by all sides to the conflict. Your claim about Russians allowing the Wehrmacht to progress unhindered does not stand up to scrutiny. There are numerous mentions by members of Stalin inner circle about his shock when Germans invaded. He firmly believed that the Germans would not break the non-aggression agreement. As a matter of fact, when Richard Sorge sent a message with the exact date of the attack, Stalin dismissed it as a hoax. You do not prepare a trap for somebody you do not believe will attack. If, as you say there was no resistance, how did the Germans end up with more than a million of prisoners, Stalin's own son being one of them? Was that too part of the trap? Were they ordered to get captured? In a life and death struggle you try to keep any fighting man you can. You do not leave them to the enemy. Your claim that it took the Russians three and a half year to get the territory back because the Germans were resisting is beyond funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Sean
    http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/99spring/hooker.htm

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk”
     
    Map just look at the ground covered by 9 July (ie before the unnecessary 6 week halt infront of the land bridge to Moscow. According to The Blitzkrieg Campaigns: Germany's Lightning War Strategy in Action by John Delaney, at this point Stalin was informed by his military commander that the road to Moscow was essentially open, with the greatest weakness a no more tanks available.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.


    “In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies” Here.
     
    Germany is an advanced country and now Russia's capital has managed to catch up with its namesake (55° North) Scottish village, and has a metaled road to it. The Russians had good weapons in WW2 but read ‘National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union’ to find out where the technology came from, and who designed those big factories in the USSR.

    Germany with nuclear weapons and thus able to fight a conventional war against Russia would crush it easily. Khrushchev knew this and that is why he was terrified when Eisenhower started moving toward giving Germany some say in nukes and maybe even their own, and started to try risky gambits like Cuba. See here and especially here. Lucky for Russia they now have nothing anybody wants.

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk

    I’ll post a version of the comment I used to reply to #10, Regnum Nostrum:

    Ever heard of such a thing as leading someone into a trap? The reason Guderian and Hoth advanced that fast was that Russians were leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon’s armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.

    Nonsense. By that time Germans had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes, courtesy of the aforementioned broken supply lines, courtesy of not having learned a lesson from Napoleon. What Hitler wanted or didn’t want by that time was irrelevant. Read Otto Skorzeny’s memoirs if you want first-hand account of why Germans never took Moscow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking." - And having 1 million or more of soldiers left behind to be taken POW was part of this brilliant Russian plan?

    After Yom Kippur War Anwar Sadat called his Soviet advisors and asked them to explain how did it happen that Israeli armor brigade was marching on Cairo. We used a well tested Russian strategy, they replied: "Let the enemy get deep into your territory and then wait for the winter. It worked with Napoleon and Hitler."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Wally says: • Website
    @Thales the Milesian
    "The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest army ..."

    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of "the finest army" were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    As usual about anti-German propaganda, zero proof for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @Thales the Milesian
    "The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest army ..."

    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of "the finest army" were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of “the finest army” were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    Did this help or hinder?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thales the Milesian
    Ask the Olympic Games committee.
    , @Marcus
    It was called "marching powder" for a reason
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • dcite says:
    @Rehmat
    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was 'half-Jewish' (all his three wives were Jewish) was the 'iron-fist' leader of Soviet Russia.

    When Stalin’s Red Army occupied Poland during WWII, it turned the country into a Holocaust museum. Since 1950s more western leaders have visited Auschwitz Holocaust Memorial than the Vatican.

    Holocaust Industry claims that four million Jews were killed in several Nazi ‘concentration’ camps in Poland before 1945. However, it doesn’t acknowledge that three million Polish Christian, mostly Catholics, also died during the same period.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/01/poland-changes-holocaust-narrative/

    Stalin’s wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, was not Jewish. Her daughter with Stalin, Svetlana, did marry a Jewish man, which she said angered Stalin enough that he exiled his son in law, at least for a while. However, he was quite fond of his half-Jewish granddaughter, and laughed out loud when he first saw her. She must have been a pretty funny looking toddler (in a cute way) to make Stalin laugh out loud.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • utu says:
    @Mark Eugenikos

    3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 miles (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk
     
    I'll post a version of the comment I used to reply to #10, Regnum Nostrum:

    Ever heard of such a thing as leading someone into a trap? The reason Guderian and Hoth advanced that fast was that Russians were leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon's armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did.

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.
     
    Nonsense. By that time Germans had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes, courtesy of the aforementioned broken supply lines, courtesy of not having learned a lesson from Napoleon. What Hitler wanted or didn't want by that time was irrelevant. Read Otto Skorzeny's memoirs if you want first-hand account of why Germans never took Moscow.

    “Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking.” – And having 1 million or more of soldiers left behind to be taken POW was part of this brilliant Russian plan?

    After Yom Kippur War Anwar Sadat called his Soviet advisors and asked them to explain how did it happen that Israeli armor brigade was marching on Cairo. We used a well tested Russian strategy, they replied: “Let the enemy get deep into your territory and then wait for the winter. It worked with Napoleon and Hitler.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    You'd think the fact that Russian soldiers require inhospitable winters to inflict any kind of damage on the enemy might temper Putin's amen corner's bellicosity but it never does. Russia's ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can't take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign. I'm sure if Russia could somehow trick NATO into trying to capture Moscow Russia might have a chance to prevail, but that isn't going to happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @SteveTheSwede
    Regarding the picture of the defense ministers: that's not the defense minister of Sweden. Just saying.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hultqvist

    that’s not the defense minister of Sweden. Just saying.

    At the time this photograph was taken, February 1, 2014, she was.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/female-defence-ministers-tweet-photograph

    As the link you provided indicates, Peter Hultqvist was appointed Minister for Defence 8 months later, on 3 October 2014.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    But the Saker published this article using that photograph in 2016 without making mention of the fact. Now I don't honestly think Saker was trying to pull a fast one, after all the guy lives in Florida so clearly European politics aren't really his thing-Russian winters either for that matter I guess. Of course he could have always just posted an image of the Russian defense minister from the period in which that photo was accurate, but of course Serdyukov's dumb peasant face wouldn't have been much of a juxtaposition. And he doesn't have the chest full of medals (which conflicts did Shoygu earn all those medals in one wonders) to distract attention for that vacant gaze.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @Sean
    If Zionists are stealing US taxpayers' money for Ukrainian schemes, that seems a very tangental way to help Israel , which is supposed to be their main mission.How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know, because it seems to me Israel has much more pressing matters to worry about than Ukraine.

    If Zionists have so much pull why don't they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ? If the Zionist movement is as powerful as you say they must be benignly humanitarian to willingly harbor within their border walls of Israel an Arab population that breeds terrorist killers of Jews.

    The Germans understand all this and so they choose to import the least desirable people in the world: malevolent misogynistic Muslims. It's just to show what nice people Germans are and how they have changed. In their traditional fashion the German leadership have mounted a (soft power) blitzkrieg that has outmaneuvered all their international rivals. It was decided quite recently.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/angela-merkel-criticises-pegida-far-right-group-germany

    Merkel and the German establishment were aghast at the Pegida marches. Merkel announced the open door just s few months later. Germany is haunted by WW2 and they will do whatever it takes to prevent Germany being seen as nationalist. Leading politicians proudly describe it as post nationalist.

    Yes Moshe – you’re right. “Israeli Jews have more pressing matters to worry about than Ukraine.” You know why? Because Ukrainian are native people of the land while Israeli Jews are the UNWANTED PEOPLE of the West.

    How a Jewish occupied Ukraine would help Israel? You don’t need a PhD to connect the dots. Just listen to Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the separatist Donesk People Republic who called the US-EU installed regime in Kiev as “controlled by miserable Jews.”

    If that’s not a good proof – then how about this one.

    In November 2014, UK’s most wanted woman terrorist, Northern-Ireland-born Samantha Lewthwaite is reportedly killed by a Russian sniper in Ukraine two weeks ago. She was involved in training the anti-Russian Ukrainian rebels fighting to defend the US-EU installed Jewish regime in Kiev.

    Moscow-based Regnum News Agency has also claimed that Kiev regime has posted one million dollar reward for the sniper who shot-down Ms Lewthwaite.

    A source at the UK’s foreign office told ITV News that “we are aware of reports that Samantha Lewthwaite has been killed in Ukraine“.

    Samantha Lewthwaite, 30, aka ‘White Widow’, a mother of four, became UK Jewish Lobby celebrity in 2005 when her Jamaican-born husband Germaine Lindsay was killed by Scotland Yard as one of the so-called “suicide bombers” involved in July 7, 2005 bombing in London. According to former Israeli Mossad operative, Juval Aviv, it was work of Mossad-MI6. In July 2014, Jane Calvari, investigative journalist and film-maker also told Iran’s Press TV that Mossad and MI6 were behind the 7/7 false flag operation to demonize British Muslim population and make Tony Blair’s military collaboration in Iraq for Israel.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/11/14/white-widow-mi6-mossad-agent-killed-in-ukraine/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Philip Owen


    Churchill diverted shipload of Canadian Valentine tanks from Britain to Russia in mid Atlantic when Germany invaded Russia. There were Valentine tanks defending Moscow in December. And the RAF had already broken th Luftwaffe's back in 1940 while Russia was still buying rubber on Germany's behalf.

    “..Valentine tanks defending Moscow..”

    ROTFLMAO. You seriously think the Germans were stopped by a few mediocre tanks the British gave them?

    “..the RAF had broken the Luftwaffe’s back in 1940..”

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. NOT EVEN REMOTELY close to the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    "You seriously think the Germans were stopped by a few mediocre tanks the British gave them?" You clearly think that I said that which makes you rather dimwitted.
    , @animalogic
    If I remember rightly, re: Valentine tank quality etc, the expression "better than nothing" might be too generous...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Philip Owen


    "EU, Russia and the Ukraine could have negotiated a tripartite deal". The whole point is that Ukraine is not part of Russia. The French had this problem with Algeria; the British with more justification (the same Normans conquered both) with Ireland. Russia is still the most rabid 19th Century imperialist power on the planet. Germany, Austria, UK, France, Holland, Portugal have all largely adjusted. Russia still thinks it has a divine right to rule to a far greater extent than Hungary, Turkey, Serbia and similar Imperialist reactionaries. Russia's resurgence was floating on oil. It's accelerating collapse is being amplified by its failure to get past imperialism. Right now, the Kremlin is engaged on project to use only Russian software on state owned computers. This is just one of thousands of "import substitution" programmes using up non existent Russian capital to put Russia on a war footing. Russia's purchasing power has fallen by 25% since 2014. Russian people are now significantly poorer than Turks.

    [It’s accelerating collapse]

    You may not be able to wean yourself off sick fantasies, but at least you could learn to write the English language correctly, cretin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    No commas before a "but".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Chaban
    That simply isn't true. The Germans and (real) Russians got along just fine. But zionists for over one hundred years have said (even publicly) that they could not allow Germany and Russia to work together...
    So who do you work for in keeping the lie alive, huh?

