The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Myth and the Russian Pogroms
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

The anti-Jewish riots, or “pogroms” of late 19th-century Russia represent one of the most decisive periods in modern Jewish, if not world, history. Most obviously, the riots had demographic implications for western countries – around 80% of today’s western Diaspora Jews are descendants of those Jews who left Russia and its environs during the period 1880–1910. But perhaps the most lasting legacy of the period was the enhancement of Jewish “national self-awareness,” and the accelerated development of “modern, international Jewish politics.”[A1]John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p.xiii.

The pogroms themselves have consistently been portrayed by (mainly Jewish) historians as “irrational manifestations of hatred against Jews,”[A2]Jack Glazier, Dispersing the Ghetto: The Relocation of Jewish Immigrants Across America (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998) p.9. where peasant mobs were the unwitting dupes of malevolent Russian officials. Other explanations are so lacking in evidence, and so devoid of logic that they stretch credulity to breaking point. For example, University of British Columbia Professor, Donald G. Dutton has asserted that the mobs were not motivated by “the sudden rapid increase of the Jewish urban population, the extraordinary economic success of Russian Jews, or the involvement of Jews in Russian revolutionary politics” but rather by the “blood libel.”[A3]Donald Dutton, The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres and Extreme Violence (New York: Prager, 2007 ) p.40

Little or no historiography has been dedicated to peeling back the layers of “refugee” stories to uncover what really happened in the Russian Empire in the years before and during the riots. This lack of historical enquiry can be attributed at least in part to a great reluctance on the part of Jewish historians to investigate the pogroms in any manner beyond the merely superficial. In addition, historical enquiry by non-Jewish historians into the subject has been openly discouraged. For example, when Ukrainian historians discovered evidence proving that contemporary media reports of Jewish casualties in that nation were exaggerated, the Jewish genealogy website ‘JewishGen,’ responded by stating: “We believe that [these facts] are more than irrelevant because it redirects public attention from the major topic: the genocidal essence of pogroms.”

It should suffice to state here that this response contravenes the very essence of historical enquiry – to uncover history as it actually happened, irrespective of the uncomfortable truths which may lie therein. The statement could be translated as “Let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story.” Also, as this paper will show, the tendency to portray the riots as “genocidal” is completely lacking in foundation. University of California Los Angeles Professor of Sociology, Michael Mann, has provided substantial evidence indicating that “most perpetrators did not conceive of removing Jews altogether.”[A4]Michael Mann, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) p.142.

JewishGen’s allusion to genocide should also be seen as part of a broader problem in modern Jewish historiography. Rather than seeing the pogroms as products of specific local circumstances, in which Jews would play at least an implicit role, there has been a tendency to use them for comparative purposes. John Klier states that when used in a comparative sense, “examples are drawn almost exclusively from the 20th century, and these events are then read back into the earlier period of 1881–2,” making any objective historical enquiry difficult, and implying the presence of some non-existent ‘pan-European’ malaise in anti-Jewish actions.

Nonetheless, this series of essays will seek to peel back the myths, to tease a few threads of truth from the veil which covers these events. Encouragingly, some work has already begun in this respect. I.M. Aronson’s assertion that the pogroms were “planned or encouraged to one degree or another, by elements within the government itself,”[A5]I.M. Aronson, ‘Geographical and Socioeconomic factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia,’ Russian Review, Vol.39, No.1 (Jan. 1980) p.18. has been dealt a death blow in recent years through the concerted work of a small number of non-Jewish historians, mostly notably, University College London’s Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, John Doyle Klier. In his 2005 work, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–2, Klier asserts that “contemporary research has dispelled the myth that Russian officials were responsible for instigating, permitting, or approving the pogroms.”[A6]Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.xiv.

This series of essays will attempt to move further, adhering to the belief that the facts of the events remain paramount to historical enquiry rather than being a ‘distracting’ irrelevance. The series will begin with an explanation of the origins of Russia’s “Jewish Question.” Subsequent articles will concern the pogroms themselves and how myth and exaggeration have plagued our conception of them. Finally, I will examine why these myths were developed, and the broader implications of the prevalence of myth in Jewish ‘history.’

Part One: Russia’s Jewish Question

In 1772 the Russian Empire orchestrated the first partition of Poland, “erasing from the geopolitical map of Europe a large kingdom, which in the seventeenth century had extended over broad areas between Prussia and southern Ukraine.”[A7]Israel Bartal, The Jews of Eastern Europe: 1772-1881, (Tel Aviv, Ministry of Defence, 2005) p.23. Significantly, in doing so, the Russian Empire also oversaw “the dissolution of the largest Jewish collective in the world.”[A8]Ibid, p.24.
(Israel Bartal, The Jews of Eastern Europe: 1772-1881, (Tel Aviv, Ministry of Defence, 2005) p.23.)
Polish Jewry was divided into three parts – those in Posen came under the sovereignty of Prussia, those in Galicia came under the sovereignty of Austria, and those in Poland proper came under the sovereignty of the Russian Empire.[A9]Israel Friedlander, The Jews of Russia and Poland, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84. In Poland proper, the Polish public turned in on itself, searching frantically for the reasons for the ruin of the nation, and in doing so, states Israel Friedlander, “the Jewish problem could not but force itself on its attention.”[A10]Ibid.
(Israel Friedlander, The Jews of Russia and Poland, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84.)

Investigations carried out by special committees discovered that in the decades prior to partition, Polish Jewry had enjoyed a demographic explosion, with Jews now representing almost 20% of the entire population. In addition, it was discovered that Jews controlled a full 75% of Polish exports, and that many were now spilling out of over-populated urban centres into the countryside, making a living by monopolising the sale of liquor to peasants.[A11]Ibid, p.85.
(Israel Friedlander, The Jews of Russia and Poland, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84.)
By 1774, complaints were reaching Russian officials from non-Jewish merchants who argued that Jewish ethnic networking was propping up the monopoly of exports, and that this monopoly would shortly have dire implications for the consumer.[A12]Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173 These revelations were the key motivating factors in the decision to expel Warsaw’s Jews in 1775, and until the early 19th century there was a kind of stand-off between Poles and Jews.[A13]Ibid.
(Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173)
Napoleon’s establishment of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 did little to alter the situation, as Napoleon acceded to local sentiment which held that Jews should not feel the benefit of the new constitution until they had “eradicated their peculiar characteristics.”[A14]Ibid, p.87.
(Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173)
In 1813, the government of the Duchy moved to break the Jewish monopoly on liquor, banning all Jews from selling alcohol in the villages, bringing an end to the activity of “tens of thousands” of Jewish liquor merchants in the provinces. Not surprisingly, when the Duchy was dissolved in 1815 following Napoleon’s failed attempt to invade Russia, Polish Jewry shed no tears.

In late 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held. The aim of the congress was to give its assent to the formation of a new autonomous Polish kingdom under the sovereignty of Russia. Although the bulk of Polish Jewry remained within the newly established kingdom, tens of thousands also poured forth into other areas of the Russian Empire, ushering in an uncomfortable age of fraught Russian-Jewish relations. The immediate reaction of the Russian government to the acquisition of such large, and unwanted, Jewish populations was to prevent the penetration of these populations from intrusion into the old Russian territories, and the solution reached was one of containment. A new kind of settlement was created in provinces along the western frontier, and it became known as the “Pale of Settlement.” Although a large amount of negative connotations have been attributed to the Pale, it was not an impermeable fortress. Certain Jews were permitted to reside outside these provinces, they could visit trade fairs, and Jews were even permitted to study at Russian universities provided they did not exceed quotas. By 1860, more than half of world Jewry resided in the Pale.

Following the Congress of Vienna, wherever Jews resided in the Russian Empire, they overwhelmingly “served in a variety of middleman roles.” In some cities, “the Jewish mercantile element was numerically superior to the Christian,” and there was a gradual move towards the reacquisition of the liquor trade.[A15]Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173 According to Klier, by 1830 Belorussian Jews were found to be “totally dominating trade” in that country.[A16]John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.4. It was largely Klier’s work in the late 1980s which began to truly shed light on the origins of Russian-Jewish relations prior to 1914. Klier, born into a Catholic family in Kansas, “rejected what might be called the Fiddler on the Roof pieties and simplifications. In book after book, he emphasised that what the tsars and their ministers wanted, above all else, was for the Jewish settlements to be orderly and productive.”[A17]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardian...uaries Klier further stressed that the much-maligned Pale of Settlement was simply the only response that the Russian administration could come up with, faced as they were with the “baffling question” of how to deal with the “fanaticism of ultra-Orthodox Jewry” which was thoroughly “unassimilable to official purposes.”[A18]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardian...uaries

In 1841, investigations were carried out into Russia’s Jewish communities, and the subsequent reports pointed to three significant problems. The first was persistent Jewish difference in dress, language, and religious and communal organization. The idea underpinning this aloofness from non-Jewish society, the ‘Chosen’ status of the Jews and an accompanying ethnic chauvinism, was said to be particularly harmful to Jewish-Gentile relations, particularly when it was reinforced through “a system of male education that was thought to inculcate anti-Christian interpretations of the Talmud.”[A19]Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.3. The second, related, problem was that Jewish economic practices were also rooted in this aloofness. The Talmud “encouraged and justified unreserved economic exploitation based on cheating and exploiting the non-Jews,”[A20]Ibid.
(Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.3.)
in a validation of Max Weber’s theory of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ ethics, whereby “members of a cohesive social unit observe different moral standards among themselves compared with those observed in relation to strangers.”[A21]Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56. The third aspect of the Russian ‘Jewish Question,’ was the issue of Jewish loyalty. The Jews of the Russian Empire had evidently retained the kahal of pre-partition Polish Jewry. The kahal was a formal system of Jewish communal leadership and government, entirely separate from the Russian state. Although tacitly tolerated by the state for its tax collection capabilities, Jewish loyalty to the kahal was absolute, going beyond the merely fiscal. Almost all Jews continued to resort to Jewish courts.

John Klier states that following these revelations, “state and society shared a consensus that Jews could be – and must be – reformed and transformed into good subjects of the realm.”[A22]Ibid.
(Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.)
Under Emperor Alexander I (1801–25) there had been attempts to encourage Jews to pursue more productive economic activities. Generous concessions were made to Jews in the hope that they would abandon their middleman roles, as well as the distilleries and taverns of the provinces, and take up work in agricultural colonies. Klier states that the “embeddedness of the Jews in the economic and social life of the imperial borderlands ensured that despite legislative initiatives, Jewish economic life remained largely unchanged.”[A23]Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.4

In 1844, under Nicholas I, the Russian government began a program of reforms and legislation designed to break down Jewish exclusivity and incorporate the nation’s Jews more fully into Russian society. Not surprisingly, the government first took aim at the kahal, banning it as “an illegal underground structure.”[A24]Ibid.
(Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.4)
The significance of the banning of the kahal went beyond tackling the issue of Jewish loyalty. The mutual assistance offered by the kahal was felt to have had economic implications – “it was the mutual support provided by the kahal that ensured that Jews were more than a match for any competitor, even the arch-exploiter of the Russian village, the kulak.”[A25]Ibid.
(Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.4)
The civil rights of any “Jews who were perceived to be engaged in productive undertakings” were extended, though there were few takers. Nicholas I even conceived of, and supported, the establishment of state-financed Jewish schools, in the hope that such establishments would lead to the development of a more progressive and integrative Russian Jewry. Unfortunately for Nicholas, what his system produced was a cadre of Jewish intellectuals profoundly hostile to the state.

Emperor Alexander II continued the efforts of Mother Russia to gather in her Jews. He abolished serfdom in 1861. He relaxed efforts to change the economic profile of Russian Jewry, extending the rights of educated Jews and large-scale merchants. His was a program aimed at reconciliation, an abandonment of the stick in favour of the carrot. Education was made fully open to Jews, and Jews could sit on the juries of Russian courts. Conditions on settlement and mobility in the Pale were relaxed further. Klier states that “Jews even became the subject of sympathetic concern for the leaders of public opinion. Proposals for the complete emancipation of the Jews were widely mooted in the press.”[A26]Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5

These measures, however, were also accompanied by a growing uneasiness with the way the Jews of Russia took advantage of them. There was little in the way of gratitude, and the measures did not bring about the great changes that had been hoped for. The nationalist revolt of the Poles in 1863, and the fact that a large number of wealthy Jews were found to have funded some of the rebels cast new doubts on Jewish loyalty. Having emancipated the peasantry and adopted a paternalistic concern for the former serfs, the government also viewed with alarm the rapidity with which the “Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish serfdom.”[A27]Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5 It also quickly became apparent that despite new military legislation, Jews were noticeable in their overwhelming avoidance of military service. In retaliation, the government clamped down on rural tavern ownership, and introduced more stringent recruitment procedures specifically for Jews. It has been claimed that Jews were also banned from land ownership at this time, but Klier provides evidence that Jews were still able to buy any peasant properties sold at auction for tax arrears, as well as any property within the Pale not owned by Russian gentry.[A28]Ibid.
(Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5)

By the end of Alexander II’s reign, disillusionment with the government’s policy at handling the Jewish Question was widespread. The vast majority of Jews had stubbornly persisted in the unproductive trades, continued in their antipathy to Russian culture, and refused to make any meaningful contribution to Russian society. An air of resignation swept the country. Some newspapers even advocated abolishing the Pale, if only to alleviate that region from bearing the burden of the Jews alone. Other papers opposed this “fearing for the welfare of the peasantry at a time when the cultural level of the peasantry made them an easy target for exploitation.”[A29]Ibid, p.6
(Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5)
Meanwhile Jews were beginning to swamp higher education establishments. In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were “driving Christians from the school benches,” and “filling up the schools.”[A30]Ibid.
(Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5)

On the eve of the assassination of Alexander II, Russia’s Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of legislation had done little to change the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically, and culturally homogenous. The new Jewish intelligentsia had turned on the hand that fed it, failing to encourage the adaptation of their fellow Jews, moving instead to defend them and advocate for their interests. In terms of educational and social opportunities, Jews had been given an inch and taken a mile. They had swamped the schools, and added to a group of emergent Jewish capitalists. In 1879 Russian authorities were being lobbied by a Rabbinic Commission for full emancipation, an ominous prospect for those concerned about the well-being of Russian peasantry.