    As far as Restrum's main argument is concerned, those who are not too slow get it...

    Unlike previous attackers, NATO, which dwarfs any other organization militarily, would not even have to worry about its western flank (something both Napoleon and Hitler had to deal with).

    NATO couldn’t conquer even India, tard, not to speak of Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Kiza says:
    @Avery
    Right.

    The T-34, in addition to wide tracks and excellent Christie-design-based suspension system, as you noted, had revolutionary sloped armor, which increased its effective thickness, without adding unnecessary weight. Germans were so impressed with the T-34, that they copied it in the Panther, sloped armor and all.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H26258,_Panzer_V_%22Panther%22.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#/media/File:Char_T-34.jpg

    What I heard from a German whose father fought at the Eastern Front was that T-34 was using the same engine as the main Russian truck. So when a T-34 engine would fail, they would get troops out of a truck and the mechanics would transfer the engine from the truck into the tank, in something like 2 hours. The troops would have to walk, but at least they would be protected by a moving armor. The German tanks did not fail often, but when they did in the inhospitable Russian weather and muddy land, it was bye-bye armor and welcome mass surrender.

    The Germans really never had a chance to win the Eastern Front, with a negligible material contribution by the Western allies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Kiza says:

    Saker you are my hero from now on, for just this:

    … the Russian people now see the West as a degenerate, if arrogant, society of Conchita Wurst like poseurs who simply don’t have what it take to fight a real fight and who can only pick on the weak and humble. It is not fear which the Neocons inspire in Russians, but disgust.

    The only segment missing from this description is that this EU Conchita Wurst does constant posturing and imposing himself onto the whole World on morality and humanitarianism. It is like a Conchita Wurst who became a Roman Catholic priest, teaching in a School, whilst performing paedophilic acts daily and telling its victims that they are to blame for the lack of values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Your hero chooses to live in Florida- forget courage of ones convictions Saker doesn't even risk the inconvenience of his convictions. You can kind of see why Putin's amen corner is also so angry- conigtive dissonance is a killer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Greasy William
    No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support.

    The shortage of fuel and rubber that dogged Germany throughout the war? Wouldn't have existed. The German war economy would have produced more weaponry than did Britain and Canada combined, historically; and that is without even considering all the resources Germany would have saved from not needing to fight the U-boat war and develop alternative fuels.

    The US and UK sent the Soviets massive amount of food, trucks, radios and machine tools. Without all this you are not just looking at a less effective Red Army, but probably outright famine in the Soviet Union and Soviet industry being unable to replace the massive material losses of the wars first 2 years, if they even made it that long.

    The US/UK also tied down the overwhelming majority of Italian and Japanese forces, who would themselves been dramatically more effective with no Allied blockade to cripple their industries. And the Russians can keep the US/UK from throwing their lot in with the Axis as well.

    And it was the Allies that tied down and ultimately destroyed the Luftwaffe, without which you can forget about the Soviet air supremacy in 1944 that allowed Operation Bagration to be such a massive success.

    It's not that the Germans would have beaten the Soviets if not for the western Allies, it's that it wouldn't have even been remotely close.

    “Massive”western shipments of arms? The outsides estimates of US aid was about 4.5% of war material. There were planes but they were obsolete such as the Buffalo fighter of 1932 design and cloth wings. The items that were useful however were C ration, insulated boots and Studibaker trucks. There are monuments to the trucks in Eastern Europe. Western opinion that the US was the savior of the Red Army is common but it contradicts the archive records and policy of the times. The USSR was essentially fighting alone in a war that was almost entirely an Eastern Front war.
    War is coming, Clinton has a true passion for war and her horrible performance as SoS has even been admitted to by Obama who has stated in a recent interview that his biggest regret was allowing Clinton talk him into wars on Libya and others [meaning Ukraine and Syria] which created the new cold war. It is not much secret that he asked her to leave office. The neocons loyal to Cheney are well entrenched in the State Department so they will have reason to rejoice when one of their own becomes president. Victoria Nuland’s husband is her chief foreign policy advisor and it is quite likely Nuland herself will become SoS under Clinton so an Era of empire expansion and larger wars begins. Russia knows this so is preparing. So are the Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • tbraton says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was ‘half-Jewish’ (all his three wives were Jewish)
     
    No, he wasn't. Iosip Vissarionovich Jughashvili was 100% Georgian and raised an Orthodox Christian, as attested to by his seminary education. Moreover, he was married twice -- not three times -- first to Ekaterina Svanidze, who was Georgian like himself and whose brother, Aleksandr, attended seminary with Stalin; second to Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who was of combined Russian, Georgian, and German ancestry.

    There were numerous Bolsheviks who were Jewish,* and it appears Lenin himself might have been a quarter Jewish. Molotov's wife was Jewish. But Stalin? No.

    Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Litvinov, Radek, and Kaganovich, just to name a few.

    As you have discovered, Rehmat has the same relationship to historical facts as a devout Muslim man has to his four wives. Sort of a hit or miss proposition. Not especially faithful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Kiza
    Saker you are my hero from now on, for just this:

    ... the Russian people now see the West as a degenerate, if arrogant, society of Conchita Wurst like poseurs who simply don’t have what it take to fight a real fight and who can only pick on the weak and humble. It is not fear which the Neocons inspire in Russians, but disgust.
     
    The only segment missing from this description is that this EU Conchita Wurst does constant posturing and imposing himself onto the whole World on morality and humanitarianism. It is like a Conchita Wurst who became a Roman Catholic priest, teaching in a School, whilst performing paedophilic acts daily and telling its victims that they are to blame for the lack of values.

    Your hero chooses to live in Florida- forget courage of ones convictions Saker doesn’t even risk the inconvenience of his convictions. You can kind of see why Putin’s amen corner is also so angry- conigtive dissonance is a killer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @utu
    "Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking." - And having 1 million or more of soldiers left behind to be taken POW was part of this brilliant Russian plan?

    After Yom Kippur War Anwar Sadat called his Soviet advisors and asked them to explain how did it happen that Israeli armor brigade was marching on Cairo. We used a well tested Russian strategy, they replied: "Let the enemy get deep into your territory and then wait for the winter. It worked with Napoleon and Hitler."

    You’d think the fact that Russian soldiers require inhospitable winters to inflict any kind of damage on the enemy might temper Putin’s amen corner’s bellicosity but it never does. Russia’s ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can’t take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign. I’m sure if Russia could somehow trick NATO into trying to capture Moscow Russia might have a chance to prevail, but that isn’t going to happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [harsh Russian winter] Operation Bagration.
    You're like Alfred E. Neuman after a frontal lobotomy.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Russia’s ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can’t take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign.
     
    Lack of snow does not seem to have presented the Russians with any major obstacles in Syria.
    , @Lord Forlorn
    Study the history of the Russo-Turkish Wars, the Russo-Persian Wars or the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Parbes says:

    A lot of Russia-hating, warmongering, lies-and-bullshit-spewing, foaming at the mouth, psychopathic Anglo-Zio-Nazi neocon crazies on this website’s comments threads lately… It doesn’t even matter too much anymore, which of the scum are organized paid trolls and which ones are “independent” lowlife chickenhawks.

    The Unz.com comments section is turning into a sewer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Don't let the Zio-trolls scare you off, Parbes. It only proves that Unz.com is starting to get noticed. If ever they begin to annoy you, feel free to ignore them and focus only on the intelligent, good-faith commenters--I do that routinely myself.
    , @Philip Owen


    There's always Russia Insider to make Unz look highbrow and objective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @geokat62

    that’s not the defense minister of Sweden. Just saying.
     
    At the time this photograph was taken, February 1, 2014, she was.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/female-defence-ministers-tweet-photograph

    As the link you provided indicates, Peter Hultqvist was appointed Minister for Defence 8 months later, on 3 October 2014.

    But the Saker published this article using that photograph in 2016 without making mention of the fact. Now I don’t honestly think Saker was trying to pull a fast one, after all the guy lives in Florida so clearly European politics aren’t really his thing-Russian winters either for that matter I guess. Of course he could have always just posted an image of the Russian defense minister from the period in which that photo was accurate, but of course Serdyukov’s dumb peasant face wouldn’t have been much of a juxtaposition. And he doesn’t have the chest full of medals (which conflicts did Shoygu earn all those medals in one wonders) to distract attention for that vacant gaze.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Not sure what happened to my previous comment... so I am reposting it. Apologies if both appear, later.

    Of course he could have always just posted an image of the Russian defense minister from the period in which that photo was accurate...
     
    Shoygu was the MofD when that photo was taken.

    "On 6 November 2012, Shoygu was appointed Minister of Defence when Putin ousted his longtime ally, Anatoly Serdyukov."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Shoygu

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @iffen
    Higher ranks are mostly held by emasculated politicals

    And they were air-dropped in from somewhere, they were never captains, majors or colonels.

    The only real hope for a return to constitutional republicanism in this country may be a military coup

    What's the word? What is it? Oh! I remember. Oxymoron.

    In fairness to Jus’ Sayin’ didn’t John Kerry refer to the Egyptian military coup as “restoring democracy?” The implicit threat of a military coup kept Turkey secular until recently. I remember William Safire saying that a military coup in Iran might have been a good idea in the 1980s. Lesser of evils and all that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    In fairness to iffen, if, during John Kerry's senseless diplomacy endeavors he bought boxes of democracy at Sam's and hand delivered them to Egypt, Turkey and Iran, they would not know which side of the box to open, even if the three collaborated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Eugenikos

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.
     
    And if you knew history, as you apparently don't, you'd realize that what allowed Wehrmacht to take that territory in five months was Russians leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon's armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did, which is why Germans never took Moscow. Yes, they came to within sight of it, but by then they had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes.

    When Russians made the stand, as they did in Stalingrad, they crushed German advance with their multi-layered defense.

    The reason it took Russians three and a half years to take the territory back was that Germans were actually resisting while retreating, i.e. exactly the opposite of the Russian approach under similar circumstances. Not that it did Germans any good in the end.

    If you want to avoid embarrassing yourself in public, try learning something about the topic at hand before you post.