The breaking point, when it came, did not emerge from the ether, but from this historical background. In part two we will examine the more immediate origins of the anti-Jewish riots and how the riots proceeded. We will do away with petty distractions, dispelling myths with facts; and as we venture into the Pale, we now do so with a more complete view of the Jew we find there.

Part Two: The Jewish Narrative

Having grounded ourselves in the history of Russia’s Jewish Question, it is now time for us to turn our attention to the anti-Jewish riots of the 1880s. The following essay will first provide the reader with the standard narrative of these events advanced by Jewish contemporaries and the majority of Jewish historians — a narrative which has overwhelmingly prevailed in the public consciousness. The latter half of the essay will be devoted to dissecting one aspect of the Jewish narrative, and explaining how events really transpired. Other aspects of the Jewish narrative will be examined in later entries in this series. While a work like this can come in for heavy criticism from certain sections of the population who may denounce it as ‘revisionist,’ I can only say that ‘revisionism’ should be at the heart of every historical work. If we blindly accept the stories that are passed down to us, we are liable to fall victim to what amounts to little more than a glorified game of Chinese whispers. And, if we taboo the right of the historian to reinterpret history in light of new research and new discoveries, then we have become far removed from anything resembling true scholarship.

In 1881 the ‘Russo-Jewish Committee,’ (RJC) an arm of Britain’s Jewish elite, mass-produced a pamphlet entitled “The Persecution of the Jews in Russia,” and began disseminating it through the press, the churches, and numerous other channels. By 1899, it was embellished and published as a short book, and today digitized copies are freely available online.[B1]http://archive.org/stream/persecutionofjew00russ By the early 20th century, the pamphlet had even spawned a four-page journal called Darkest Russia – A Weekly Record of the Struggle for Freedom, ensuring that the average British citizen did not go long without being reminded of the ‘horrors’ facing Russian Jews.[B2]Max Beloff, The Intellectual in Politics: And other essays, (London: Taylor and Francis, 1970) p.135 The fact that these publications were mass produced should provide an indication as to their purpose: It is clear that these publications represented one of the most ambitious propaganda campaign in Jewish history, and combined with similar efforts in the United States, they were aimed at gaining the attention of, and ‘educating,’ the Western nations and ensuring the primacy of the ‘Jewish side of the story.’ Implicit in this was not only a desire to provoke anti-Russian attitudes, but also copious amounts of sympathy for the victimized Jews — sympathy necessary to ensure that mass Jewish chain migration to the West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn’t the bigoted nativist just a step removed from the rampaging Cossack?

The first element of the narrative advanced by the RJC is essentially a manipulation of the history of Russian-Jewish relations. It holds that the Jews of Eastern Europe have been oppressed for centuries, their whole lives “hampered, from cradle to grave, by restrictive laws.”[B3]The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3. It was claimed that the Russians had an unwritten law: “That no Russian Jew shall earn a living.”[B4]Ibid, p.4
(The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.)
Russian Jews, according to the Russo-Jewish Committee, have wanted nothing more than to participate in Russian society, but have been rebuffed time and again as “heretics and aliens.” The Pale is an impenetrable fortress, where every Jew “must live and die.” Implicit in this interpretation of the history of Russian-Jewish relations in the belief that “the fount and origin of all the ills that assail Russian Jewry” has nothing to do with the Jews themselves, but everything to do with the Church, the State, and the Pale. In essence, the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek and passive role in this narrative, having committed no wrong-doing other than being Jews. They are also presented as the only victims of Russian violence. There is no acknowledgement of failed Russian efforts to break down the Jewish walls of exclusivity and claim the Jews as brothers. In fact, there is no reference at all to the walls of exclusivity. The pogroms themselves, according to the Jewish narrative, broke out following the assassination of Alexander II, when shock, anger and a desire for revenge brought this irrational, rootless hatred to the surface.

The second element of the Jewish narrative is that the government and petty officialdom had some role to play in organizing and directing the pogroms. Much disdain is heaped on the government, and petty officialdom, which was said to have been afflicted with “a chronic anti-Semitic outlook.” It was claimed that when the riots began, the government was “not altogether sorry to let the excitement of the people vent itself on the Jews.”[B5]The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5 In reference to the restrictive May Laws, the authors were forced to concede they had never really been enforced, but maintained that “whether moderately or rigorously applied, the May Laws still remained on the Russian Statute Book.”[B6]Ibid, p.8
(The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)

The third element of the Jewish narrative is that the pogroms were genocidal, and that they had been organized and perpetrated by groups seeking the extermination of the Jews. The 1899 edition of “The Persecution of the Jews in Russia” included a copy of a lengthy letter written to the London Times by Nathan Joseph, Secretary of the RJC, dated November 5th, 1890. In the letter, Joseph claimed that in the present circumstances “hundreds of thousands could be exterminated,”[B7]Ibid, p.36
(The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
and that Russian legislation in relation to Jews represented “an instrument of torture and persecution.” In sum, the Jews of Russia were claimed to be living under “a sentence of death,” and it was further claimed that “the executions are proceeding.” The letter ends with an appeal to “Civilized Europe” to intervene, chastise Russia, and aid the victimized Jews.[B8]Ibid, p.38.
(The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)

The fourth key element of the Jewish narrative is that the pogroms were extremely violent in nature. Contemporary media reports especially were the source of most of the atrocity stories, reportedly gleaned from newly-arrived ‘refugees’ who had given statements to the Russo-Jewish Committee about the pogroms they had fled. In these reports, which were carried very regularly by both the New York Times and the London Times, Russians were charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. Every Jew in the Russian Empire was under threat. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes. During a British parliamentary consultation on the pogroms in 1905, a Rabbi Michelson claimed that “the atrocities had been so fiendish that they could find no parallel even in the most barbarous annals of the most barbarous peoples.”[B9]Anthony Heywood, The Russian Revolution of 1905: Centenary Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 2005) p.266. The New York Times reported that during the 1903 Kishinev pogrom “babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob.”[B10]“Jewish Massacre Denounced,” New York Times, April 28, 1903, p.6

A common theme in most contemporary atrocity stories was the brutal rape of Jewish women, with most reports including mention of breasts being hacked off. There are literally thousands of carbon-copy reports in which it is claimed that mothers were raped alongside their daughters. There is simply not enough space to cite extensively from these articles, but they number in their thousands and are available to anyone with access to the digitized archives of any major newspaper, or the microfilm facilities at major libraries. In addition, these articles claim that whole streets inhabited by Jews had been razed, and the Jewish quarters of towns had been systematically fired.

The ‘atrocity’ aspect of the narrative has continued to be advanced by Jewish historians. For example Anita Shapira, in her Stanford-published, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948, claims that “each series of new riots was worse than the one preceding, as if every bloodbath provided a permit for an even worse massacre.”[B11]Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p.35 Shapira further hints that the murder of Jewish babies was common during the pogroms, stating that a common worry of Russian Jews was “Will they take pity on the small babies, who do not even know yet that they are Jews?”[B12]Ibid, p.34.
(Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p.35)
She concludes one particular section on pogrom violence by stating, without referencing any evidence, that there were “numerous acts of rape,” and that “many were massacred — men, women, and children. The cruelty that marked these killings added a special dimension to the feeling of terror and shock that spread in their wake.”[B13]Ibid.
(Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p.35)
Joseph Brandes, in his 2009 Immigrants to Freedom alleges, without citing evidence, that mobs “threw women and children out of the windows” of their homes, and that “heads were battered with hammers, nails were driven into bodies, eyes were gouged out … and petroleum was poured over the sick found hiding in cellars and they were burned to death.”[B14]Joseph Brandes, Immigrants to Freedom, (New York: Xlibris, 2009) p.171

Another crucial element to the Jewish narrative is that Russia is barbaric, ignorant, and uncivilized compared to the Jewish citizens of the country. Russia is said to be lingering in the “medieval stage of development,”[B15]The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.4 and in comparison to the “ignorant and superstitious peasantry,”[B16]The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.30 Russia’s Jews are presented as an outpost of Western civilization — they are urban, and “intellectual.” The RJC publication argued that university quotas allowing 5% of the student body to be made up of Jews were insufficient for “an intellectual race.” Astonishingly, it is claimed that “the root of the whole matter is racial arrogance,”[B17]Ibid.
(The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.30)
though this arrogance of course is said to emanate from the Russians.

The RJC charged the government with criminal sympathy, the local authorities generally with criminal inaction, and some of the troops with active participation. The situation, they argued, was simply so hopeless and the possibility of extermination was so great, that the only way out was for the civilized nations of the West to throw open their doors and let in these poor ‘Hebrews’.

And to a great extent this is exactly what the churches, the politicians, and the media agreed to. This capitulation to manipulated conscience ushered in the greatest migration in Jewish history, with profound consequences for us all. But there was just one small problem — the vast majority of this narrative was a calculated, designed, and expertly promoted fraud, furthered by the willing participation of Russian-Jewish emigrants who wished to ease their own access to the West and obtain “relief money from Western Europe and America.”[B18]Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p.291.

The ‘Atrocities’

Let us first turn our attention to the atrocity stories. Prior to any major reports of violence, the British public was already being primed to hate the Russian government and accept the Jewish narrative. John Doyle Klier points out that the Daily Telegraph was at that time Jewish-owned, and was particularly “severe” in its reports on Russian treatment of Jews prior to 1881.[B19]John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.399 In the pages of this publication, it was stated that “these Russian atrocities are only the beginning. … [T]he Russian officials themselves countenance these barbarities.”[B20]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.399)
Around this time in Continental Europe, Prussian Rabbi Yizhak Rülf established himself as an “intermediary” between Eastern Jewry and the West, and, according to Klier, one of his specialities was the spreading of “sensationalized accounts of mass rape.”[B21]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.399)

Other major sources of pogrom atrocity stories were the New York Times, the London Times, and the Jewish World. It would be the Jewish World which furnished the majority of these tales, having sent a reporter “to visit areas that had suffered pogroms.”[B22]Ibid, p.400
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.399)
Most of the other papers simply reprinted what the Jewish World reporter sent them. The atrocity stories carried by these newspapers provoked global outrage. There were large-scale public protests against Russia in Paris, Brussels, London, Vienna, and even in Melbourne, Australia. However, “it was in the United States that public indignation reached its height.” Historian Edward Judge states that the American public was spurred on by reports of “brutal beatings, multiple rapes, dismemberment of corpses, senseless slaughter, painful suffering and unbearable grief.”[B23]Edward Judge, Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom (New York: New York University Press, 1993) p.89.

However, as John Klier states, the reports of the Jewish World’s “Special Correspondent,” “raise intriguing problems for the historian.”[B24]John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400 While his itinerary of travel is described as “plausible,” most of his accounts are “flatly contradicted by the archival record.”[B25]Ibid, p.401
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
His claim that twenty rioters were killed during a pogrom in Kishinev in 1881 has been proven to be a fabrication by records which show that in that city, at that time, “there were no significant pogroms and no fatalities.”[B26]Ibid
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
Other claims that he witnessed shootings of peasants on his travels have been entirely discredited due to the vast number of minor inaccuracies in those accounts.

Furthermore, Klier states that the atrocity stories compiled by the Jewish World correspondent, which went on to be so influential in manipulating Western perceptions of the events, must be treated with “extreme caution.”[B27]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
The reporter “portrayed the pogroms dramatically, as great in scale and inhuman in their brutality. He reported numerous accounts where Jews were burned alive in their homes while the authorities looked on.”[B28]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
There are hundreds of instances where he references the murder of children, the mutilation of women, and the biting off of fingers.

Klier states that “the author’s most influential accounts, given their effect on world opinion, were his accounts of the rape and torture of girls as young as ten or twelve.”[B29]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
In 1881 he reported 25 rapes in Kiev, of which five were said to have resulted in fatalities, in Odessa he claimed 11, and in Elizavetgrad he claimed 30.[B30]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
Rape featured prominently in the reports, not because rapes were common, but because rape “even more than murder and looting” was known to “generate particular outrage abroad.” Klier states that “Jewish intermediaries who were channelling pogrom reports abroad were well aware of the impact of reports of rape, and it featured prominently in their accounts.”[B31]Ibid, p.12
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
The two most dramatic and gruesome accounts came from Berezovka and Borispol. In fact, as the year neared its end, the reports became more and more gruesome and brutal in the details they conveyed.

There is, of course, a reason for this. As the non-Jewish public began to tire of the reports and switched their minds to the coming Christmas festivities, Klier states that records show the RJC made a conscious and calculated decision to “keep Russian Jewry before the eyes of the public.”[B32]Ibid, p.404
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
A key component of this strategy was to take the accounts of the Special Correspondent and publish them in a more widely circulated and respected newspaper. They settled on the London Times, which was already predisposed to “critical editorial faulting of the Russian government.” Klier further states that these evidently false reports “garnished with the prestige of The Times and devoid of any attribution, subsequently published as a separate pamphlet, and translated into a variety of European languages … became the definitive Western version of the pogroms.”[B33]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)

As increasingly lurid atrocity tales again captured the attention of the Gentile public, the British Government found itself under pressure to intervene. The British Government, however, adopted a more cautious approach and undertook its own independent investigations into events in the Russian Empire. Its findings, published as a “Blue Book,” “presented an account of events at great variance with that offered by The Times.”[B34]Ibid, p.405. (Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2, 1882, 1883)
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400)
The most notable aspect of the independent inquiry is the outright denial of mass rape. In January 1882, Consul-General Stanley objected to all of the details contained within reports published by The Times, mentioning in particular the unfounded “accounts of the violation of women.”[B35]John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405 He further stated that his own investigations revealed that there had been no incidences of rape during the Berezovka pogrom, that violence was rare, and that much of the disturbance was restricted to property damage. In relation to property damage in Odessa, Stanley estimated it to be around 20,000 rubles, and rejected outright the Jewish claim that damage amounted to over one million rubles.

Vice-Consul Law, another independent investigator, reported that he had visited Kiev and Odessa, and could only conclude that “I should be disinclined to believe in any stories of women having been outraged in those towns.”[B36]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
Another investigator, Colonel Francis Maude, visited Warsaw and said that he could “not attach any importance” to atrocity reports emanating from that city.[B37]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
At Elizavetgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, it was discovered that a small hut had lost its roof. It was further discovered that very few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of injuries received in the riots. These were mainly the result of conflicts between groups of Jews who defended their taverns and rioters seeking alcohol. The small number of Jews who had been intentionally killed had fallen victim to unstable individuals who had been drunk on Jewish liquor — accusations of murderous intent among the masses were simply unfounded and unsubstantiated by the evidence.

When these reports were made public, states Klier, they represented “a serious setback for the protest and aid activities of the RJC.”[B38]Ibid, p.405.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
The Times was forced to backtrack, but responded spitefully (and bizarrely) by stating that the indignation of the country was still justified even if the atrocities were “the creations of popular fancy.”[B39]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
(Reminiscent of the JewishGen response to Ukrainian discoveries mentioned in Part 1 of this series?!)

The revelations came at a bad time for the RJC, which was at that time attempting to move the British Government to “act in some way on behalf of persecuted Russian Jewry.”[B40]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
It resorted to republishing (in the Times) its pamphlet on persecution in Russia twice in one month, presumably in the belief that blunt repetition would suffice to overcome tangible evidence. Klier states that the pieces were examples of “masterful” propaganda, as they attempted to undermine the credibility of the Government consuls, while sycophantically appealing to “the wise and noble people of England,” who “will know what weight should be attached to such denials and refutations.”[B41]Ibid, p.406.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
The RJC offered its own “corroborative evidence of the most undeniable kind,” though of course the exact source of this evidence was not specified beyond “persons occupying high official positions in the Jewish community” and “Jewish refugees.”

In essence, the people of western nations were being asked to trust an anonymous Rabbi on the other side of the world rather than identifiable representatives of their own government. The pieces, states Klier, “painted the familiar picture of murder and rape,” and despite the debunking statements of the consuls, “a number of mother/daughter rapes, which had already done so much to outrage British public opinion, were again repeated.”[B42]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405)
Although the move for British government intervention failed, in the battle for public opinion “the RJC clearly won the day,” and the Times and the RJC remained good bedfellows.

The Consuls were outraged. Stanley reiterated the fact that his intensive investigations, which he carried out at great personal cost with a serious leg injury, illustrated that “The Times’ accounts of what took place at each of those places contains the greatest exaggerations, and that the account of what took place at some of those places is absolutely untrue.”[B43]John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.407. He related the fact that a Rabbi in Odessa had “not heard of any outrages on women there,” and that the object of almost every pogrom he had investigated was simple “plunder.”[B44]John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.408. Enraged by the lies circulating in Britain and America, Stanley “went right to the top,” interviewing state rabbis and asking for evidence and touring pogrom sites. In Odessa, where a wealth of atrocity stories had originated, he was able to confirm “one death, but no looting of synagogues or victims set alight.” There was no evidence that a single rape had taken place. One state Rabbi admitted that he had not heard of any outrages of women in Berezovka and further assured Stanley that he “could with a clear conscience positively deny that any deaths or any violations had occurred there during the disturbances of last year.”[B45]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.408.)
He again sent this report to his superior in London, with a note saying “This is in accordance with all the information I have received and forwarded to your Lordship, and which I think more credible than anonymous letters in The Times.”[B46]Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.408.)

Despite Stanley’s best efforts the Jewish narrative advanced by the RJC, imbued with atrocity tales, has remained unalterably attached in Western perceptions of the pogroms. The Blue Book was smothered by the more visible, and oft-repeated, tales of the RJC and organisations like it around the globe. Only with the decade-long research of John Klier has some revision of this narrative, grounded in scholarship and archival evidence, been possible. In light of this evidence, one can only conclude that stories of rape, murder and mutilation were “more legendary than factual.”[B47]Ibid, p. 13.
(John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.408.)
However, the task remains to further dismantle and analyse other aspects of the Jewish narrative, and to seek the true motives behind its creation.

Part Three: Anti-Jewish Riots in the Russian Empire Before 1880

We continue our series of essays examining the Russian Pogroms with this essay on the part played by Jews in provoking the disturbances. As stated in Part Two, one of the key problems with existing historiography on the pogroms (and ‘anti-Semitism’ generally) is that these narratives invariably argue that the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek and passive role in this narrative, having committed no wrong-doing other than being Jews. There is no sense of Jewish agency, and one is left with the impression that Jews historically have lacked the capacity to act in the world. In almost every single academic and popular history of the pogroms, the author blindly accepts, or willfully perpetuates, the basic premise that Jews had been hated in the Russian Empire for centuries, that this hatred was irrational and rootless, and that the outbreak of anti-Jewish riots late in the 19thcentury was a ‘knee-jerk’ emotional response to the assassination of the Tsar and some blood libel accusations.

This is of course far from the truth, but the prevalence of this ‘victim paradigm’ plays two significant roles. Firstly, Jewish historiography is saturated with allusions to the “unique” status of Jews, who have suffered a “unique” hatred at the hands of successive generations of Europeans. In essence, it is the notion that Jews stand alone in the world as the quintessential “blameless victim.” To allow for any sense of Jewish agency — any argument that Jews may have in some way contributed to anti-Jewish sentiment — is to harm the perpetuation of this paradigm. In this sense, the ‘victim paradigm’ also contributes heavily to the claim for Jewish uniqueness and, as Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, one can clearly see in many examples of Jewish historiography the tendency to focus not so much on the “suffering of Jews” but rather on the simple fact that “Jews suffered.”[C1]Norman Finkelstein, ‘The Holocaust Industry,’ Index on Censorship, 29:2, 120-130, p.124 As a result, the paradigm offers no place to non-Jewish suffering. Simply put, the ‘victim paradigm’ is a form of secular “chosenness.” This aspect of the narrative is seen, quite rightly, as a useful tool in the here and now. There is perhaps no race on earth which uses its history to justify its actions in the present quite like the Jewish people. From seeking reparations to establishing nation states, Jewish history is one of the foundation stones propping up Jewish international politics in the present. As such, Jewish history is carefully constructed and fiercely defended. The interplay between Jewish history and contemporary Jewish politics is plain to see — I need only make reference to the terms “revisionist” and “denier” to conjure up images of puppet trials and prison cells.

Secondly, the omission of the Jewish contribution to the development of anti-Semitism (be it in a village setting or a national setting), leaves the spotlight burning all the more ferociously on the ‘aggressor.’ Within this context, the blameless victim is free to make the most ghastly accusations, basking in the assurance that his own role, and by extension his own character, is unimpeachable. The word of this untainted, unique, blameless victim is taken as fact — to doubt his account is to be in league with the ‘aggressor.’ In Part Two we explored the manner in which the RJC took full advantage of this construct to purvey appalling, and unfounded, atrocity stories. More generally, exaggerated tales of brutality by non-Jews are commonplace in Jewish literature and historiography, and go hand in hand with images of dove-like Jews. For example, Finkelstein has pointed to Jerzy Kosinski’s The Painted Bird, a work now widely acknowledged as “the first major Holocaust hoax,” as an example of this “pornography of violence.”[C2]Ibid.
(Norman Finkelstein, ‘The Holocaust Industry,’ Index on Censorship, 29:2, 120-130, p.124)
The twin concepts of Jewish blamelessness and extreme Gentile brutality are inextricably bound up together, and supporters of one strand of the ‘victim paradigm’ are invariably supporters of the other. Take for example that high priest of Jewish chosenness, Elie Wiesel, who praised Kosinki’s pastiche of sadomasochistic fantasies as “written with deep sincerity and sensitivity.”[C3]Ibid, p.125.
(Norman Finkelstein, ‘The Holocaust Industry,’ Index on Censorship, 29:2, 120-130, p.124)

Having clarified this theoretical framework, we now turn our attention to deconstructing the second strand of the pogrom ‘victim paradigm.’ To deal most effectively with the question of Jewish culpability in the souring of relations between Jews and non-Jews, we will need to probe deeper, and with more focus, than we endeavored to do in Part One. This essay will focus on specific examples of anti-Jewish disturbance in the Russian Empire prior to 1880, with a particular focus on Jewish economic practices preceding these events.

For the reasons discussed above, the majority of Jewish historians have long displayed an aversion to the idea that Jewish economic practices have played a significant role historically in provoking anti-Semitism. For example, Leon Poliakov in The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner, argues that the idea of economic anti-Semitism is “devoid of real explanatory value.”[C4]Leon Poliakov The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003) p.viii Similarly, Jonathan Freedman has stated that, in explaining anti-Jewish attitudes, economic anti-Semitism should play only a very “small explanatory role.”[C5]Jonathan Freedman, The Temple of Culture: Assimilation and Anti-Semitism in Literary Anglo-America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p.60. Both of these historians posit that theology, and by extension Christianity (and therefore Western culture) is the fount and origin of anti-Semitism. Robert Weinberg, in his 1998 article on Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History, explains anti-Semitic outbreaks of violence in Eastern Europe by stating that they were the product of “the frustrations of Russian and Ukrainian peasants, workers and town dwellers who, for the most part, spontaneously took out their frustrations on a time-honored scapegoat, the Jews.”[C6]Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.72 Weinberg refrains from stating where precisely these ‘frustrations’ emerge from, but note again the extremely passive Jewish role in his analysis.

Conversely, those historians who have accepted that economic issues have played a role in provoking anti-Semitism fail to engage in actual case studies of economically provoked anti-Jewish actions, preferring instead to probe “images” or stereotypes which allegedly infuse the consciousness of non-Jews. For example Professor of Israel Studies at Oxford University, Derek J. Penslar, has stated that economic anti-Semitism is nothing more than “a double helix of intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination.”[C7]Derek J. Penslar, Shylock’s Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in Modern Europe, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001) p.13. By choosing to discuss “images” and concepts rather than say, an actual incident such as the Limerick Anti-Jewish Riots, Penslar engages in a practice equally duplicitous to that engaged in by Poliakov and Freedman. Penslar’s thesis only superficially acknowledges the economic role, while really lending more weight to the argument that European society has suffered some kind of neurosis in relation to its Jews. Penslar deftly offers us an argument in which Jews and economics play a role in the development of an anti-Semitic “image,” without placing the Jew in anything but a passive role. Penslar’s “images” are also devoid of gradation — Europeans, if they hold to economically motivated anti-Semitism, either view Jews as pauper savages or global financiers. This despite the case that most European peasants simply didn’t need to have these extreme conceptions of Jews, and probably didn’t. Exploitative economic practices by local Jewish capitalists, the existence of local Jewish monopolies on such items as alcohol, and the Jewish practice of in-group/out-group ethics would be more than sufficient to provoke anti-Jewish resentment.