    Considering the huge quantities of prisoners the Germans took in 1941, it’s hard to argue that it was a clever Russian plot to lure the Wehrmacht deeper into Russia. The retreats of 1942 were, by contrast, much better organized and didn’t involve the huge prisoner “bags” of 1941.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    DH, I think you are ignoring the fact that Stalin was truly startled by the fact that Hitler would violate the Ribbentrop-Molotov Nonaggression Agreement of 1939 by invading the USSR in 1941. The Soviets, per Stalin's orders, continued to ship vital goods to Germany for nearly a week (as I recall) after the invasion had begun. For such a cynical person, Stalin really did believe in abiding by agreements. He later showed the same respect for the mutually agreed sphere of influence post-WWII which gave Greece to Britain, and it was his dispute over Greece which led to the famous break with Tito in 1948.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Sam Haysom
    You'd think the fact that Russian soldiers require inhospitable winters to inflict any kind of damage on the enemy might temper Putin's amen corner's bellicosity but it never does. Russia's ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can't take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign. I'm sure if Russia could somehow trick NATO into trying to capture Moscow Russia might have a chance to prevail, but that isn't going to happen.

    [harsh Russian winter] Operation Bagration.
    You’re like Alfred E. Neuman after a frontal lobotomy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sam Haysom
    But the Saker published this article using that photograph in 2016 without making mention of the fact. Now I don't honestly think Saker was trying to pull a fast one, after all the guy lives in Florida so clearly European politics aren't really his thing-Russian winters either for that matter I guess. Of course he could have always just posted an image of the Russian defense minister from the period in which that photo was accurate, but of course Serdyukov's dumb peasant face wouldn't have been much of a juxtaposition. And he doesn't have the chest full of medals (which conflicts did Shoygu earn all those medals in one wonders) to distract attention for that vacant gaze.

    Not sure what happened to my previous comment… so I am reposting it. Apologies if both appear, later.

    Of course he could have always just posted an image of the Russian defense minister from the period in which that photo was accurate…

    Shoygu was the MofD when that photo was taken.

    “On 6 November 2012, Shoygu was appointed Minister of Defence when Putin ousted his longtime ally, Anatoly Serdyukov.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Shoygu

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @iffen
    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of “the finest army” were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    Did this help or hinder?

    Ask the Olympic Games committee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • thomasT says:

    Very good up till..

    The attacks in Paris and Brussels are just the opening shots of a war which will last many years.

    Paris, Brussels were false flags.

    Paris. In concert venue. No blood on the clothes of victims. Victims in middle of room, instead of at entrance where ‘shooting’ started into dense crowd. Only about 18 bodies, not 80+. Fake, thick bright red blood smeared on the floor under the bodies. Blood turns black after short time. Bodies unguarded. Some limbs oddly twisted as if mannequins hastily placed on floor.

    Brussels. The only video released was the 2011 Domodedovo Russian airport bomb attack. If there was a suicide bomber in front of the American Airlines check-in desk, why were not the duty personnel not injured or at least covered in flying body parts??

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @anon
    The creation of the United Nations was the agency responsible for opening the west borders to people like you sport.

    So you really believe that Muslims won the WWII – because it were the victors of the WWII, all controlled by the Organized Jewry, who revamp the discredited League of Nations under the new kosher name – United Nations, which a few years later gave 56% of Palestinian land to Europe’s UNWANTED Jews.

    “To understand the dysfunctional US-Israel relationship which has been plagued with self-deception, betrayal and false intent from its inception. To begin with, one must understand that the state of Israel was in large part created by those who despised Jews,” says Janet C. Phelan, an investigative journalist and author.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/09/17/israel-was-created-to-solve-europes-jewish-problem/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    In fairness to Jus' Sayin' didn't John Kerry refer to the Egyptian military coup as "restoring democracy?" The implicit threat of a military coup kept Turkey secular until recently. I remember William Safire saying that a military coup in Iran might have been a good idea in the 1980s. Lesser of evils and all that.

    In fairness to iffen, if, during John Kerry’s senseless diplomacy endeavors he bought boxes of democracy at Sam’s and hand delivered them to Egypt, Turkey and Iran, they would not know which side of the box to open, even if the three collaborated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • tbraton says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Considering the huge quantities of prisoners the Germans took in 1941, it's hard to argue that it was a clever Russian plot to lure the Wehrmacht deeper into Russia. The retreats of 1942 were, by contrast, much better organized and didn't involve the huge prisoner "bags" of 1941.

    DH, I think you are ignoring the fact that Stalin was truly startled by the fact that Hitler would violate the Ribbentrop-Molotov Nonaggression Agreement of 1939 by invading the USSR in 1941. The Soviets, per Stalin’s orders, continued to ship vital goods to Germany for nearly a week (as I recall) after the invasion had begun. For such a cynical person, Stalin really did believe in abiding by agreements. He later showed the same respect for the mutually agreed sphere of influence post-WWII which gave Greece to Britain, and it was his dispute over Greece which led to the famous break with Tito in 1948.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Except that the agreement you are referring to the Percentages Agreement also included "language" on Hungary and Yugoslavia that Stalin openly flouted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Eugenikos

    It took the Red Army three and a half years to take back what the Wehrmacht had taken in just five months.
     
    And if you knew history, as you apparently don't, you'd realize that what allowed Wehrmacht to take that territory in five months was Russians leading them into a trap, as they always do, as they have done with Napoleon's armies. Russians/Soviets were retreating without much resistance, forcing the invaders supply lines to stretch to the point of breaking. Which they eventually did, which is why Germans never took Moscow. Yes, they came to within sight of it, but by then they had no fuel, no spare parts, no ammo, and no winter clothes.

    When Russians made the stand, as they did in Stalingrad, they crushed German advance with their multi-layered defense.

    The reason it took Russians three and a half years to take the territory back was that Germans were actually resisting while retreating, i.e. exactly the opposite of the Russian approach under similar circumstances. Not that it did Germans any good in the end.

    If you want to avoid embarrassing yourself in public, try learning something about the topic at hand before you post.

    Do not try to teach me about the history of WW2. I have heard plenty of eye witnesses and participants of that war. I have read even a greater number of history books written by all sides to the conflict. Your claim about Russians allowing the Wehrmacht to progress unhindered does not stand up to scrutiny. There are numerous mentions by members of Stalin inner circle about his shock when Germans invaded. He firmly believed that the Germans would not break the non-aggression agreement. As a matter of fact, when Richard Sorge sent a message with the exact date of the attack, Stalin dismissed it as a hoax. You do not prepare a trap for somebody you do not believe will attack. If, as you say there was no resistance, how did the Germans end up with more than a million of prisoners, Stalin’s own son being one of them? Was that too part of the trap? Were they ordered to get captured? In a life and death struggle you try to keep any fighting man you can. You do not leave them to the enemy. Your claim that it took the Russians three and a half year to get the territory back because the Germans were resisting is beyond funny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Eugenikos

    There are numerous mentions by members of Stalin inner circle about his shock when Germans invaded. He firmly believed that the Germans would not break the non-aggression agreement.
     
    And yet that didn't change Soviet/Russian tried and true approach: lure the enemy deep in and then smash them. I agree that, had Stalin expected Germans to attack, he would have prepared better and Germans wouldn't have advanced as fast. But by admitting that Stalin was surprised by the attack, you have disproved your initial point: it wasn't the poor quality of Soviet military that allowed Germans to advance as fast as they did initially; it was Stalin's strategic blunder, from which he recovered by reverting to the "lure the enemy deeper in" approach.

    Your claim that it took the Russians three and a half year to get the territory back because the Germans were resisting is beyond funny.
     
    Are you claiming that Germans weren't resisting while retreating from USSR? Or what are you claiming? You haven't offered an explanation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Marcus says:
    @Avery
    {This looks more like desperate attempt to convince oneself about the invincibility of the Russian army than a rebuttal of my arguments.}

    Show me exactly in which one of my posts did I say anything about Russian army being invincible.

    { By the way to use your childish term the Germans ground into hamburger meat five times as many Russians. }

    "five times as many": not true.

    Military deaths from all causes:
    Germans: about 5 million.
    Soviets: about 10 million.

    Civilians deaths due to direct military activity:
    Germans: about 3 million.
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Civilians deaths due to ware related causes (famine, diseases):
    Germans: ?
    Soviets: about 8 million.

    Considering that about 80% of German losses were on the Eastern front, we’ll say German military losses were 4 million there.
    So it is not 5-to-1. It's about 2.5-to-1.

    So the "fives times as many Russians" is your Nazis forefathers murdering Soviet civilians. No doubt you are proud.

    And nobody disputes that Nazi troops were better trained and better led when they invaded USSR.
    Nobody disputes that incompetent Stalin caused the unnecessary loss of millions of Soviet troops, as he forbade retreat, and caused the encirclement and annihilation of entire armies. Stalin’s one saving grace was that at some point he realized he is incompetent, and turned the management of the war to professional soldiers like Marshal Zhukov.

    And nobody disputes that Red Army banner was raised over the remains of the 1,000 year Reich, and that “subhumans” pissed on the ashes of your dear Fuhrer.

    Heil Hitler.

    Stalin stubbornly refusing retreat was certainly a blessing in the long run, it bought the Soviets time to regroup, of course at a grievous cost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @tbraton
    DH, I think you are ignoring the fact that Stalin was truly startled by the fact that Hitler would violate the Ribbentrop-Molotov Nonaggression Agreement of 1939 by invading the USSR in 1941. The Soviets, per Stalin's orders, continued to ship vital goods to Germany for nearly a week (as I recall) after the invasion had begun. For such a cynical person, Stalin really did believe in abiding by agreements. He later showed the same respect for the mutually agreed sphere of influence post-WWII which gave Greece to Britain, and it was his dispute over Greece which led to the famous break with Tito in 1948.

    Except that the agreement you are referring to the Percentages Agreement also included “language” on Hungary and Yugoslavia that Stalin openly flouted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Marcus says:
    @iffen
    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of “the finest army” were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    Did this help or hinder?

    It was called “marching powder” for a reason

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It was called “marching powder” for a reason

    @ Thales the Milesian

    Ask the Olympic Games committee

    I guess it is re-assuring to know that we have an uber Wehrmacht in place within our legions of meth heads.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Sam Haysom
    You'd think the fact that Russian soldiers require inhospitable winters to inflict any kind of damage on the enemy might temper Putin's amen corner's bellicosity but it never does. Russia's ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can't take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign. I'm sure if Russia could somehow trick NATO into trying to capture Moscow Russia might have a chance to prevail, but that isn't going to happen.

    Russia’s ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can’t take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign.

    Lack of snow does not seem to have presented the Russians with any major obstacles in Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Parbes
    A lot of Russia-hating, warmongering, lies-and-bullshit-spewing, foaming at the mouth, psychopathic Anglo-Zio-Nazi neocon crazies on this website's comments threads lately... It doesn't even matter too much anymore, which of the scum are organized paid trolls and which ones are "independent" lowlife chickenhawks.

    The Unz.com comments section is turning into a sewer.