But references to this motivation for anti-Jewish action is entirely absent from Jewish historiography on the causes of anti-Semitism, most likely because it comes extremely close to demolishing the ‘victim paradigm.’ This essay, which focuses on actual case studies (in particular the city of Odessa), will argue that the anti-Jewish riots of the 1880s, like many riots before them, were motivated by economic anti-Semitism, and that this economic anti-Semitism had its origins not in the European psyche, but in the day to day economic interactions of Jews had with the non-Jews of Odessa. It attempts to rediscover the Jewish role, and to place it front and centre.

The first disturbance involving Jews to occur in the Russian Empire, and which left sufficient documentation, was the 1821 Odessa pogrom. Weinberg has painted a picture of Odessa as being some kind of multicultural heaven at this time. He states that the city “benefited from the presence of German, Italian, French, Greek, and English residents whose cultural and intellectual tastes influenced local life.”[C8]Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73 By the 1820s street signs were written in Russian and Italian, the city’s first newspaper appeared in French. Odessa, according to Weinberg, had a thriving art scene, particularly in relation to theatre, music, and opera.

However, Klier paints a radically different picture of the city, stressing in particular the ethnic tension created by increasing Jewish settlement in the city. Klier states that by 1821, Odessa was “a hotbed of ethnic, religious, and economic rivalries” and was, quite significantly, “a distinctly non-Russian city.”[C9]John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.15 Weinberg explains that “the number of Jews arriving from other parts of the Russian Empire and Galicia in the Austrian Empire skyrocketed.” In Odessa, Jews were entirely free from “legal burdens and residency restrictions.”[C10]Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73

Violence erupted in 1821 when, during the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews murdered and then mutilated Gregory V, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. In the aftermath, many Greeks fled with Gregory’s remains from Istanbul to Odessa, where his funeral procession was held. Surviving documents suggest that violence broke out when a large contingent of Odessa’s Jewish population showed open disrespect for the procession.[C11]John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.16.

In describing this and subsequent outbreaks of violence in Odessa, I must urge readers to divest themselves of the preconception that the Jewish contingent of the city was a tiny minority. Jewish historians are often quick to allude to minority status without providing definitive numbers. John Doyle Klier, however, informs us that by the middle of the nineteenth century Jews constituted “almost one-third of the total population” in Odessa.[C12]Ibid.
(John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.16.)
Given the huge population of Greeks and other nationalities, it was the Russians who composed the “tiny minority.” Economic supremacy in the city until the middle of the nineteenth century was the preserve of the Greek population, which had fended off the attempts of numerous other ethnic groups to “secure or maintain a favored economic position.”[C13]Ibid, p.15
(John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.16.)

When a huge influx of Jews occurred in the 1850s, the struggle for economic supremacy between Jew and Greek, added to historical religiopolitical grievances, contributed to increased inter-ethnic tension in the city. Greek historian Evridiki Sifneos informs us that earlier co-existence had “not been based on mutual toleration. On the contrary, economic recession in the second half of the nineteenth century accelerated ethnic distinctions, and resentment was provoked by the ascension of social or ethnic groups [primarily Jewish], which led to the redistribution of resources.”[C14]Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.191 Until the mid-1850s, the Greeks had control of grain exports, but with the disruption of trade routes as a result of the Crimean War, some local Greek business owners were forced into bankruptcy. The city’s Jews, who had earlier occupied mainly middleman roles, pooled resources and eagerly bought up these businesses at extremely low prices. A letter from one Greek contemporary reads: “When I first came to Odessa in 1864, I became a purchaser of grain on behalf of our house, 14 at Moldovanka. The majority were Greeks, with a few Russian middlemen. Now there are no Russians, and as for the Greeks they are counted on the fingers of one hand. Jews are the ones who have taken over the market.”[C15]Ibid, p.195
(Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.191)
According to Sifneos, Jews took advantage of the placement of their taverns in the villages to establish themselves as middlemen in the collection of grain from the surrounding countryside, and in addition “they worked more tightly within their ethnic network.”[C16]Ibid, p.196
(Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.191)

Weinberg further states that when “Jewish employers followed the practice of only hiring their own, many Greek dockworkers now found themselves in the ranks of the unemployed.”[C17]Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75. When it became apparent that Jews had wrested economic supremacy from the Greeks in 1858, incidences of inter-ethnic violence began to escalate in frequency. In 1858 there were attacks on Greek and Jewish property, and numerous “Greek-Jewish brawls” in the city, and in 1859 a quarrel between Greek and Jewish children again escalated into full-scale inter-ethnic conflict. Violence was ended thanks only to the intervention of Russian police and Cossacks.[C18]Ibid, p.18
(Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.)
A major bout of Greek-Jewish violence occurred again in 1869.

How do we describe such events? In light of the context of these disturbances, does the term “pogrom” or “anti-Jewish riot” withstand scrutiny? Certainly not. Note my use of the terms “inter-ethnic violence” and “disturbance involving Jews.” These terms do not feature in Jewish historiography on these events. “Anti-Jewish riot” or “pogrom” is merely part of the lexicon of the ‘victim paradigm,’ bequeathing passive status even through word use. To express it flippantly, when Tom and Bill have a fight in the street, one does not describe it as “anti-Tom violence.” This automatically imparts passive, victim status to Tom, despite the fact that he may have started the fight, and certainly threw as many punches. Weinberg, for example, describes the 1859 disturbance as “anti-Jewish activity,” but states that both “Jewish and gentile youths engaged in bloody brawls.”[C19]Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.74 This is an obvious contradiction in terms.

It is only in 1871, during a particularly severe bout of disturbances, that we see the first Russian involvement in Odessa’s inter-ethnic violence. The late John Doyle Klier, formerly Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Oxford University, informs us categorically that Russian involvement in the 1871 Odessa ethnic conflict had its roots in real, tangible economic grievances. Klier states that Russian participation was the result of “bitterness born of the exploitation of their work by Jews and the ability of the latter to enrich themselves and manipulate all manner of trade and commercial activity.”[C20]John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.21 Similarly, Weinberg concedes that by 1871, there were “many others besides Greeks who perceived Jews as an economic threat.”[C21]Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.

The roots of the 1871 disturbance are quite tangible, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting it was the result of real socio-economic grievances, rather than “images,” “stereotypes,” or any of the other usual suspects wheeled out in Jewish historiography. Brian Horowitz, Chair of Jewish Studies at Tulane University argues that by 1870 Jewish economic and social cohesiveness had been further enhanced in Odessa by founding of a branch of the Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment, an organization dedicated to in-group philanthropy as well as “alternative politics” whereby members “did not contact the government as an intercessor.”[C22]Brian Horowitz, How Jewish was Odessa? : http://www.wilsoncenter.net/sites/default/files/OP3...age=17 In this respect, it was the kahal-lite, and it had a significant positive impact on the wealth of Odessa Jewry. Klier states that under this organisation, the Jewish grip on the economic life of the city grew stronger, and that Russian government reports from 1871 attribute the disturbance above all to the fact that “the economic domination of the Jews in the area produced abnormal relations between Christians and Jews.”[C23]John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.22 By 1871, Jewish economic domination had moved beyond grain exports. A US consular report from that year reveals the extent of Jewish control over Odessa’s economic life. It reports that Jews in the city “occupy themselves with trade and favoring their own class or sect, that is that their combinations, in a great many instances, amount almost to monopolies. The common remark, therefore, is that ‘everything is in the hands of the Jews.’ To sell or buy a house, a horse, a carriage, to rent a lodging or contract for a loan, to engage a governess, and sometimes even to marry a wife the Jew gets his percent as a “go between.” The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact every producer and every consumer is obliged in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew.”[C24]Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.198

Impoverished Greeks, Russians and Ukrainians looked on at increasingly ostentatious displays of Jewish wealth. In fact, Sifneos states that contemporary correspondence reveals that during the disturbances, many of Odessa’s Jews attributed the trouble “to the widespread resentment against the growing prosperity of their community.”[C25]Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.193 Sifneos also informs us that demographic shifts in the city were of extreme importance in creating unease among non-Jewish populations. In line with increasing wealth, the 1897 census revealed that during the preceding two decades Odessa Jewry was undergoing an extremely rapid demographic explosion, and that Odessa was “rapidly becoming a predominantly Jewish city.”[C26]Ibid.
(Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.193)
To put this into some kind of perspective, the 1897 Odessa census reveals that by that date there were 5,086 Greek speakers, 10,248 German speakers, 1,137 French speakers, and 124,520 Yiddish speakers. The census further revealed that while almost all of the Greek and French speakers were predominantly residing in the inner city slum areas, a huge 54% of Odessa’s Jews were living in the middle-class suburbs of Petropavlovsky, Mikhailovsky, and Peresipsky.[C27]Ibid.
(Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.193)

To conclude, when inter-ethnic violence broke out in 1871, it was not rooted in irrationality, but was quite obviously, as Sifneos argues, a desperate attempt to “weaken the economic power of the Jews.”[C28]Ibid.
(Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.193)
In this context, we see the Jews of Odessa emerge from their passive role in the shadows of Jewish historiography, and how they truly appear in the cold light of day.

Notes

[A1] John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p.xiii.

[A2] Jack Glazier, Dispersing the Ghetto: The Relocation of Jewish Immigrants Across America (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998) p.9.

[A3] Donald Dutton, The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres and Extreme Violence (New York: Prager, 2007 ) p.40

[A4] Michael Mann, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) p.142.

[A5] I.M. Aronson, ‘Geographical and Socioeconomic factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia,’ Russian Review, Vol.39, No.1 (Jan. 1980) p.18.

[A6] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.xiv.

[A7] Israel Bartal, The Jews of Eastern Europe: 1772-1881, (Tel Aviv, Ministry of Defence, 2005) p.23.

[A8] Ibid, p.24.

[A9] Israel Friedlander, The Jews of Russia and Poland, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84.

[A10] Ibid.

[A11] Ibid, p.85.

[A12] Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173

[A13] Ibid.

[A14] Ibid, p.87.

[A15] Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173

[A16] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.4.

[A17] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardianobituaries.obituaries

[A18] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardianobituaries.obituaries

[A19] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.3.

[A20] Ibid.

[A21] Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.

[A22] Ibid.

[A23] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.4

[A24] Ibid.

[A25] Ibid.

[A26] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5

[A27] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5

[A28] Ibid.

[A29] Ibid, p.6

[A30] Ibid.

[B1] http://archive.org/stream/persecutionofjew00russ

[B2] Max Beloff, The Intellectual in Politics: And other essays, (London: Taylor and Francis, 1970) p.135

[B3] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.

[B4] Ibid, p.4

[B5] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5

[B6] Ibid, p.8

[B7] Ibid, p.36

[B8] Ibid, p.38.

[B9] Anthony Heywood, The Russian Revolution of 1905: Centenary Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 2005) p.266.

[B10] “Jewish Massacre Denounced,” New York Times, April 28, 1903, p.6

[B11] Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p.35

[B12] Ibid, p.34.

[B13] Ibid.

[B14] Joseph Brandes, Immigrants to Freedom, (New York: Xlibris, 2009) p.171

[B15] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.4

[B16] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.30

[B17] Ibid.

[B18] Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p.291.

[B19] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.399

[B20] Ibid.

[B21] Ibid.

[B22] Ibid, p.400

[B23] Edward Judge, Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom (New York: New York University Press, 1993) p.89.

[B24] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400

[B25] Ibid, p.401

[B26] Ibid

[B27] Ibid.

[B28] Ibid.

[B29] Ibid.

[B30] Ibid.

[B31] Ibid, p.12

[B32] Ibid, p.404

[B33] Ibid.

[B34] Ibid, p.405. (Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2, 1882, 1883)

[B35] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405

[B36] Ibid.

[B37] Ibid.

[B38] Ibid, p.405.

[B39] Ibid.

[B40] Ibid.

[B41] Ibid, p.406.

[B42] Ibid.

[B43] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.407.

[B44] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.408.

[B45] Ibid.

[B46] Ibid.

[B47] Ibid, p. 13.

[C1] Norman Finkelstein, ‘The Holocaust Industry,’ Index on Censorship, 29:2, 120-130, p.124

[C2] Ibid.

[C3] Ibid, p.125.

[C4] Leon Poliakov The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003) p.viii

[C5] Jonathan Freedman, The Temple of Culture: Assimilation and Anti-Semitism in Literary Anglo-America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p.60.

[C6] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.72

[C7] Derek J. Penslar, Shylock’s Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in Modern Europe, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001) p.13.

[C8] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73

[C9] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.15

[C10] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73

[C11] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.16.

[C12] Ibid.

[C13] Ibid, p.15

[C14] Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.191

[C15] Ibid, p.195

[C16] Ibid, p.196

[C17] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.

[C18] Ibid, p.18

[C19] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.74

[C20] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.21

[C21] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.

[C22] Brian Horowitz, How Jewish was Odessa? : http://www.wilsoncenter.net/sites/default/files/OP301.pdf#page=17

[C23] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.22

[C24] Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.198

[C25] Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.193

[C26] Ibid.

[C27] Ibid.

[C28] Ibid.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Academia, American Media, Anti-Semitism, Jews, Russia 
Hide 283 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. mcohen says:

    Another attack on the jewish people by a white christian right liar thinly disguised as a historical account.if it is not the palestinian cause then it is some other propaganda fantasy.
    The truth is that these articles are an attempt to discredit judaism solely for the purposes of promoting a modern crusade on behalf of chritianity.This is not about supporting the Palestinian cause or the arab people who have been attacked in endless wars these past decade.
    This is about christian right wing fundamentalists hoping to capture jerusalem.
    I hope that there are those ordinary Christian who see through this charade of evil that speaks in there name

  2. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The definitive story of the Jews in Russia is by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “200 Years Together A history of Russia and the Jews.”

    https://archive.org/stream/Solzhenitsyn200YearsTogether/Solzhenitsyn-200%20Years%20Together_djvu.txt

    It’s an excellent book, which you’ll only find online to read, since no publisher in the West has had the audacity to print these truths so finely elaborated by Solzhenitsyn. You’ll see that Russian Jews took advantage of their nation, refusing to pay taxes or let their sons be drafted. Their main contribution to Russia was money lending using usury and operating bars and stills.

    As money lenders, they were ruthless, demanding full payment from farmers, even during bad crop seasons. Add in the booze factor, and sooner or later, the local Russians would rise up and toss out the bankers, sometimes rather violently.

    Three different Czars that tried to right this malady wound up being assassinated, by whom you can already guess. Naturally, even though its accurately documented, it’s been branded as being anti-Semitic, as many truths are.

    • Agree: Robjil
  3. Truth3 says:

    Russians have always hated Jews, and for numerous good reasons.

    The fact that Jews greatly exaggerated the conflicts with Russian peasants is obvious for a whole host of reasons.

    When the Bolshevik Jews overthrew the government and killed the Czar and Royal Family, the Russian people were left helpless against the black leather coat wearing, pistol carrying, Russian peasant and Christianity hating Jew Chekist.

    Tens of Millions of Russian Christians were killed.

    Pogroms? Hardly worth noting.

    The situation is very much akin to Palestine.

    Jews kill on the order of 100:1, but the propaganda would make you think otherwise.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Moi
    , @Arioch
    , @druid55
  4. Mikhail says: • Website

    A thought provoking piece for sure. Regarding the aforementioned (in the article) Cossacks and Fiddler on the Roof

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/09/21/getting-russia-wrong-again/

  5. The rule of thumb is, everything jews say is a lie, including the words, and, and the

    • Replies: @Richard B
    , @bjondo
  6. To understand the myth of pogroms one has to read Alexandre Soljenistyne’ book: two century together.

  7. Subsequent articles will concern the pogroms themselves and how myth and exaggeration have plagued our conception of them.

    Myth? Ya gotta be kidding. They wouldn’t exaggerate something like that, would they? Wink, wink!

  8. Annono56 says:

    “Little or no historiography has been dedicated to peeling back the layers of “refugee” stories to uncover what really happened in the Russian Empire in the years before and during the riots.”

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn did an exhaustive, balanced and masterful analysis of these years in his book “200 Years Together”.

  9. Cowboy [AKA "Kartoffelstampfer"] says:

    For example, University of British Columbia Professor, Donald G. Dutton has asserted that the mobs were not motivated by “the sudden rapid increase of the Jewish urban population, the extraordinary economic success of Russian Jews, or the involvement of Jews in Russian revolutionary politics” but rather by the “blood libel.”

    The author makes it sound like all over the Pale Russian peasants got upset because Jews were being falsely libeled. The reality here is that Rabbi’s were getting powerful and sloppy. They were getting caught draining the blood from Christian boys and performing other satanic rituals, just as they have everywhere else they have been allowed to form their colonies.

    Violence erupted in 1821 when, during the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews murdered and then mutilated Gregory V

    Jews and Muslims working hand in hand to murder and mutilate Christians. Gods Chosen People and the people of Gods Religion of Peace expose their true genocidal nature century after century after century.

    • Replies: @Moi
    , @druid55
  10. It’s hard for me to dig up so much as a shred of sympathy for muh pogroms when you compare it to the gentile body count of genocidal jews from the Cheka all the way up to the modern IDF.
    Cry me a river Shlomo.
    “So harrible!!! Six million tears I swea-ahh!”

  11. The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact every producer and every consumer is obliged in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew.”

    There you have it.

    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
  12. Moi says:
    @mcohen

    But Mr. Maga (aka Sunkist) has already handed over Jerusalem–and the Golan Heights, and, effectively the West Bank–to the Jews. Yahweh works in mysterious ways, mon ami.

    • Replies: @mcohen
  13. Moi says:
    @Cowboy

    And how many Muslims have we killed since 9/11. Do tell.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  14. Moi says:
    @Truth3

    A Jew killing goyim is of no consequence 🙁

  15. geokat62 says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Three different Czars that tried to right this malady wound up being assassinated, by whom you can already guess.

    Three Russian tsars and one American prince of Camelot… by whom you can already guess.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  16. There was a grand total of about a couple of thousand deaths during all the late Imperial era pogroms, which occurred precisely when state authority disappeared, as in 1905.

    For comparison, that’s about a week’s worth of work for the (40% Jewish) NKVD in 1937-38.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Anonymous
    , @Olorin
  17. Jake says:

    “On the eve of the assassination of Alexander II, Russia’s Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of legislation had done little to change the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically, and culturally homogenous.”

    And that culture was expressed in Yiddish, in German. Russian-ruled Jews remained linguistically Germanic by choice.

  18. Truth3 says:

    They’ve never changed.

    From BC, to AD, to today… the Jews are at war with humanity, BECAUSE IT’S THEIR CHOICE.

    Whether killing innocents and crying out as if victims (see Palestine for just one example), or perpetrating the false flag fraud of 911 to get the US Military to do their dirty work for them, it’s all the same.

    Good riddance would be the greatest blessing ever. Birobidzhan (with a wall around it) awaits.

    • Replies: @Jake
  19. Would you put it past those raised being force fed this type of atrocity propaganda, whose faith is matter of fact about collective ancestral guilt, to use the totalitarian power of the Communist state to carry on their parents’ generational feud? To the extent of engineering mass starvation?

  20. peterike says:
    @mcohen

    Another attack on the jewish people by a white christian right liar thinly disguised as a historical account.if it is not the palestinian cause then it is some other propaganda fantasy.

    OK Moishe, nice job posting the standard, empty yet outraged response that fools the more gullible of the Goyim herd. Your shekels are in the mail.

    • Agree: Miggle
  21. GMC says:

    Any American that has paid attention , to what has happened to their Government, Agencies and Corporations should know exactly , how the Jews work . You gotta be pretty stupid to question this or any other honest article about the Jews and their ways. Hello Haifa ! We love some of you but ya gotta stop the Wars and take-overs.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  22. @geokat62

    Israel and the zio/US government did 911 which led to the killing of millions of innocent civilians in the mideast.

  23. Jake says:
    @Greg Bacon

    All of that happening required a growing number of sons, daughters and nephews/nieces of Russian Orthodox priests to replace in their lives any semblance of historic Christianity with what in the West came to be known as ‘the Social Gospel,’ which led very quickly to their becoming overtly pro-revolutionary. Well before the serfs were freed, Russia had a growing problem of ‘Liberal’ Orthodoxy – often led by family members of priests – that was obsessed with 2 things: freeing serfs and freeing Jews from The Pale and all restrictions.

    In that naive Liberal Orthodox mind, which became heretical very quickly and then became atheist or agnostic for most, freed serfs and freed Jews would live in perfect harmony, in contrast to the exploitive Russian hereditary nobility and the non-serf Russian commoners.

    Without those people, who always had kin covering for them, pleading for them, lying to save them, helping them financially, violent revolutionary groups in Russia would not have made much progress. Yes, before the serfs were freed, Jewish leadership and Jewish money had become defining to such groups, but the fact remains that they would not have existed, nor would they have been able to spread so rapidly and arrange so much mayhem, without all the Gentiles who chose to toss aside historic Christianity for some form of Social Gospel heresy that then rather quickly would emerge as atheism/agnosticism.

    Rejection of historic Christianity always serves the interests of Jews, doubly and triply so the interests of the most rapacious Jews.

    That is also how the Anglo-Zionist Empire came to be.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
    , @Alden
  24. Jake says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Correct.

    Likewise, all the Romanov Tsars combined executed a fraction of the number of people executed by the Bolsheviks.

    And yet the Tsar boogey-man is still used to prod people to hate Russia and Russians while wanting to bomb the entire globe for Anglo-Zionism.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  25. Jake says:
    @Truth3

    If Christ is true, then Jews must be at war with humanity, because they are defined by choosing anti-Christ.

  26. Contemporary media reports especially were the source of most of the atrocity stories, reportedly gleaned from newly-arrived ‘refugees’ who had given statements to the Russo-Jewish Committee about the pogroms they had fled. In these reports, which were carried very regularly by both the New York Times and the London Times, Russians were charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. Every Jew in the Russian Empire was under threat. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes…. The New York Times reported that during the 1903 Kishinev pogrom “babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob.”

    This all sounds vaguely familiar, somehow. I wonder if certain of these atrocity tales were possibly recycled at a later date, with a more recent specter of the qabalistic demonology taking the place of “Bloody Nicholas” and his cossacks?

    • Agree: Hail
  27. anonymous[252] • Disclaimer says:

    LOL

    This article can apply to any number of historical or current scenarios. For example, the current animus towards whites by minorities. Whites greatly dominate the economy and resentment is being whipped up against them by agitators. I can easily see “pogroms” being carried out in the future by disgruntled minority mobs if redistribution of wealth (to their expectations) is not implemented.

    This hate against Jews because of their dominance is misplaced. Thanks to mass immigration, the preference for in-groups is all over the place in the US whether it’s hispanic dominated areas where you can’t get a job unless you speak Spanish, Indians in Silicon Valley or Jews at the NYT who only hire their kind. Yeah, it’s all illegal and probably those Jews in Russia were doing some illegal things, too. Thing is, the govt back then could have done more but they really didn’t give a shit about citizens much like what’s happening now.

  28. Arioch says:
    @Truth3

    > When the Bolshevik Jews overthrew the government and killed the Czar and Royal Family, the Russian people were left helpless against the black leather coat wearing, pistol carrying, Russian peasant and Christianity hating Jew Chekist.

    You repeat white propaganda here.
    There were 3 Russian Revolution, but you only account for the last of those, and push two prior ones into memory hole.

    When the White Guards pro-Western liberals, including openly Zyonist and Jews-nationalist parties like Bund (ever heard about Azef?) overthrew the government and incarcerated the czar, thus destroying the Russian Empire as it was, and then in just EIGHT MONTHS run the country from “war hardships” into “economic and military ruin”, people turned to Bolsheviks, who previously were marginal laughing stock.

    For a simple reason – everyone else from 1905 and through February 197 and to October 1917 proved either unwilling or incapable to stop decomposition and to start building something. In the middle of WW1. And they themselves even openly claimed it!

    Bolsheviks were less Jewish in both ethnic and economic sense.
    What Jews strived for? Trade and usury. Private business.
    What Bolsheviks strived for? Prohibit trade and usury for private enterprises. To remove the very concept of money in the envisioned money-free abundance of communism.
    Is it really Jewish idea, the well-known Bolshevik’s ideal that there are no money and no more shops collecting those money, and by implication – no more banks lending those money?

    Now, to the “Christianity hating”. Russian Church was politic body, which
    1. Glorified destruction of Russian Empire amidst WW1 and incarceration of czar family, done by pro-Western liberals and nationalistic Jews.
    2. Cursed Bolsheviks for being counter-revolutionaries and for their turning upon those, who destroyed monarchy.
    3. Collected the money to buy out the incarcerated czar family from his abandoned guards turned mercenaries, then used the money to foster churches.

    So, if Russian Church declared itself political body fighting Bolsheviks – what should had Bolsheviks do? Return fire of turn another cheek?

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    , @Alden
  29. @Jake

    The church of “nice” has been around a long time, and its members would rather get along than speak the truth, which frequently makes people uncomfortable.

  30. ricpic says:

    Those Jews are terrible, TERRIBLE. You goyim are wonderful, WONDERFUL.