    Don’t let the Zio-trolls scare you off, Parbes. It only proves that Unz.com is starting to get noticed. If ever they begin to annoy you, feel free to ignore them and focus only on the intelligent, good-faith commenters–I do that routinely myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Thanks for the kind advice and support; however, despite my disgust and anger towards these jerks, I do usually feel that it is a near-total waste of one's time and energy to even read or think at all about the crap they regurgitate on these pages, let alone reply, refute or comment on them. Oh well - life's not perfect, I guess...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • iffen says:
    @Marcus
    It was called "marching powder" for a reason

    It was called “marching powder” for a reason

    @ Thales the Milesian

    Ask the Olympic Games committee

    I guess it is re-assuring to know that we have an uber Wehrmacht in place within our legions of meth heads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    They have no problem staying up all night, just ask the slumdog who runs the local convenience store, they just need military training. Pay them with fixes instead of money and you'd have a crop of super soldiers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Many ignorant comments decrying Russian military – all latest intelligence suggests China and Russia have surpassed U.S. in all fields by 5 to 10 years.
    Western/U.S./NATO propaganda responses are all hat and no cattle.
    F35, B52, USS Cook,etc. etc.
    The controlled “reset” is rolling in – live with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    Have you ever heard any military claim they have the worst equipment outside budget setting time? Would the Russians claim their new tank uses French components for critical tasks?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Marcus says:
    @iffen
    It was called “marching powder” for a reason

    @ Thales the Milesian

    Ask the Olympic Games committee

    I guess it is re-assuring to know that we have an uber Wehrmacht in place within our legions of meth heads.

    They have no problem staying up all night, just ask the slumdog who runs the local convenience store, they just need military training. Pay them with fixes instead of money and you’d have a crop of super soldiers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Parbes says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Don't let the Zio-trolls scare you off, Parbes. It only proves that Unz.com is starting to get noticed. If ever they begin to annoy you, feel free to ignore them and focus only on the intelligent, good-faith commenters--I do that routinely myself.

    Thanks for the kind advice and support; however, despite my disgust and anger towards these jerks, I do usually feel that it is a near-total waste of one’s time and energy to even read or think at all about the crap they regurgitate on these pages, let alone reply, refute or comment on them. Oh well – life’s not perfect, I guess…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Thanks for the kind advice and support; however, despite my disgust and anger towards these jerks, I do usually feel that it is a near-total waste of one’s time and energy to even read or think at all about the crap they regurgitate on these pages, let alone reply, refute or comment on them. Oh well – life’s not perfect, I guess…
     
    Yeah, you two really have a brutal lot in life, let me tell you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    How does stealing US money for Ukraine help Israel? I would like to know...
     
    Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with attacking Russia's near abroad. Here's a comment I posted previously:

    I couldn’t disagree more. As you well know, the neocons have been vilifying Putin, constantly provoking the Russian bear, and even pushing for regime change.

    Why are they pushing for regime change in Moscow? Because Russia is an ally of Syria and Iran, both staunch supporters of Hezbollah, Israel’s arch enemy.

    Here’s how NED President Carl Gershman put it in an opinion piece for the Washington Post:
    “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet-our-president…

    Other neocons threaten to carry Putin out of the Kremlin “feet first.” http://www.interpretermag.com/west-has-means-shor…

    BTW – who was the one handing out cookies in Maidan Square during the Feb 22 coup? Why it was none other than the cookie monster herself, Victoria Nudelman, spouse of Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, the group that pushed hard to invade Iraq!
     

    If Zionists have so much pull why don’t they simply expel the jihadi anti-Semite population of Arabs who are west of the Jordan river ?
     
    Patience, they're still working on it:

    Most Jews want to expel Palestinians — Pew’s ugly portrait of Israel - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/most-jews-want-to-expel-palestinians-pews-ugly-portrait-of-israel/#sthash.VBbvz0O6.dpuf
     
    P.S. I always get a kick whenever people refer to Arabs as anti-Semites!

    Israel’s arch enemy is the Arabs in the West Bank, who cannot be given full rights or kept without them, the alternatives are (1) withdrawal from the West Bank, (2) creating a state for the Arabs out of what is now Israel, (3)The Arabs giving up and leaving Israel. The originally favored solution in Israel was 3, but no one can seriously expect that now. Wars oft times lead to populations moving.

    It is possible that the neocons see the destruction of countries supporting the Arabs in the West Bank like Iraq was (Saddam Hussein gave bounties to the families of suicide bombers) and Iran still is, as making Israel safer, because it makes 3 more likely. But no country in the region is an arch enemy of Israel. Put out of your mind any idea that the rag tag ill-equipped force of Hezbollah, which has no effective heavy weapons, is a problem worth bringing Russia into the Middle East for; in the 2006 war Israel was accused of deliberately leaving Hezbollah rockets units alone to fire on Israel to give an excuse for large scale infrastructure destruction.

    Neocon don’t even mention any of this, and like most people they think first and mainly of themselves. I think you should remember that they are Americans who enjoy enviable positions in society through their allegiance to Israel, not actual Israelis. It is wrong to think neocons will target whatever is the greatest problem to Israeli. No, neocons go after whatever makes what them look good. Cognitive dissonance lets them think the are fearless, but it’s quite clear that were they truly fearless they would advocate a withdrawal from the occupied territories like Martin Van Creveld does, or expulsion of Arabs in the West Bank (at least) as Benny Morris .

    Morris said

    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.

    They will get it too, unless something alone the lines of what Van Creveld or Morris suggests is carried out, but the necons, focused on their own personal aggrandizement, don’t dare to consider either possibility. It is only Israelis who are seriously thinking about this stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    But no country in the region is an arch enemy of Israel.
     
    I guess Zionists should stop referring to the ZE as "the villa in the jungle"?

    I think you should remember that they are Americans who enjoy enviable positions in society through their allegiance to Israel, not actual Israelis.
     
    I guess people should stop referring to them as Israel-firsters?

    It is wrong to think neocons will target whatever is the greatest problem to Israeli.
     
    I guess Mearsheimer and Walt got it all wrong?

    Morris said

    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.
     

    Crown Prince Abdullah said, in 2002:

    (a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

    In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.
     

    btw - the Arab Peace Initiative was re-endorsed in 2007.

    It is only Israelis who are seriously thinking about this stuff.
     
    I guess the Lobby should just close-up shop?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Parbes
    Thanks for the kind advice and support; however, despite my disgust and anger towards these jerks, I do usually feel that it is a near-total waste of one's time and energy to even read or think at all about the crap they regurgitate on these pages, let alone reply, refute or comment on them. Oh well - life's not perfect, I guess...

    Thanks for the kind advice and support; however, despite my disgust and anger towards these jerks, I do usually feel that it is a near-total waste of one’s time and energy to even read or think at all about the crap they regurgitate on these pages, let alone reply, refute or comment on them. Oh well – life’s not perfect, I guess…

    Yeah, you two really have a brutal lot in life, let me tell you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Not as brutal as the lot of the multitudes whose lives and dreams are shattered by the evil nefarious policies of your maniac neocon leaders, though, you little greasy flunky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Rehmat says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Hmmmmm! Sorry Moshe, my history books still claim Stalin was ‘half-Jewish’ (all his three wives were Jewish)
     
    No, he wasn't. Iosip Vissarionovich Jughashvili was 100% Georgian and raised an Orthodox Christian, as attested to by his seminary education. Moreover, he was married twice -- not three times -- first to Ekaterina Svanidze, who was Georgian like himself and whose brother, Aleksandr, attended seminary with Stalin; second to Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who was of combined Russian, Georgian, and German ancestry.

    There were numerous Bolsheviks who were Jewish,* and it appears Lenin himself might have been a quarter Jewish. Molotov's wife was Jewish. But Stalin? No.

    Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Litvinov, Radek, and Kaganovich, just to name a few.

    Moshe – Are you claiming that you know about Jewish-controlled Soviet Russia more than former KGB top gun Vladimir Putin who claims in 2013 that 85% members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.

    Try to lift your Zionist brain from lower part of your body.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/06/19/putin-i-smile-to-jews-will-they-smile-back/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Mahound,

    85% members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.
     
    That's a sufficiently flimsy term. Do you mean the Central Committee? The Presidium? The Politburo? Without some specificity, it's impossible to respond.

    That said, 60% is probably closer to the truth, but only if you're taking about the Politburo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the Soviet state was not overthrown in August 1941.
     
    Interesting. Kiev didn't even fall until September. So are you saying that the general were going to have a go at Moscow without their rear area secure? Got to go with Hitler on that decision, then.

    That operation was an excursion from and loss of momentum for Von Bock’s drive to his objective , which was straight along the Moscow unpaved superhighway .. The orders from Von Bock were to go swiftly and ruthlessly forward with maximum use of motorised mobility. All the German war games predicting victory were based on the assumption of an uninterrupted drive by army group centre directly on Moscow. That was the German army’s plan, but on the 21st August Hitler ordered them to do something else.

    Kiev was another army group’s assignment, and not in the rear of army group centre. Like Leningrad it was supposed to be an economy of force operation and Again

    On 3 July, Bock′s forces were once again advancing eastward, with Guderian’s tanks crossing the Beresina and Hoth′s tanks crossing the Duna. This day marked the furthest distance covered by Bock′s troops in a single day, with over 100 mi (160 km) traveled. Four days later, Guderian′s tanks crossed the Dnieper, the last great obstacle before Smolensk

    The Russians had run out of space. Guderian would have stopped for a fortnight to replenish and refit before pressing on. Hitler’s order meant there was an additional six weeks on top of that. And despite 6 weeks to reinforce Russian defences, once he was allowed to do what he insisted he wanted to do and destroy the enemy’s’ army, Von Bock (who showed a flash of military genius at this point) seemed able to do just that to an army that has supposedly fought him to a standstill and then been reinforced for 6 weeks>

    The German attack went according to plan, with 3rd Panzer Army pushing through the middle nearly unopposed and then splitting its mobile forces north to complete the encirclement of Vyazma with 4th Panzer Army, and other units south to close the ring around Bryansk in conjunction with 2nd Panzer Army. The Soviet defense, still under construction, was overrun and spearheads of the Second and Third Panzer Groups met at Vyazma on 10 October 1941.[21] Four Soviet armies (the 19th, 20th, 24th and 32nd) were trapped in a large pocket just west of the city.[22

    Think about that; moreover:-

    On 15 October, Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow to Kuibyshev (now Samara), leaving only a limited number of officials behind. The evacuation caused panic among Muscovites. On 16–17 October, much of the civilian population tried to flee, mobbing the available trains and jamming the roads from the city. Sean says:

    @Seamus Padraig

    Everyone who has them says they would use nukes rather than be conquered, but it is uncertain whether anyone would. Russia would probably choose to fight it out conventionally win or lose rather than destroy their own country’s population and any possibility of future resurgence.
     
    You are sadly delusional. Thank god you're not running NATO!

    Why else did the Soviets have all those tanks ?
     