    Ha Ha Ha…..SCHMUCKS.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  31. Arioch says:

    > worth of work for the (40% Jewish) NKVD in 1937-38.

    the same horror stories about 1937…

    again, read Solzhenitsyn, who testifies that 1937 was destruction of murders, was time when NKVD after years of vicious in-fighting among its top rank, finally managed to turn on those, so called “Troskyites” but we might recall who Trotsky was, who were persecuting commoners year by year since 1920-s, who created the GULag, and who suddenly – with a lot of very vocal whining – were stripped of immunity and went into the very camps they created few years ago. For “mere mortals” those years were “nothing special” comparing with the prior years.

  32. Hossein says:
    @mcohen

    The Christian right wing , Christian zionists, are the largest supporters of Zionism and the atrocious and criminal Zionist colonialism.

    Your nonsense about take over of jerusalem by the Christians does not make any sense .
    The jewish land thieves are the ones who have stolen Jerusalem from the Arabs with help from Fascist Christian imperialists who helped to establish a colonial entity populated by White supremacist Jewish land thieves.

    • Replies: @mcohen
  33. @ricpic

    Those Jews are terrible, TERRIBLE. You goyim are wonderful, WONDERFUL.
    Ha Ha Ha…..SCHMUCKS.

    I think you got that backwards and you may want to investigate the meaning of the word you used, “goy.”

    Get with the program, will ya, Schmuck?

    • Replies: @mcohen
  34. Cowboy [AKA "Kartoffelstampfer"] says:
    @Moi

    And how many Muslims have we killed since 9/11. Do tell.

    “We”? This is proof that you consider Jews like yourself to be white.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Wally
  35. Mulegino1 says:

    Jewish hegemony over the gentile mind absolutely requires an almost complete obfuscation of the facts of history, an ironclad and unassailable Orwellian inversion of reality and a complete cognitive dissonance on the part of the masses.

    The Jews as a collective hate everything which is good: truth, beauty, decorum, reverence, purity, sublimity, spirituality, etc. They fear the antiseptic sunlight of scrutiny and intellectual curiosity- they are anti-Logos to the core.

  36. Miggle says:

    Andrew Joyce, thanks for your important article. Thanks for so objectively and fairly exposing the deep evil of the religion of hate.

    We need to be aware that all claims or “commemorations” of Jews being victims are hate speech.

    Your subject is also the subject of Israel Shamir’s chapter “The Failed Test” in his book Galilee Flowers. He provides many examples in a few pages, and mentions the double standards.

    When the scenes of pogroms horrified him, he was horrified that the violence was directed against Jews. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with pogroms as such.

    and,

    … Still, all the 19th century Jewish pogroms in Russia caused fewer casualties than we murder in a matter of weeks.

    and,

    The Jewish state is the only place in the world possessing official death squads that embrace a policy of assassination and the practice of medieval torture.

    and much more of that kind.

    But please, please let us all stop calling Judeophobia “anti-Semitism”. That is a deception, perhaps originally a delusion but now a deception, and racist. It equates the Ashkenazim of Europe, Aryans, with the ancient Hebrews, Semites. It plays into the hands of the Christian Zionists with their fantasy that God made “covenants” with the ancestors of the Ashkenazim when any such were made with the ancestors of Palestinian Arabs (so-called). And so, millions of Christian Zionists think driving the real Jews out of Palestine and replacing them with fake Jews will bring on their “Rapture.” Let us not support them by continuing to use that word.

  37. @Arioch

    Spoken like a true zionist bolshevik.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  38. mcohen says:
    @Hossein

    Hossein the fake knows not all christian zionists are white.

  39. Alden says:
    @Jake

    Very interesting. I didn’t know that.

    I did know that as soon as the government established free universities and high schools the teachers started preaching revolution as early as the 1860s. The students of course were the sons and daughters of the Gentry and upper middle class who became fervent revolutionaries.

    Sound familiar?

    • Replies: @Jake
  40. Alden says:
    @Arioch

    Would mind explaining point 3?

    • Replies: @Arioch
  41. GeeBee says:

    For those with eyes to see, this piece is in a way the final piece of the jigsaw; the last line in the complex joining up of dots. Once the dots are joined and the jigsaw completed, all of modern Western history stands revealed as the grand enterprise of a Jewish dynamic.

    The ‘otherness’ of the Jews, which over millennia has seen them gravitate to wherever wealth and opportunity provide them with the means to parasitize the gullible goyim cattle, while maintaining themselves in strict and splendid superior isolation, leads first to resentment, and then to banishment. The utter impossibility of any and all attempts to assimilate them rests on their fierce determination to avoid any such thing. Indeed their own sense of ‘otherness’ and superiority makes any such idea revolting to them. Their tactic, in the face of growing awareness of what they are up to among the goyim, has always been – as Andrew Joyce so signally points out – to wrap themselves in the cloak of eternal victimhood, spinning whatever lies they might find convenient in order to weave a suitable cloth. All the while, of course, they are about the plotting of their next move.

    In Russia, their scams were discovered, and so they wove the coarse cloth of ‘pogroms’ in which to hide. Their next move, starting in the 1880s, was to de-camp en masse to the USA, where a burgeoning population and a puissant economy was ripe for the taking. Once there, and having by 1913 installed themselves in a position of power, they enlisted America in the service of their grand scheme, which was nothing less than the dismantling of those inconvenient European dynasties, whose Royal heads were all too aware of the problems they posed, and their replacement with the wholly-owned subsidiaries of Judaism we know as ‘democracy’ and ‘Marxist-Leninism’.

    When to their surprise a man arose, out of the blue, to stem the latter’s tide (which threatened to overwhelm Europe), they bribed, cajoled and indeed bent the will of America and Britain to their ends in removing him, and as ever their excuse was victimhood. As with the ‘pogroms’, lie was laid upon lie in service of their ends, and that man and his unique political creation – the saviour of the West – was cruelly extirpated. Today we see the final result of their triumph in all its loathsome glory. Never a year passes without some new monument to their last and most monstrous lie opening in some benighted city or other. To question this ‘new pogrom’ that we are obliged to refer to by the absurd and insulting term ‘holocaust’ is to invite career suicide, or worse.

  42. Meanwhile Jews were beginning to swamp higher education establishments. In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were “driving Christians from the school benches,” and “filling up the schools.”

    Sounds familiar…


    From American Pravda: Racial Discrimination at Harvard, by Ron Unz

    • Replies: @trelane
    , @MEFOBILLS
  43. @Cowboy

    Some who call themselves Jews (such as the goofy Zionists) consider themselves “chosen” and the rules don’t apply to them. They are beyond mere white, doncha know? They’re all bright, luciferous stars, in fact! 😉

  44. druid55 says:
    @Truth3

    And they’re doing the same thing here currently with their drug peddling, wall street shenanigans, prostitution promoting, Hollywood trash, etc.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  45. druid55 says:
    @Cowboy

    Muslims are forbidden by their religion to kill Christians. If they did for political reasons, etc., it’s on them. Otherwise, it is forbidden. Whereas, Jews by the command of many Talmudic rabbis, including the supposedly great Maimonedes, suggested killing goys if you could get away with it, and he is revered by Jews>

  46. J says: • Website

    Jews had been living in Russia quietly for centuries. Suddenly half or more left everything and escaped as fast a they could to European ports and bought the cheapest tickets to South Africa, North America, Argentina, Palestine, the farthest the better. Those who stayed, became fanatically fixated on destroying the Tzarist regime with its nobles and Tzar.

    Hundred years after this earth shaking events appears Mr Joyce “proving” that in fact nothing had happened, it is all myth, there was no reason for this sudden, precipitous mass escape. And the Jews remaining joined in mass the most extreme uncompromising anti-Tzarist leader, Vladimir Lenin (whose loved big brother had been hanged by the Tzar). Mr Joyce thinks Unz readers are so blinded by hate that they will believe anything.

  47. Before 1772 Poland-Lithuania-Ukraine had two legal and parallel governments, one Polish and Catholic, and the other Jewish, complete with a national legislative body: “The Council of Four Lands.” There were actually two states within one border. In 1772 both governments disappeared in the partition of Poland between Prussia, Austria, and Russia (because Poland had already been hollowed out from within), and one of these former states went about recreating itself by creating a movement for a “national homeland” elsewhere. But while the Royal Catholic Polish government disappeared, the Jewish Kahal structure, an invisible Jewish state within a state, remained in the former territory of Poland and spread outwards as Jews emigrated. At the same time, Frankism, the later development of Shabbateanism, led to massive conversion of Jews to Christianity in appearance only, such as that of Karl Marx and Benjamin Disraeli, and the grandfather and great grandfather of Vladimir Lenin. To motivate the Jewish population to become “Zionists” the Lithuanian ruling cabal created the idea of “Antisemitism.” In addition to their own direct agents like Pinsker and Dubnow, they hired journalists like Friedrich Wilhelm Adolph Marr (Mahar means “Swift” in Hebrew) and Theodor Herzl to promote this propaganda. A center piece was to spin riots in the Russian empire into being seen as “anti-Jewish persecution.” And for Western Europe, another center piece was a stage play psy-op called the “Dreyfus Affair.” The Dreyfus affair, political theater, was completely phony, like 9/11. This is the way you herd human cattle, Jews and Christians alike. WW I, WW II, and bingo! A new apocalyptic state is born.

    • Replies: @Miggle
    , @Miggle
  48. Wally says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    LOL

    You mean the fake and impossible “holocaust”.

    And hey, if Jews were really so smart they would have conjured up a better, more believable story than their laughable & stupid ‘6,000,000 Jews, 5,000,000 others, & gas chambers’.

    recommended:

    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
    “The Holocaust” Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame
    http://www.unz.com/kbarrett/the-holocaust-is-a-myth-that-conceals-our-shame/
    Teaching Holocaust, Don’t know much about history
    by Philip Girald
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/teaching-holocaust/

  49. @druid55

    And they’re doing the same thing here currently with their drug peddling, wall street shenanigans, prostitution promoting, Hollywood trash, etc.

    They did the same thing in Germany as well. But dem nasty Nazis were the bad guys and you know who were innocent lil viktumz whut dindo nuttin.

    This, too…

    In June 1922…the Zionist halter was firmly reaffixed
    round the neck of American State policy, and though American voter only slowly
    realized this, it became immaterial to him which party prevailed at elections.

    -Douglas Reed,
    The Controversy of Zion
    , p 300-301

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  50. S says:

    Implicit in this [ie mass-produced a pamphlet entitled “The Persecution of the Jews in Russia] was not only a desire to provoke anti-Russian attitudes, but also copious amounts of sympathy for the victimized Jews — sympathy necessary to ensure that mass Jewish chain migration to the West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn’t the bigoted nativist just a step removed from the rampaging Cossack?

    Interesting, the below was published in the United States on pg 105 of the book linked below:

    ‘It is confidently asserted that the Jews contrive to get themselves smuggled out of the Russian Empire, for the purpose of emigrating to the American world.’

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/n8

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  51. Speaking of “pogroms,”

    Rabbi Stephen Wise relates that the American Jewish Congress immediately after Hitler’s advent to power started the boycott-Germany movements on the basis of “cable reports” from Germany that nationwide pogrom” of Jews was being “planned“.* He then mentions, casually, that the “reported” pogrom “did not come off”, but the boycott did.**

    Starting with this imaginary pogrom in Berlin, the propagandist campaign in America formed the basis on which Mr. Roosevelt rested his “quarantine” speech. The Zionists around the president were not truly concerned about the suffering of Jews at all; on the contrary, it was necessary to their politics in America and to the entire undertaking, and they feared its alleviation. In this they continued the policy of the Talmudic revolutionaries in Czarist Russia, who went to the length of assassination to prevent the emancipation of Jews

    -Douglas Reed, Controversy of Zion, p 320

    https://archive.org/stream/TheControversyOfZion/TheControversyOfZion_djvu.txt

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @mcohen
  52. @Greg Bacon

    Only two Russian tsars, Alexander II and Nicolas II, were assassinated. It helps to be correct in your statements, otherwise you make everything else you say suspicious.

  53. druid55 says:
    @anonymous

    The big difference is the other groups will fight for their own interests here but the Jews fight for a foreign colonial country

  54. @S

    That’s a long-standing tradition. Soviet Jews in the 1970-80s also told all sorts of “persecution” stories for the same reason. Gullible sheeple swallowed their lies hook, line and sinker and are still repeating them. As an American expression puts it, there’s a sucker born every minute.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  55. Cowboy [AKA "Kartoffelstampfer"] says:

    Why doesn’t anyone use the word “pogrom” when discussing Jewish behavior towards the Palestinians? After all, the Jews clearly drove the Palestinians from their homes through murder and rape. Furthermore we have complete proof from the World Jewish Congresses of 100-120 years ago to the Balfour declaration to the UN recognition of the Jewish pirate state. It was always one giant Zionist pogrom from before Hertzl and Weizman that has been going on for over a century and continues today and likely will continue for centuries to come.