    Umm ... to hold down the other Warsaw Pact countries, perhaps? Look up 'Brezhnev Doctrine'.

    Nuclear weapons make war less likely, but the superpowers don’t act as if they think a conventional attack is obsolete. Tanks are expensive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Regnum Nostrum
    Do not try to teach me about the history of WW2. I have heard plenty of eye witnesses and participants of that war. I have read even a greater number of history books written by all sides to the conflict. Your claim about Russians allowing the Wehrmacht to progress unhindered does not stand up to scrutiny. There are numerous mentions by members of Stalin inner circle about his shock when Germans invaded. He firmly believed that the Germans would not break the non-aggression agreement. As a matter of fact, when Richard Sorge sent a message with the exact date of the attack, Stalin dismissed it as a hoax. You do not prepare a trap for somebody you do not believe will attack. If, as you say there was no resistance, how did the Germans end up with more than a million of prisoners, Stalin's own son being one of them? Was that too part of the trap? Were they ordered to get captured? In a life and death struggle you try to keep any fighting man you can. You do not leave them to the enemy. Your claim that it took the Russians three and a half year to get the territory back because the Germans were resisting is beyond funny.

    There are numerous mentions by members of Stalin inner circle about his shock when Germans invaded. He firmly believed that the Germans would not break the non-aggression agreement.

    And yet that didn’t change Soviet/Russian tried and true approach: lure the enemy deep in and then smash them. I agree that, had Stalin expected Germans to attack, he would have prepared better and Germans wouldn’t have advanced as fast. But by admitting that Stalin was surprised by the attack, you have disproved your initial point: it wasn’t the poor quality of Soviet military that allowed Germans to advance as fast as they did initially; it was Stalin’s strategic blunder, from which he recovered by reverting to the “lure the enemy deeper in” approach.

    Your claim that it took the Russians three and a half year to get the territory back because the Germans were resisting is beyond funny.

    Are you claiming that Germans weren’t resisting while retreating from USSR? Or what are you claiming? You haven’t offered an explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
    You cannot call it tried and true approach because it was only used against Napoleon. Stalin did expect the Germans to eventually attack but not while the war with Great Britain was still going on. As a matter of fact the fortifications were moved to the new border created by the occupation of Poland. That does not support your claim that Russians always lure their enemy deep inside their territory. What worked with Napoleon and his horse and foot soldier army would not work with highly mechanized Wehrmacht. There are many facts which do not support your claim. The Russians were putting up resistance, sometimes fierce as in Brest Fortress, Sevastopol and Kiev, to name a few. The resistance in Kiev resulted in an encirclement and a capture of almost 500 000 Russians. In another retreat a general has been executed for cowardice. The rapid German advance resulted in over one and a half million prisoners and a massive loss of Russian war material . The general consensus is as follows. In the initial stages of the attack on Russia the Germans had better generals, better equipment, better strategy and organization. The Russians had lost quite a few good generals before the war as a result of Stalin's purge based on falsified German document. In the initial stages the Russian equipment was not as good as the one used by Wehrmacht. The Russian strategy was confused and organization lacking. Add on top of that Stalin's refusal to believe that German attack was imminent which resulted in the Russian Army being caught by surprise. In the first two days they have lost most of their aircraft because most of their aircraft was moved west and destroyed during the first couple of days, mostly on the ground. Moscow was saved by fresh troops moved from the East where they were stationed as a precaution against Japanese attack. The movement was possible thanks to another message from Richard Sorge, a communist spy based in Japan, which assured Stalin that the Japanese had no intention of attacking Russia. This time Stalin believed him since his message about German invasion was correct. I could go on for days but there are a plenty of books available if you are interested.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @anon
    "..Valentine tanks defending Moscow.."

    ROTFLMAO. You seriously think the Germans were stopped by a few mediocre tanks the British gave them?

    "..the RAF had broken the Luftwaffe's back in 1940.."

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. NOT EVEN REMOTELY close to the truth.

    “You seriously think the Germans were stopped by a few mediocre tanks the British gave them?” You clearly think that I said that which makes you rather dimwitted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @rod1963
    The Nazis considered Slavs as sub-human and butchered them, prior to invading Russia, the German Army was told to treat the Russians as sub-human and they did. They butchery they committed was beyond belief.

    I'll give you a example since you have idea what you're talking about.

    When Poland was partitioned in '39, the part the Russians took over was rather bloodless, they did take over the property of the wealthy Jewish and Polish towns folk, installed Russian teachers in the schools, made the study of Russian language mandatory.

    When your precious Nazis rolled in '41, they leveled entire towns, butchered Poles and Jews like crazy, enslaved hundreds of thousands of others - men, women and children. Most of those brought into Germany as slave died as a result. What happened in Russia proper was even worse.

    Then there was General Pant Ost, that's what the Krauts really thought of "real Russians" and Slavs in general.

    Nice try white washing the Krauts.

    Katyn massacre wasn’t bloodless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @5371
    [It’s accelerating collapse]

    You may not be able to wean yourself off sick fantasies, but at least you could learn to write the English language correctly, cretin.

    No commas before a “but”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You know as much about English usage as you do about history, you contemptible abortion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Parbes
    A lot of Russia-hating, warmongering, lies-and-bullshit-spewing, foaming at the mouth, psychopathic Anglo-Zio-Nazi neocon crazies on this website's comments threads lately... It doesn't even matter too much anymore, which of the scum are organized paid trolls and which ones are "independent" lowlife chickenhawks.

    The Unz.com comments section is turning into a sewer.

    There’s always Russia Insider to make Unz look highbrow and objective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Most of the comments in Russia Insider are far more highbrow, objective and intelligent than the drivel that you post here.

    By the way, why are you anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks always so obsessed with Russian news sites and what is in them, if you hate and despise Russia and Russians so much? Oh yeah, I forgot - Internet trolling and spewing disinformation and bilge is the only real "mental skill" most of you chickenshit keyboard cowboys have...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:
    @Anonymous
    Many ignorant comments decrying Russian military - all latest intelligence suggests China and Russia have surpassed U.S. in all fields by 5 to 10 years.
    Western/U.S./NATO propaganda responses are all hat and no cattle.
    F35, B52, USS Cook,etc. etc.
    The controlled "reset" is rolling in - live with it.

    Have you ever heard any military claim they have the worst equipment outside budget setting time? Would the Russians claim their new tank uses French components for critical tasks?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • geokat62 says:
    @Sean
    Israel’s arch enemy is the Arabs in the West Bank, who cannot be given full rights or kept without them, the alternatives are (1) withdrawal from the West Bank, (2) creating a state for the Arabs out of what is now Israel, (3)The Arabs giving up and leaving Israel. The originally favored solution in Israel was 3, but no one can seriously expect that now. Wars oft times lead to populations moving.

    It is possible that the neocons see the destruction of countries supporting the Arabs in the West Bank like Iraq was (Saddam Hussein gave bounties to the families of suicide bombers) and Iran still is, as making Israel safer, because it makes 3 more likely. But no country in the region is an arch enemy of Israel. Put out of your mind any idea that the rag tag ill-equipped force of Hezbollah, which has no effective heavy weapons, is a problem worth bringing Russia into the Middle East for; in the 2006 war Israel was accused of deliberately leaving Hezbollah rockets units alone to fire on Israel to give an excuse for large scale infrastructure destruction.

    Neocon don't even mention any of this, and like most people they think first and mainly of themselves. I think you should remember that they are Americans who enjoy enviable positions in society through their allegiance to Israel, not actual Israelis. It is wrong to think neocons will target whatever is the greatest problem to Israeli. No, neocons go after whatever makes what them look good. Cognitive dissonance lets them think the are fearless, but it's quite clear that were they truly fearless they would advocate a withdrawal from the occupied territories like Martin Van Creveld does, or expulsion of Arabs in the West Bank (at least) as Benny Morris .

    Morris said


    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.
     
    They will get it too, unless something alone the lines of what Van Creveld or Morris suggests is carried out, but the necons, focused on their own personal aggrandizement, don't dare to consider either possibility. It is only Israelis who are seriously thinking about this stuff.

    But no country in the region is an arch enemy of Israel.

    I guess Zionists should stop referring to the ZE as “the villa in the jungle”?

    I think you should remember that they are Americans who enjoy enviable positions in society through their allegiance to Israel, not actual Israelis.

    I guess people should stop referring to them as Israel-firsters?

    It is wrong to think neocons will target whatever is the greatest problem to Israeli.

    I guess Mearsheimer and Walt got it all wrong?

    Morris said

    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.

    Crown Prince Abdullah said, in 2002:

    (a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

    In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.

    btw – the Arab Peace Initiative was re-endorsed in 2007.

    It is only Israelis who are seriously thinking about this stuff.

    I guess the Lobby should just close-up shop?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Obviously the Israelis have no intention of handing over enough West Bank land for a meaningful state and the West Bank Arabs and the US (which officially supports the 2 state solution) are being strung along by Israel with no way to resolve the situation. The essential point which Mearsheimer makes is this cannot go on forever and eventually the Israelis will have to choose. The neocon act as if there is no such issue because they prefer to be the advocate of a victim and moral exemplar, which is good for them in the USA , where they live.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Parbes says:
    @Greasy William

    Thanks for the kind advice and support; however, despite my disgust and anger towards these jerks, I do usually feel that it is a near-total waste of one’s time and energy to even read or think at all about the crap they regurgitate on these pages, let alone reply, refute or comment on them. Oh well – life’s not perfect, I guess…
     
    Yeah, you two really have a brutal lot in life, let me tell you.

    Not as brutal as the lot of the multitudes whose lives and dreams are shattered by the evil nefarious policies of your maniac neocon leaders, though, you little greasy flunky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Rehmat
    Moshe - Are you claiming that you know about Jewish-controlled Soviet Russia more than former KGB top gun Vladimir Putin who claims in 2013 that 85% members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.

    Try to lift your Zionist brain from lower part of your body.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/06/19/putin-i-smile-to-jews-will-they-smile-back/

    Mahound,

    85% members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.

    That’s a sufficiently flimsy term. Do you mean the Central Committee? The Presidium? The Politburo? Without some specificity, it’s impossible to respond.

    That said, 60% is probably closer to the truth, but only if you’re taking about the Politburo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • grapesoda says:

    I feel bad for the Ukrainians. They tried to become Western and they got played by the US. They are a high IQ people, and of course their women are attractive. I guess it just goes to show that there’s more to destiny than mere genetics. I hope the Ukrainians will make a comeback one day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Thales the Milesian
    "The German army of yesteryear was probably one of the finest army ..."

    According to the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, the soldiers of "the finest army" were on amphetamines (Pervitin, to be more specific).

    The Germans didn’t have access to tea or coffee during the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @grapesoda
    Barbarians!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • grapesoda says:
    @Pseudonymous
    The Germans didn't have access to tea or coffee during the war.

    Barbarians!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @geokat62

    But no country in the region is an arch enemy of Israel.
     
    I guess Zionists should stop referring to the ZE as "the villa in the jungle"?

    I think you should remember that they are Americans who enjoy enviable positions in society through their allegiance to Israel, not actual Israelis.
     
    I guess people should stop referring to them as Israel-firsters?

    It is wrong to think neocons will target whatever is the greatest problem to Israeli.
     
    I guess Mearsheimer and Walt got it all wrong?

    Morris said

    When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all: Lod and Acre and Jaffa.
     

    Crown Prince Abdullah said, in 2002:

    (a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

    In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.
     

    btw - the Arab Peace Initiative was re-endorsed in 2007.

    It is only Israelis who are seriously thinking about this stuff.
     
    I guess the Lobby should just close-up shop?

    Obviously the Israelis have no intention of handing over enough West Bank land for a meaningful state and the West Bank Arabs and the US (which officially supports the 2 state solution) are being strung along by Israel with no way to resolve the situation. The essential point which Mearsheimer makes is this cannot go on forever and eventually the Israelis will have to choose. The neocon act as if there is no such issue because they prefer to be the advocate of a victim and moral exemplar, which is good for them in the USA , where they live.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    They've clearly already chosen; the question is whether the U.S. will continue to foot the bill for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • The T-14 hasn’t gone into production yet and given the financial condition of Russia, there is doubt it will go into production anytime soon. The T-90 is a good tank and there is some doubt if the T-14 is actually much of a jump above the T-90.

    The Dutch referendum was advisory only. The Dutch government didn’t need to hold the vote, some simply decided to do so. The vote is more a vote against the morons in Brussels than anything else.

    The Crimean Tatars were early invaders of Crimea, but the Russians were invaders as well. Stalin expelled them, and only a few were allowed back. Most are still scattered across the former Soviet Union and East Bloc. Putin is simply continuing the stupidity Stalin began.

    I don’t blame the Tatars for blowing the electrical transmission towers that fed Crimea. Ukraine is under no obligation to subsidized occupied territory in any way.

    No European country is shaking in its boots about the revival of the Tank army. Putin is trying to recall what he thought were the Stalinist glory days. I guess of the Stalinist Soviet Union were the glory days, the Nazi Germany were their glory days. Europe doesn’t have a target painted on their back and the Russian Army won’t get used against NATO. Even with the stupidity of the last 30 years, NATO still wildly outstrips Russia in Combat power.

    I fully expect Putin will more openly, more so than now, go after Ukraine. Putin is trying to build his Army, and something will be done with it. The nearest weak area, presently, is Ukraine. In the end, I expect the Russian Army will find itself in the middle east in direct combat with Iran and others as allies. Putin is going to find he has simply unleashed hell upon his country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Sean
    Obviously the Israelis have no intention of handing over enough West Bank land for a meaningful state and the West Bank Arabs and the US (which officially supports the 2 state solution) are being strung along by Israel with no way to resolve the situation. The essential point which Mearsheimer makes is this cannot go on forever and eventually the Israelis will have to choose. The neocon act as if there is no such issue because they prefer to be the advocate of a victim and moral exemplar, which is good for them in the USA , where they live.

    They’ve clearly already chosen; the question is whether the U.S. will continue to foot the bill for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#Bar-Ilan_speech
    On 14 June 2009, Netanyahu delivered a seminal address[178] at Bar-Ilan University (also known as the "Bar-Ilan speech"), at Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, that was broadcast live in Israel and across parts of the Arab world, on the topic of the Middle East peace process. He endorsed for the first time the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.[179] Netanyahu's speech could be viewed in part as a response to Obama's 4 June speech at Cairo.
     

    The plan was recently offered in Hebrew by Naftali Bennet, a former chief of staff to Netanyahu and former general manager of the Yesha Council, the political organization of West Bank settlers. It was published in Makor Rishon and translated at a settlers’ site.... "It is unfortunate that Netanyahu, in his Bar Ilan speech, said that the “refugees” could return to the Palestinian State he envisaged.

    That is an egregious mistake that would lead to an irreversible demographic catastrophe. From the moment that millions of “refugees” from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other Arab countries flood Judea and Samaria, there is no turning back the clock, so we cannot allow that to occur. The descendants of the refugees must be absorbed by the nations wherein they reside, and in no case west of the Jordan River."
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/israeli-right-wings-vision-for-west-bank-annexation-to-pull-the-rug-out-from-under-apartheid-accusation/#sthash.wOD3Hbxk.dpuf
     

    Of course, the process is a sham to allow Israel to keep on as it is. A neocon foreign policy, which the US certainly has, concentrates on freezing the current Middle East process, which is supposedly aiming at a new Palestinian s state (in addition to the existing Palestinian state of Jordan). How long cab this last?

    Mearsheimer :-This situation, however, is unsustainable over time. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state. I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • 5371 says:
    @Philip Owen


    No commas before a "but".

    You know as much about English usage as you do about history, you contemptible abortion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Parbes says:
    @Philip Owen


    There's always Russia Insider to make Unz look highbrow and objective.

    Most of the comments in Russia Insider are far more highbrow, objective and intelligent than the drivel that you post here.

    By the way, why are you anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks always so obsessed with Russian news sites and what is in them, if you hate and despise Russia and Russians so much? Oh yeah, I forgot – Internet trolling and spewing disinformation and bilge is the only real “mental skill” most of you chickenshit keyboard cowboys have…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Maybe it's his job, Parbes. What do we know? If Mr. Unz didn't ban sock-puppets, we'd probably have to deal with even more commenters like Soreinthesky.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
    , @Philip Owen


    Because if evil isn't challenged it may prevail.

    " anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks" Your tiny little mind has some difficulty with distinguishing concepts. You come here to let others think for you. The crystal meth probably doesn't help.

    For how may decades have you spent time in Russia? I count over two with periods living there. The majority of my friends are Russian. I have skin in the game.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Mark Eugenikos

    There are numerous mentions by members of Stalin inner circle about his shock when Germans invaded. He firmly believed that the Germans would not break the non-aggression agreement.
     
    And yet that didn't change Soviet/Russian tried and true approach: lure the enemy deep in and then smash them. I agree that, had Stalin expected Germans to attack, he would have prepared better and Germans wouldn't have advanced as fast. But by admitting that Stalin was surprised by the attack, you have disproved your initial point: it wasn't the poor quality of Soviet military that allowed Germans to advance as fast as they did initially; it was Stalin's strategic blunder, from which he recovered by reverting to the "lure the enemy deeper in" approach.

    Your claim that it took the Russians three and a half year to get the territory back because the Germans were resisting is beyond funny.
     
    Are you claiming that Germans weren't resisting while retreating from USSR? Or what are you claiming? You haven't offered an explanation.

    You cannot call it tried and true approach because it was only used against Napoleon. Stalin did expect the Germans to eventually attack but not while the war with Great Britain was still going on. As a matter of fact the fortifications were moved to the new border created by the occupation of Poland. That does not support your claim that Russians always lure their enemy deep inside their territory. What worked with Napoleon and his horse and foot soldier army would not work with highly mechanized Wehrmacht. There are many facts which do not support your claim. The Russians were putting up resistance, sometimes fierce as in Brest Fortress, Sevastopol and Kiev, to name a few. The resistance in Kiev resulted in an encirclement and a capture of almost 500 000 Russians. In another retreat a general has been executed for cowardice. The rapid German advance resulted in over one and a half million prisoners and a massive loss of Russian war material . The general consensus is as follows. In the initial stages of the attack on Russia the Germans had better generals, better equipment, better strategy and organization. The Russians had lost quite a few good generals before the war as a result of Stalin’s purge based on falsified German document. In the initial stages the Russian equipment was not as good as the one used by Wehrmacht. The Russian strategy was confused and organization lacking. Add on top of that Stalin’s refusal to believe that German attack was imminent which resulted in the Russian Army being caught by surprise. In the first two days they have lost most of their aircraft because most of their aircraft was moved west and destroyed during the first couple of days, mostly on the ground. Moscow was saved by fresh troops moved from the East where they were stationed as a precaution against Japanese attack. The movement was possible thanks to another message from Richard Sorge, a communist spy based in Japan, which assured Stalin that the Japanese had no intention of attacking Russia. This time Stalin believed him since his message about German invasion was correct. I could go on for days but there are a plenty of books available if you are interested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Stalin did expect the Germans to eventually attack but not while the war with Great Britain was still going on.
     
    Stalin was rather obviously trying to get Hitler to attack in the west when he signed a pact with him. Stalin expected the capitalist powers to fight to an exhausted stalemate, but the German army was too good and Hitler was too decisive.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I don't mean to get heavily involved in the question of whether the 1941 retreats were a masterful stroke of grand strategy or forced on the Red Army as a strategy of expedience (I'm inclined to the latter view), but I don't think that your characterization of the 1941 Wehrmacht as highly mechanized is accurate. The German Army remained surprisingly dependent on horse-drawn transport throughout the war. Only the U.S., U.K. and Canadian Armies were highly mechanized and that was at least partially because it was easier to transport gasoline than fodder. (The British transported more tons of fodder than ammunition to France in World War I.)

    The inability of the infantry to keep up with the rapidly advancing Panzer divisions was a major problem that the Wehrmacht faced in 1941. Guderian's dream--infantry in trucks and half-tracks, supporting the Panwer divisions in a truly mechanized advance was beyond German resources.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    They've clearly already chosen; the question is whether the U.S. will continue to foot the bill for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#Bar-Ilan_speech
    On 14 June 2009, Netanyahu delivered a seminal address[178] at Bar-Ilan University (also known as the “Bar-Ilan speech”), at Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, that was broadcast live in Israel and across parts of the Arab world, on the topic of the Middle East peace process. He endorsed for the first time the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.[179] Netanyahu’s speech could be viewed in part as a response to Obama’s 4 June speech at Cairo.

    The plan was recently offered in Hebrew by Naftali Bennet, a former chief of staff to Netanyahu and former general manager of the Yesha Council, the political organization of West Bank settlers. It was published in Makor Rishon and translated at a settlers’ site…. “It is unfortunate that Netanyahu, in his Bar Ilan speech, said that the “refugees” could return to the Palestinian State he envisaged.

    That is an egregious mistake that would lead to an irreversible demographic catastrophe. From the moment that millions of “refugees” from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other Arab countries flood Judea and Samaria, there is no turning back the clock, so we cannot allow that to occur. The descendants of the refugees must be absorbed by the nations wherein they reside, and in no case west of the Jordan River.”