    Clearly, jews need a reeducation on who is guilty of “pogrom”. I would suggest labor camps with a theme of getting Zionists to want to integrate with the hard working hosts that they accuse of “pogrom”. Something like “Work will set you free”.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @DESERT FOX
  56. @mcohen

    ‘Another attack on the jewish people by a white christian right liar…’

    I wonder if it will ever penetrate the shadowed recesses of your mind that this sort of response only demonstrates the truth of the original accusation.

    Most Jews really do seem to be incapable of accepting the truth that they’re no more immaculate victims than anyone else is.

    • Replies: @Bert
  57. Cowboy [AKA "Kartoffelstampfer"] says:
    @Cowboy

    This is a real pogrom, a pogrom with that certain type of talmudic hypocrisy that only jews can do:

  58. @Cowboy

    The Israelis are committing a holocaust on the palestinians and no one in the zio/US says a word , Israel and the zio/US are terrorist nations.

    • Agree: Republic
  59. ariadna says:
    @Greg Bacon

    “since no publisher in the West has had the audacity to print these truths”

    It was published in France by A. Fayard under the title Deux Siecles Ensembles. I have it.
    It was published in 2003 (under Chirac). Later, under Sarkozy, it may not have happened, and today, no chance.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  60. @ariadna

    France went a long way from being a country to becoming an imperial poodle, from having Presidents to having jokes (Drôles) calling themselves presidents (BTW, compared to Holland or Macron, even corrupt clown Sarko looks presidential).

    • Replies: @annamaria
  61. @mcohen

    Still talking about who and why, and ignoring what. Some of us just like well sourced information and a reasoned argument. The faith has an ideology with respect to ‘other’ that needs reform. Because it does not allow for friendly coexistence. Maybe on an island like Bonaparte.

    • Replies: @mcohen
  62. I am reminded of anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia as well.

  63. @J

    ‘Jews had been living in Russia quietly for centuries…’

    You need to do some reading.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  64. 36 ulster says:

    Jeez! I think I’ll try the short version–the one by Solzhenitsyn.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  65. @36 ulster

    Just remember that the message tells you more about the messenger than about the events. Nature gave us two eyes for a reason: you cannot trust just one. As the saying has it, there are three stories about every family conflict: his, hers, and the truth. Only comparing two or more viewpoints you can figure out what the reality is (or was).

  66. Anonymous[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Good point. Such a special group of individuals.

    Anyway, it sure looks like the Goyim won’t be able to fix their problem with the Tribe through half measures.

  67. @AnonFromTN

    That’s a long-standing tradition. Soviet Jews in the 1970-80s also told all sorts of “persecution” stories for the same reason. Gullible sheeple swallowed their lies hook, line and sinker and are still repeating them.

    Well, Russian history is generally a caricature in the West and this thread is an exhibit A of that. Considering general level of Western “specialists” in Russian history and armies of dissidents who helped to shape the narrative–no surprise here.

  68. Olorin says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    One site alone in Karjala, Sandarmoh, accounts for some 9,000 NKVD-accomplished deaths in ’37-’38.

    Globalism in action:

    http://heninen.net/sandarmoh/suomeksi.htm

    http://heninen.net/sandarmoh/index.html

    http://heninen.net/sandarmoh/english.htm

    Anatoly, what’s your take, if any, on Jury Dmitriev?

    “In this life, all these people became trees.”
    http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/09/16/gandalfs-case-russia-prosecutes-man-literally-digging-up-its-darkest-gulag-secrets/

    • Replies: @utu
  69. Unfortunately for Nicholas, what his system produced was a cadre of Jewish intellectuals profoundly hostile to the state.

    It is notable that the Thai do not allow the Chinese to run Chinese schools in Thailand.

    Perhaps they learned a lesson from the Russian experience.

  70. @Andrei Martyanov

    Well, that’s actually funny. Western Europe for centuries and the US for many decades now, consider Russia (in all its incarnations, The Russian Empire, the USSR, then The Russian Federation) their enemy. Smart people try to know as much as possible about their enemies. But this is not the case here.

    One can say that there is a huge difference between propaganda for the sheeple and actual knowledge of the elites. However, Western elites appear to be as deluded by their own propaganda as sheeple. They are dumb enough not to see that this puts them at a huge disadvantage. Totally predictable screw-ups, like those of Napoleon and Hitler, come as a surprise to them. Now NATO, at the instigation of the Empire, is doing its level best to get yet another surprise.

    It is said that fools learn from their own mistakes, whereas smart people learn from the mistakes of fools. Now, what should we call people who don’t learn even from their own mistakes? Can you suggest any school-appropriate words?

  71. What is described in the above article is happening here in America, England, and really all over. The parallels are obvious: in education, politics, corporations, media, and our minds. When the Jews usurped the American financial system in 1913 it was only time before game over for the rest of society. There’s only 1 way to fix it.

  72. Bert says:
    @Colin Wright

    In evolutionary psychology there is a phenomenon termed “self-deception” which is believed to be part of the arsenal of mental modules that aid in social competition. The concept is that by hiding one’s motives or socially unacceptable behavior from one’s self, a person is more able to deceive others. Jews have extended this mental adaptation to the level of group-deception. Through their religious doctrines (Tikkum Olam), their apologetics, their writings, and their inter-communication Jews create anew each generation the idea that they are the blameless Chosen People, the better to deflect legitimate criticism of the effects of their politics. This group-level self-deception however is no match for accurate historiography. At this point it is more a dangerous illusion than a weapon for use on the goyim.

    • Replies: @utu
  73. @mcohen

    I applaud Dr. Joyce for his meticulous scholarship.

  74. Truth3 says:

    The image of bodies at the top of the article… a few of “49” claimed killed in one of the “largest pogroms” of the early 20th century.

    I’ll take their word for it… 49 died. Sad that any may have been innocent… not sure all were. But sorry for the innocents killed.

    I also know from personal experience, speaking with Odessa and Kiev and Kharkov and Krivoi Rog old-timers, born before the Revolution & USSR, what it was like when Jews ran the cities, and then ran the USSR, for those that were Christians (practically all Russians born before WWI).

    A little perspective… For all the fuss about “pogroms”…

    Israel shoots and kills that number monthly just for sport on the Gaza wire. Nobody seems to care much in the US Government. Or the Jewish controlled mass media.

    A little more perspective… I’ll bet 49 Million (or more) Christians were killed by Jews in the 20th Century.

    Call your pogrom and raise you.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  75. Given a level of hostility to the Jews comparable to that of the author of this piece it would be surprising if there were no pogroms in Russia, yet this moron wants us to believe simultaneously that it was deserved and that it didn’t happen.

    No doubt Jewish propagandists were credulous or creative in promoting stories that promised to advance their agenda, but you can’t disprove them by repeating the lies of anti-Semites, which is the tack taken here.

  76. @Truth3

    Solzhentisyn said they killed 66 million, and of course he was actually in a gulag for many years.

    And he was hailed as a hero until he started talking about the jews.

    • Replies: @awry
  77. Renoman says:

    Boy there sure is a very loud “Hitler was right” going on here. The most hated people on earth no doubt about it.

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  78. mcohen says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    Lol

    Rabbi wise
    Douglas
    Henry mycow

    Your such a clown jacky shat.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Druid
  79. @Gandydancer

    What kind of moron would believe they were NOT a menace to society but got punished as if they were? You think that non-Jews are some kind of vicious monster?? You are seriously perverted.

  80. @J

    You’re wrong or deliberately misinforming.

    There were only 800 to a few thousand of Ashkenazi Jews in Russia prior to the final partition of Poland in 1795. Russia swallowed Poland together with its 1 million Jews.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  81. @J

    Suddenly half or more left everything and escaped as fast as they could to …

    Escaped my tush.

    Here’s why they left,

    The Zionists around the president were not truly concerned about the suffering of Jews at all; on the contrary, it was necessary to their politics in America and to the entire undertaking, and they feared its alleviation. In this they continued the policy of the Talmudic revolutionaries in Czarist Russia, who went to the length of assassination to prevent the emancipation of Jews …

    -Douglas Reed, Controversy of Zion, p 320
    https://archive.org/stream/TheControversyOfZion/TheControversyOfZion_djvu.txt

  82. @Colin Wright

    ‘Jews had been living in Russia quietly for centuries…’

    You need to do some reading.

    Indeed, and (s)he can start by reading Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews.”

    Furthermore, ever since Cain and Abel those suckers have never lived quietly anywhere for very long.

    • Replies: @Paw
  83. @mcohen

    How is it the first comment to any article examining the Jews in history/politics/culture is something like yours, belittling the motive and source of the writing.
    Are you or your kind always trolling the internet for this kind of article? Always on the lookout so you can pounce?
    You must be associated with Mr. Honest Reporter….. does a similar job in Canada and other countries… oh, and in Canada the Mr Honest Reporter is supported by tax-deductable donations….. now, I wonder who supplies those donations…….

  84. @Andrei Martyanov

    Well, Russian history is generally a caricature in the West …

    Undoubtedly true, but that should come as no surprise, since, history is generally a caricature in the West, like everything else. Gotta keep it simple, you know!

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  85. @Truth3

    Nobody seems to care much in the US Government.

    It’s worse than that; they actively enable the atrocities in every way possible.

  86. @Gandydancer

    Given a level of hostility to the Jews comparable to that of the author of this piece it would be surprising if there were no pogroms in Russia …

    You got a tiny preposition wrong. Here you go…

    Given the level of hostility of the Jews, it would be surprising if there were no pogroms in Russia.

    Speaking of hostility, have you ever come in contact with the word, “goy?” How do you imagine it’s most often used? You think it’s meant as a compliment or something?

  87. Joyce writes:

    “While a work like this can come in for heavy criticism from certain sections of the population who may denounce it as ‘revisionist,’ I can only say that ‘revisionism’ should be at the heart of every historical work. If we blindly accept the stories that are passed down to us, we are liable to fall victim to what amounts to little more than a glorified game of Chinese whispers. And, if we taboo the right of the historian to reinterpret history in light of new research and new discoveries, then we have become far removed from anything resembling true scholarship.”

    Exactly.

  88. Skeptikal says:

    Has anyone ever tried to apply Annales techniques of historiography to the history of the Russian (and other) Jews?

    Cf.”Much emphasis was given to quantitative data, seen as the key to unlocking all of social history.[4] However, the Annales ignored the developments in quantitative studies underway in the U.S. and Britain, which reshaped economic, political, and demographic research.”

    It seems like what we need is more quantitative data on this place and time. Before we jump to conclusions, or are foreced to state jumped-to conclusions as fact, we really should get a good look at as much data as it is possible to collect. Analysis of the actual role of jews in Russia should flow from data. The type of data collected should not be predetermined on the basis of “allowable” conclusions.

  89. @Gandydancer

    I doubt that there has ever been a jewish gandydancer. Do you know why?

  90. Mikhail says: • Website

    Following up on a point made in the above article, I heard a personal account of someone whose distant family relation had commanded a detachment of Cossacks to put down a riot.

    Of course, some will say that such action was part of a concerted good cop/bad cop chameleon show, while not being able to prove such and ignoring that such violence didn’t actually benefit the Russian government.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  91. utu says:
    @Bert

    This group-level self-deception however is no match for accurate historiography. At this point it is more a dangerous illusion than a weapon for use on the goyim.

    You are unreasonably optimistic. The self-deception in their case works. In 19 century and the first half of 20 century you could easily find books on Jew and you could talk about them and write articles in some main stream papers. I do not think that the accurate historiography is catching up with Jewish self-deception and the Haggadah they weave for our consumption.

    • Replies: @IM
  92. utu says:
    @AnonFromTN

    You are painting a distorted and paranoid picture as if Russia was really isolated. “Totally predictable screw-ups, like those of Napoleon and Hitler” were predictable only because in both cases Russia was a part of strong alliances centered around England and doing the work for what now we may call the Anglo-Zionist empire. If the West was really against Russia in times of Napoleon or Hitler the outcomes would be different.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Arioch
  93. KenH says:
    @anonymous

    LOL

    It’s you Jews and your spin that’s deserving of LOL. Whites dominate the economy of America because we founded and built it and constituted 85-88% of it’s population until 1965. Whites are still the braintrust and backbone of the American economy and that will likely never change. The non-white race agitators are simply spoiled brats who are riding our coattails and just want a larger piece of the pie without working for it.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  94. @utu

    Thanks for confirming my words about sheeple. Fantasies of this type, if the elites actually believe what they drilled into proles, make the next surprise inevitable.

  95. utu says:
    @Olorin

    Thanks for the fascinating story about Gandalf.

  96. Miggle says:
    @ploni almoni

    I don’t know what game you are playing, but writing nonsense discredits everything you write.