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/israeli-right-wings-vision-for-west-bank-annexation-to-pull-the-rug-out-from-under-apartheid-accusation/#sthash.wOD3Hbxk.dpuf

    Of course, the process is a sham to allow Israel to keep on as it is. A neocon foreign policy, which the US certainly has, concentrates on freezing the current Middle East process, which is supposedly aiming at a new Palestinian s state (in addition to the existing Palestinian state of Jordan). How long cab this last?

    Mearsheimer :-This situation, however, is unsustainable over time. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state. I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Parbes
    Most of the comments in Russia Insider are far more highbrow, objective and intelligent than the drivel that you post here.

    By the way, why are you anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks always so obsessed with Russian news sites and what is in them, if you hate and despise Russia and Russians so much? Oh yeah, I forgot - Internet trolling and spewing disinformation and bilge is the only real "mental skill" most of you chickenshit keyboard cowboys have...

    Maybe it’s his job, Parbes. What do we know? If Mr. Unz didn’t ban sock-puppets, we’d probably have to deal with even more commenters like Soreinthesky.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Sean says:
    @Regnum Nostrum
    You cannot call it tried and true approach because it was only used against Napoleon. Stalin did expect the Germans to eventually attack but not while the war with Great Britain was still going on. As a matter of fact the fortifications were moved to the new border created by the occupation of Poland. That does not support your claim that Russians always lure their enemy deep inside their territory. What worked with Napoleon and his horse and foot soldier army would not work with highly mechanized Wehrmacht. There are many facts which do not support your claim. The Russians were putting up resistance, sometimes fierce as in Brest Fortress, Sevastopol and Kiev, to name a few. The resistance in Kiev resulted in an encirclement and a capture of almost 500 000 Russians. In another retreat a general has been executed for cowardice. The rapid German advance resulted in over one and a half million prisoners and a massive loss of Russian war material . The general consensus is as follows. In the initial stages of the attack on Russia the Germans had better generals, better equipment, better strategy and organization. The Russians had lost quite a few good generals before the war as a result of Stalin's purge based on falsified German document. In the initial stages the Russian equipment was not as good as the one used by Wehrmacht. The Russian strategy was confused and organization lacking. Add on top of that Stalin's refusal to believe that German attack was imminent which resulted in the Russian Army being caught by surprise. In the first two days they have lost most of their aircraft because most of their aircraft was moved west and destroyed during the first couple of days, mostly on the ground. Moscow was saved by fresh troops moved from the East where they were stationed as a precaution against Japanese attack. The movement was possible thanks to another message from Richard Sorge, a communist spy based in Japan, which assured Stalin that the Japanese had no intention of attacking Russia. This time Stalin believed him since his message about German invasion was correct. I could go on for days but there are a plenty of books available if you are interested.

    Stalin did expect the Germans to eventually attack but not while the war with Great Britain was still going on.

    Stalin was rather obviously trying to get Hitler to attack in the west when he signed a pact with him. Stalin expected the capitalist powers to fight to an exhausted stalemate, but the German army was too good and Hitler was too decisive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Regnum Nostrum
    You cannot call it tried and true approach because it was only used against Napoleon. Stalin did expect the Germans to eventually attack but not while the war with Great Britain was still going on. As a matter of fact the fortifications were moved to the new border created by the occupation of Poland. That does not support your claim that Russians always lure their enemy deep inside their territory. What worked with Napoleon and his horse and foot soldier army would not work with highly mechanized Wehrmacht. There are many facts which do not support your claim. The Russians were putting up resistance, sometimes fierce as in Brest Fortress, Sevastopol and Kiev, to name a few. The resistance in Kiev resulted in an encirclement and a capture of almost 500 000 Russians. In another retreat a general has been executed for cowardice. The rapid German advance resulted in over one and a half million prisoners and a massive loss of Russian war material . The general consensus is as follows. In the initial stages of the attack on Russia the Germans had better generals, better equipment, better strategy and organization. The Russians had lost quite a few good generals before the war as a result of Stalin's purge based on falsified German document. In the initial stages the Russian equipment was not as good as the one used by Wehrmacht. The Russian strategy was confused and organization lacking. Add on top of that Stalin's refusal to believe that German attack was imminent which resulted in the Russian Army being caught by surprise. In the first two days they have lost most of their aircraft because most of their aircraft was moved west and destroyed during the first couple of days, mostly on the ground. Moscow was saved by fresh troops moved from the East where they were stationed as a precaution against Japanese attack. The movement was possible thanks to another message from Richard Sorge, a communist spy based in Japan, which assured Stalin that the Japanese had no intention of attacking Russia. This time Stalin believed him since his message about German invasion was correct. I could go on for days but there are a plenty of books available if you are interested.

    I don’t mean to get heavily involved in the question of whether the 1941 retreats were a masterful stroke of grand strategy or forced on the Red Army as a strategy of expedience (I’m inclined to the latter view), but I don’t think that your characterization of the 1941 Wehrmacht as highly mechanized is accurate. The German Army remained surprisingly dependent on horse-drawn transport throughout the war. Only the U.S., U.K. and Canadian Armies were highly mechanized and that was at least partially because it was easier to transport gasoline than fodder. (The British transported more tons of fodder than ammunition to France in World War I.)

    The inability of the infantry to keep up with the rapidly advancing Panzer divisions was a major problem that the Wehrmacht faced in 1941. Guderian’s dream–infantry in trucks and half-tracks, supporting the Panwer divisions in a truly mechanized advance was beyond German resources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
    While it is true that during the attack on Soviet Union the Germans employed around 600 000 horses they used an equally high number of vehicles mostly transport trucks. About a quarter of the infantry in a Panzer division was using APC the rest was transported by trucks. I think that for a fighting force of roughly 4 000 000 men it is a high degree of mechanization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Philip Owen [AKA "soarintothesky"] says:
    @Parbes
    Most of the comments in Russia Insider are far more highbrow, objective and intelligent than the drivel that you post here.

    By the way, why are you anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks always so obsessed with Russian news sites and what is in them, if you hate and despise Russia and Russians so much? Oh yeah, I forgot - Internet trolling and spewing disinformation and bilge is the only real "mental skill" most of you chickenshit keyboard cowboys have...

    Because if evil isn’t challenged it may prevail.

    ” anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks” Your tiny little mind has some difficulty with distinguishing concepts. You come here to let others think for you. The crystal meth probably doesn’t help.

    For how may decades have you spent time in Russia? I count over two with periods living there. The majority of my friends are Russian. I have skin in the game.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "if evil isn’t challenged it may prevail"

    The greatest evil in the world today is the neocon/Anglo-Zio-Nazi/exceptionalist psychopathy dominant in the West, and the policies it gives rise to.

    "...time in Russia? I count over two with periods living there. The majority of my friends are Russian"

    You and the likes of your wretched friends are the PROBLEM in Russia today...

    The rest of your comment: Idiotic ad hominem babbling not worth answering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • marylou says:

    Allow me to point out that the Germans were not fighting the “Russians”. They were fighting Communism, which happened to be situated in Russia.
    Allow me also to point out that the communist Soviet Union has not existed for 25 years.
    Now however, the animosity is indeed against the Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    True, the Nazi's fought "communists". However, these communists where also "Slavs": in Nazi ideology, "sub-humans" barely more acceptable than "Jews". (Incidentally, "Bolshevik" and "(Soviet) Jew" were near synonymous to the Nazi's).
    , @Kiza
    What you wrote is either terribly naive or deliberately stupid to be misleading. In either case, it is worthless. Germans fighting communism, not wanting Russian resources just like Zio-Americans want now, my ass. Madeleine Albright salivating that it is unfair that one nation has so much of rich land.

    I do not allow you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Diversity Heretic
    Although I agree with the overall thrust of your post, I don't agree that Soviet tanks were patently inferior to their German counterparts. At the beginning of the war, the Germans were unpleasantly surprised by the T-34 and KV-1; nothing that the Germans had could compete: the Panzer III had only a 5cm cannon and the Panzer IV had a low velocity 7.5cm gun, neither of which had much capability to penetrate the T-34's or KV-1's frontal armor. The T-34 also had wide tracks that permitted it to move over ground that bogged down German tanks and a superior road wheel system (designed by an American engineer, J. Walter Christie, that the U.S. Army had rejected). The German response was to upgun the Panzer IV to a high-velocity 7.5cm gun and build the Panzer V Panther, Panzer VI Tiger I and II, plus a series of turretless tank destroyers. The Panther was superior to the T-34 (which the Russians upgunned to an 8.5cm cannon in place of the 7.6cm gun of the original), but the Germans produced only about 5,000, while the Russians produced over 50,000 T-34s, plus some turretless tank destroyers based on the T-34 chassis. The ease with which the T-34 could be produced was one of its oustanding features.

    So I would amend your post to say that German tanks were somewhat superior, on a tank-per-tank basis to the Soviet ones, but on the whole Soviet armor was better than German armor.

    I agree with your assessment of German/Russian tanks. It’s also worth noting that German tank tactics were generally more advanced than Russian tactics, especially in the early stages of the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @anon
    "..Valentine tanks defending Moscow.."

    ROTFLMAO. You seriously think the Germans were stopped by a few mediocre tanks the British gave them?

    "..the RAF had broken the Luftwaffe's back in 1940.."

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. NOT EVEN REMOTELY close to the truth.

    If I remember rightly, re: Valentine tank quality etc, the expression “better than nothing” might be too generous…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Valentine was OK for 1939-40, and even into 1941. It was roughly comparable to the Panzer III (the most numerous German tank at the launch of Barbarossa). However it was no match for the Panzer IV and later models.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @marylou
    Allow me to point out that the Germans were not fighting the "Russians". They were fighting Communism, which happened to be situated in Russia.
    Allow me also to point out that the communist Soviet Union has not existed for 25 years.
    Now however, the animosity is indeed against the Russians.

    True, the Nazi’s fought “communists”. However, these communists where also “Slavs”: in Nazi ideology, “sub-humans” barely more acceptable than “Jews”. (Incidentally, “Bolshevik” and “(Soviet) Jew” were near synonymous to the Nazi’s).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Kiza says:
    @marylou
    Allow me to point out that the Germans were not fighting the "Russians". They were fighting Communism, which happened to be situated in Russia.
    Allow me also to point out that the communist Soviet Union has not existed for 25 years.
    Now however, the animosity is indeed against the Russians.

    What you wrote is either terribly naive or deliberately stupid to be misleading. In either case, it is worthless. Germans fighting communism, not wanting Russian resources just like Zio-Americans want now, my ass. Madeleine Albright salivating that it is unfair that one nation has so much of rich land.

    I do not allow you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @marylou
    Thanks for clearing that up. It is stupid because you say so?
    I got my information straight from the horses mouth.
    In the seventies, back when I was young, I had a summer job as a waitress at a resort. At that time a group of Waffen SS "Kameraden" had a
    reunion at the hotel where I was working. They had been spread all over after the war and had lost sight of each other. Long story short, they found each other and were thrilled to pieces.
    They were happy to have someone young ask them questions and listen to them.
    Of course you can not believe a word they said , they were all lying as everybody knows. Only Communists tell the truth, as everybody knows. Germans are notorious liars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Diversity Heretic
    I don't mean to get heavily involved in the question of whether the 1941 retreats were a masterful stroke of grand strategy or forced on the Red Army as a strategy of expedience (I'm inclined to the latter view), but I don't think that your characterization of the 1941 Wehrmacht as highly mechanized is accurate. The German Army remained surprisingly dependent on horse-drawn transport throughout the war. Only the U.S., U.K. and Canadian Armies were highly mechanized and that was at least partially because it was easier to transport gasoline than fodder. (The British transported more tons of fodder than ammunition to France in World War I.)

    The inability of the infantry to keep up with the rapidly advancing Panzer divisions was a major problem that the Wehrmacht faced in 1941. Guderian's dream--infantry in trucks and half-tracks, supporting the Panwer divisions in a truly mechanized advance was beyond German resources.

    While it is true that during the attack on Soviet Union the Germans employed around 600 000 horses they used an equally high number of vehicles mostly transport trucks. About a quarter of the infantry in a Panzer division was using APC the rest was transported by trucks. I think that for a fighting force of roughly 4 000 000 men it is a high degree of mechanization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Parbes says:
    @Philip Owen


    Because if evil isn't challenged it may prevail.

    " anti-Russian Zio-Nazi neocon kooks" Your tiny little mind has some difficulty with distinguishing concepts. You come here to let others think for you. The crystal meth probably doesn't help.

    For how may decades have you spent time in Russia? I count over two with periods living there. The majority of my friends are Russian. I have skin in the game.

    “if evil isn’t challenged it may prevail”

    The greatest evil in the world today is the neocon/Anglo-Zio-Nazi/exceptionalist psychopathy dominant in the West, and the policies it gives rise to.

    “…time in Russia? I count over two with periods living there. The majority of my friends are Russian”

    You and the likes of your wretched friends are the PROBLEM in Russia today…

    The rest of your comment: Idiotic ad hominem babbling not worth answering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • BenKenobi says:
    @AndrewR
    We need a coup. I want to see the military execute our traitorous globaliat politicians on national TV.

    I read this comment and chuckled to myself how “Sailer would never let this one through.”

    Then I saw it was you, AndrewR. Good thing there’s no whim here, eh? I totally agree with you, btw.

    To everyone else on all sides of the WW2 discussion: this has been one entertaining and informative thread! Love this site.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @animalogic
    If I remember rightly, re: Valentine tank quality etc, the expression "better than nothing" might be too generous...

    The Valentine was OK for 1939-40, and even into 1941. It was roughly comparable to the Panzer III (the most numerous German tank at the launch of Barbarossa). However it was no match for the Panzer IV and later models.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    It was a source of embarassment to the British, who had invented the tank in WWI, that their WWII armor was rather sub-standard. A lot of British units used the American M4 Sherman, although the installation of the British 17-pounder gun gave the Sherman some badly-needed firepower against its German opponents. I believe the Centurion tank, introduced around 1947, was quite good and British Chieftan and Challenger tanks were and are state-of-the-art, although there may not be very many of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • marylou says:
    @Kiza
    What you wrote is either terribly naive or deliberately stupid to be misleading. In either case, it is worthless. Germans fighting communism, not wanting Russian resources just like Zio-Americans want now, my ass. Madeleine Albright salivating that it is unfair that one nation has so much of rich land.

    I do not allow you.

    Thanks for clearing that up. It is stupid because you say so?
    I got my information straight from the horses mouth.
    In the seventies, back when I was young, I had a summer job as a waitress at a resort. At that time a group of Waffen SS “Kameraden” had a
    reunion at the hotel where I was working. They had been spread all over after the war and had lost sight of each other. Long story short, they found each other and were thrilled to pieces.
    They were happy to have someone young ask them questions and listen to them.
    Of course you can not believe a word they said , they were all lying as everybody knows. Only Communists tell the truth, as everybody knows. Germans are notorious liars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I do not know when you were young or old, but I know that open anti-communism started in 1945, once it became clear that allies will prevail over the axis. From then on, from fighting Nazism everybody turned to fighting Communism.

    Now the little Waffen SS “Kameraden” grunts, they were informed by Hitler personally that they are fighting Soviet Union to fight communism, of course.

    Simply, Germany attacked Soviet Union for der Lebensraum: the Ukrainian fertile land and Siberian resources (oil, natural gas, minerals etc). Very similar reason why the US has done a coup in Ukraine and is now preparing a "regime change" and/or an attack on Russia.

    Finally, if you were not a person of shallow educated (probably US), you would understand that there never was a single war fought over ideology. The wars are only fought over wealth (stealing), whilst ideology, race etc are just excuses.

    Your persistent stupidities do not deserve any further discussion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • @Anonymous
    The Valentine was OK for 1939-40, and even into 1941. It was roughly comparable to the Panzer III (the most numerous German tank at the launch of Barbarossa). However it was no match for the Panzer IV and later models.

    It was a source of embarassment to the British, who had invented the tank in WWI, that their WWII armor was rather sub-standard. A lot of British units used the American M4 Sherman, although the installation of the British 17-pounder gun gave the Sherman some badly-needed firepower against its German opponents. I believe the Centurion tank, introduced around 1947, was quite good and British Chieftan and Challenger tanks were and are state-of-the-art, although there may not be very many of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • Kiza says:
    @marylou
    Thanks for clearing that up. It is stupid because you say so?
    I got my information straight from the horses mouth.
    In the seventies, back when I was young, I had a summer job as a waitress at a resort. At that time a group of Waffen SS "Kameraden" had a
    reunion at the hotel where I was working. They had been spread all over after the war and had lost sight of each other. Long story short, they found each other and were thrilled to pieces.
    They were happy to have someone young ask them questions and listen to them.
    Of course you can not believe a word they said , they were all lying as everybody knows. Only Communists tell the truth, as everybody knows. Germans are notorious liars.

    I do not know when you were young or old, but I know that open anti-communism started in 1945, once it became clear that allies will prevail over the axis. From then on, from fighting Nazism everybody turned to fighting Communism.

    Now the little Waffen SS “Kameraden” grunts, they were informed by Hitler personally that they are fighting Soviet Union to fight communism, of course.

    Simply, Germany attacked Soviet Union for der Lebensraum: the Ukrainian fertile land and Siberian resources (oil, natural gas, minerals etc). Very similar reason why the US has done a coup in Ukraine and is now preparing a “regime change” and/or an attack on Russia.

    Finally, if you were not a person of shallow educated (probably US), you would understand that there never was a single war fought over ideology. The wars are only fought over wealth (stealing), whilst ideology, race etc are just excuses.

    Your persistent stupidities do not deserve any further discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • […] L’article original est paru sur The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  • @Sam Haysom
    You'd think the fact that Russian soldiers require inhospitable winters to inflict any kind of damage on the enemy might temper Putin's amen corner's bellicosity but it never does. Russia's ability to project power is crippled by the fact that you can't take the harsh Russian winter with you on campaign. I'm sure if Russia could somehow trick NATO into trying to capture Moscow Russia might have a chance to prevail, but that isn't going to happen.

    Study the history of the Russo-Turkish Wars, the Russo-Persian Wars or the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • […] EU’s ‘Suicide By Reality Denial’ […]

    Read More
  • Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    For anyone TL;DR:
    Russia = good
    Everyone else = evil, especially Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  • @Jon Halpenny
    "No serious historian thinks that Russia would have survived past 1942 without massive Anglo-American aid and military support. "

    In fact British and American support to the USSR was quite modest until about late 1943. Remember the U boats were not defeated until mid 1943. In 1942 the British had to suspend the Arctic convoys because of the loss of convoy PQ 17. Also it was Britain not the USSR which received the most Lend-Lease supplies in 1942-43. Despite this, the USSR achieved the huge victories of Stalingrad and Kursk, largely on its own resources. By 1943, it was obvious Germany had lost the war on the Eastern front.

    The Convoy PQ17 debacle in June 1942 was the result of a bad misjudgment by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound, RN, the First Sea Lord. He wrongly believed that the battleship TIRPITZ was steaming to intercept the convoy. He dispatched the signal “Cruiser force to withdraw to the westward at high speed” followed shortly by “Convoy is to scatter.”

    Two-thirds of the convoy was sunk by aircraft and U-boats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  • […] “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to look at reality and accept the fact that “the party is over”. When I see the grim determination of US politicians (very much including the people supporting Trump) to continue to pretend as if the US hegemony was here to stay forever, when I see how they see themselves as the leaders of the world and how they sincerely believe that they need to get involved in every conflict on the planet, I can only come to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse will be painful. To be fair, Trump himself clearly has moments of lucidity about this, for example when he recently declared to Congress […]

    Read More
  • […] “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to look at reality and accept the fact that “the party is over”. When I see the grim determination of US politicians (very much including the people supporting Trump) to continue to pretend as if the US hegemony was here to stay forever, when I see how they see themselves as the leaders of the world and how they sincerely believe that they need to get involved in every conflict on the planet, I can only come to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse will be painful. To be fair, Trump himself clearly has moments of lucidity about this, for example when he recently declared to Congress […]

    Read More
  • […] “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to look at reality and accept the fact that “the party is over”. When I see the grim determination of US politicians (very much including the people supporting Trump) to continue to pretend as if the US hegemony was here to stay forever, when I see how they see themselves as the leaders of the world and how they sincerely believe that they need to get involved in every conflict on the planet, I can only come to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse will be painful. To be fair, Trump himself clearly has moments of lucidity about this, for example when he recently declared to Congress […]

    Read More
  • […] и лучше, чем мог бы сделать это я. Поэтому я включу только еще один вид самоубийства, который роднит […]

    Read More
  • […] “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to look at reality and accept the fact that “the party is over”. When I see the grim determination of US politicians (very much including the people supporting Trump) to continue to pretend as if the US hegemony was here to stay forever, when I see how they see themselves as the leaders of the world and how they sincerely believe that they need to get involved in every conflict on the planet, I can only come to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse will be painful. To be fair, Trump himself clearly has moments of lucidity about this, for example when he recently declared to Congress […]

    Read More
  • […] here is one form of suicide which I believe the AngloZionist Empire has in common with the EU: a “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to […]

    Read More
  • Deqebat says:

    […] here is one form of suicide which I believe the AngloZionist Empire has in common with the EU: a “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to […]

    Read More
  • Current Commenter says:

    Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


     Remember My InformationWhy?
     Email Replies to my Comment
    Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
    Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
    PastClassics
    What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
    The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
    The evidence is clear — but often ignored
    Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
    A simple remedy for income stagnation