    … And for Western Europe, another center piece was a stage play psy-op called the “Dreyfus Affair.” The Dreyfus affair, political theater, was completely phony, like 9/11. This is the way you herd human cattle, Jews and Christians alike. WW I, WW II, and bingo! A new apocalyptic state is born.

    The Dreyfus Affair was nothing of the kind. The accusation was “completely phony” but the consequences for the man accused were real, and terrible. Dreyfus aged prematurely on Devil’s Island. He didn’t sacrifice himself for “political theater.” He was the suspect because he was a Jew, the only Jewish officer in the army. He was convicted by means of bogus handwriting identification. But the matter was afterwards hugely investigated and documented. And Émile Zola was not a Jew. J’Accuse was not written by a Jew.

    Are you simply writing ignorant nonsense, or are you trying to discredit criticism of the evils of Judaism by making such criticism look ridiculous? Your “Jews and Christians alike” seems to answer that question. Calling the new state “apocalyptic” like a mad “Christian” Zionist would … Oh! I see!

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  97. The rebuttal of the libelous accusations formulated by the Russo-Jewish Committee in 1882, as written by multiple British officials and published in The London Times, was reprinted by the Sidney Morning Herald and may be read on the National Library of Australia website at https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/13509561 .

    I am surprised to see the degree of overlap between the infestation of Russia and that of Romania: lack of inter-Jewish competition, focus on obtaining land administration jobs or liquor monopolies, complete lack of integration stemming from a Nazi-avant-la-lettre disgust for Christians and farm workers in general, manipulation of the school system, in particular in credentialist fields (medicine, law), draft evasion, London-based lies. Everything was there in Romania as well, including, of course, their made-up lack of agency.

  98. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were “driving Christians from the school benches,” and “filling up the schools.”

    Do you mean Odessa Ukraine?

    That would not be surprising, since it is a power center for Jewish crime syndicates.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Arioch
  99. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Renoman

    Boy there sure is a very loud “Hitler was right” going on here. The most hated people on earth no doubt about it.

    Intelligent people acquire knowledge and notice patterns.

    Hitler was right, up until he turned toward war. Hitler got duped by the “international” democracies, who were in thrall to international finance credit.

    Putin is much smarter, he hasn’t fallen into the many traps laid for him by our international globo-homo overlords and their think tank minions.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  100. Richard B says:

    Dr. Joyce’s list of the elements of the Jewish narrative regarding their treatment in Russia.

    Narrative Elements

    1. Social Oppression
    2. Hostile Elite (Government)
    3. Genocide
    4. Violence
    5.Barbarism

    Obviously, this is exactly what they are doing to Whites throughout the West today.

    Theodor Herzl said “a nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. That is in my view a nation. Then if you add to that the word ‘Jewish’ you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation.”

    This is why they hate nationalism, unless it’s theirs. Because if they limit nationalism for themselves while forbidding it for other nations that they control, they’re free to act out the above list with impunity on their “enemy” (using lots of proxies, of course).

    And their “enemy” is anyone who refuses to place them above criticism, love them unconditionally, and blindly obey their every command.

    They’re insane.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  101. Jake says:
    @Alden

    Yes, it is a familiar pattern: deviation from historic Christian orthodoxy, in personal belief as well as in formal membership, always leads to heresy that ends up serving Jewish anti-Christ interests.

    Perhaps the best example of the Russian pattern I noted above is Nikolai Chernyshevsky. He was the son of a Russian Orthodox priest who was at heart, by his late teens, a total Social Gospeler with a heart bleeding to end serfdom and turn Jews fully loose on all Russia. He became an atheist as a college student, in large part because a friend died. He graduated from a seminary anyway.

    Chernyshevsky wrote the most influential pro-revolutionary book in 19th century Russia: a novel titled What Is To be Done?

    This is a spiritual war. You lose it – and anti-Christ Jews win it – when your war efforts are based on anything other than orthodox historic Christian dogmas and morals and identities.

  102. Jake says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    Correct. Odessa was a a great organized crime haven, for Jews and also for Turkic peoples.

    And the ‘mafia’ Jews of Odessa fought for the Russian Revolution.

  103. ariadna says:
    @J

    They are always “quiet” until they grab sufficient economic and political leverage; as quiet as dental caries until they reach the nerve or wood fungus until the tree topples.
    Mr Joyce does not say that “nothing happened.” He methodically strips away the fabricated myth to show what happened and why. Makes one think of the Holocaust, doesn’t it?
    Your Vladimir Ilych was not just “anti-tzarist.” He was rabidly anti-Russian and anti-Christian. The stupidest sentence is the last: “Mr Joyce thinks Unz readers are so blinded by hate that they will believe anything.”

  104. Kouros says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1907_Romanian_Peasants%27_revolt

    The 1907 Romanian Peasants’ revolt took place between 21 February and 5 April 1907. It started in northern Moldavia and, after three weeks in which it was localized in that area, it quickly spread, reaching Wallachia, including as far as Oltenia. The main cause was discontent of the peasants about the inequity of land ownership, which was in the hands of just a few large landowners.

    Following the fall of the Conservative Party government on March 12, the new Liberal government crushed the revolt violently with the help of the Romanian Army, killing thousands of peasants in the process.
    _____________
    By 1900, most large landowners preferred to live in the cities and did not want to bother with the administration of their properties. Therefore, the peasants no longer leased directly from the landowner, but sub-leased it from an intermediary lessor (arendaș).[3] The fall of the price of grain on the world markets meant that the lessors would demand ever greater rents in order to make ends meet.[3]

    The blame for the revolt was initially put on Jewish intermediaries, given that many of the lessors were of Jewish background, especially in Northern Moldavia. The revolt quickly spread southward, losing some of its anti-Semitic character and becoming basically a protest against the existing system of land tenure.[6]

    The revolt began on the lands administered by one lessor, Mochi Fischer, in the village of Flămânzi due to Fischer’s refusal to renew the leases of the local peasants. The Austrian-Jewish family of Fischer used to lease about 75% of the arable land in three Romanian counties in Moldavia (the so-called “Fischerland”).

  105. History does repeat. Everything that happened in Bolshevik Russia is coming to America soon. The 2nd amendment stands between Christian Americans and death. And I’m not talking about Zionist Christians, though they’ll kill them too.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Druid
  106. Paw says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    War on Jews is exactly what the article is about.
    It was the War of Jews against the world.. To trust Josephus is not advisable at all.

  107. Ron Unz says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Western Europe for centuries and the US for many decades now, consider Russia (in all its incarnations, The Russian Empire, the USSR, then The Russian Federation) their enemy.

    I really can’t agree with that characterization. While I do think that Western Europeans traditionally regarded Russia as somewhat boorish and backward (e.g. serfdom existing long after it was abolished elsewhere), I don’t think they viewed it as any sort of “traditional enemy.”

    During the couple of centuries before 1917, Russia had fought numerous wars with other European states, but so did everyone else. And in the great majority of those wars, Russia was allied with some countries against other countries, sometimes being on the offensive and sometimes on the defensive.

    I think citing Napoleon’s invasion as an example of anti-Russian hatred is a particularly poor choice since during those wars Russia was allied with just about every other major European power against Napoleonic France, and surely Russia’s destruction of La Grande Armee was tremendously celebrated in every major European capital (except Paris!).

    Moreover, for generations Russia’s ruling imperial family had intermarried with the ruling or aristocratic families of many of the other major European states, to such an extent that Nicholas II was only something like 1/4 Russian. And to a lesser extent, the other elite/aristocratic families of Russia did the same.

    In fact, about the other case that comes to mind of other European countries “ganging up” on Russia was the Crimean War, hardly the most important war of the last few centuries.

  108. RoHa says:

    Good article.

    It would help if you tidied up your references to The Times. Early in the article you call it the London Times. There is no such newspaper. Later you say “London Times“, which helps those who refer to their local paper (The Straits Times, The Times of India,The New York Times, and so forth) as “the Times”. But it is best to stick to the correct name (The Times) throughout, and add “of London” when needed.

  109. Miggle says:
    @ploni almoni

    Mad coots like you should study real history by real historians. I suppose that’s psychologically impossible for you, too secular. But try. Try to grasp that following the Muslim conquest of Palestine there was no demographic change in consequence, because Caliph Omar didn’t want that. Study what followed the conquests of both Damascus and Jerusalem, how both the Arameans and the Hebrews began to call themselves Arabs, because the word now meant Elite, the ruling class. Arab does not mean Arabian any more. Understand the words of the famous Rabbi Saadia the Gaon, how in the tenth century, generations after the conquest, he was still lamenting the high rate at which the Jews of Palestine were converting to Islam. And read the words of Israel Shamir in Galilee Flowers at p. 161 where he writes “After the Arab conquest, …” and the next paragraph is:

    For ordinary local Jews, Islam was a return to the faith of Abraham and Moses. They had not been able to follow the intricacies of the new Babylonian faith [Saadia was Gaon of Sura in Babylonia] anyway. The majority of them became Muslims …

    And go browsing at a Jewish site, Mondoweiss, and find and read the article about the Toxic Myth that the Ashkenazim are descended from the ancient Hebrews. And go to Genesis 10:3 and learn who Ashkenaz was, very much a Japhethite.Understand that the words by you know who,

    Israel is now in the third dispersion, from which she will be restored at the return of the Lord as King under the Davidic Covenant.

    are totally bogus, the words of a fraudster. There was no Second Exile, no Third Dispersion, and though at the time of Christ 99.9 percent of the Jews of the world were born outside Palestine that was the result of conversion, not dispersion.

    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

    Then explain to yourself how driving out of Palestine the real Jews with whom God made the Covenants will bring on the Rapture. Understand that you will not be floating away, but heading downwards, to the center of the earth. Along the way you might grasp that God does not like his hand being forced by supporters of the cruel oppression of the real Semites.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  110. Arioch says:
    @DESERT FOX

    IOW you do not have a single fact to reinforce you pro-Bund pro-Liberal propaganda and can only resort to name-calling. Pathetic.

  111. Arioch says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    Today, after USSR and Lenin’s wishful thinking about nationalities, it is Ukraine.
    However in late Russia and early USSR it was indeed considered as maybe the most Jewish citr of the state, which reflected in both folklore (gangsta-songs) and literature (Babel, etc)

  112. GeeBee says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    It is at the very least debatable to state that ‘Hitler turned toward war’. By most metrics it appears that FDR (and the Jews’ dupe Churchill) were determined to do away with Hitler and his threat to allow the Germans to have a country of their own, free from the manifold ills attendant upon Jewish exploitation. FDR got his war, and just look at the (((Western world))) now.

  113. Arioch says:
    @anonymous

    > I can easily see “pogroms” being carried out in the future by disgruntled minority mobs

    “pogroms”, mobs…

    if someone can implement it – he is not more minority, but an absolute, dominating majority

  114. S says:
    @the grand wazoo

    History does repeat. Everything that happened in Bolshevik Russia is coming to America soon.

    Yes, the Democratic party has become radicalized/weaponized, and are becoming ever more so. They’re fully capable with their ‘antifa’ of attempting a ‘Red October’ scenario in the United States, which my guess they’ll try to pull off one way or the other. Expect, too, as part of ‘the revolution’, to see a formally declared ‘Fall of Capitalism’ mixed in with this.

    And, as some others have alluded, whether it was in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, or, ultimately 1789 France and 1776 United States, the term ‘civil war’ for what followed after these ultimately artificial top down ‘revolutions’ is a misnomer.

    The so called ‘civil wars’ in these instances is in reality a manifestation of the larger (manufactured and contrived) dialectic’s war against historic identity in the form of distictive peoples (or peoplehood), as expressed physically, spiritually, and culturally.

    The anti-life 1776 Capitalist ‘thesis’, the equally anti-life and closely paralleling 1789 Communist ‘anti-thesis’, and their Multi-Cultural ‘synthesis’, all war against the peoples of the world, and mankind as a whole, and is hatred driven.

    Many people of good will think the people’s of the world, and humanity as a whole, has had, and does have, big problems that need working on, but don’t think that an inhuman artificial system of dialectical thought, that’s been pushed forward by lies and murder the entire way, and that very soon may well result in the deaths of six billion or so people, and unparalleled global destruction in the form of a third world war, is the way to go about it.

    The ‘cure’ is truly worse than the ‘disease’.

  115. Arioch says:
    @I_destroy_liars

    This though just re-plants the same question to an adjacent pot.

    Were the Jews in Poland so fervently anti-government like those very Jews after Russia annexed eastern Poland?

    BTW, hate for Jews in Western Ukraine is carried on still. Allegedly when Poland occupied Western Ukraine, the Polish nobles saw it as “savage lands” and were not eager to live there in their new properties. Instead Polish landlords hired Jews to be managers of their eastern serfs, to squeeze of them enough profits that the said nobles could shine in western-European palaces. And allegedly Jews were good managers, for their employers who no more had to attend those Ukrainian villages leaving the, in manager’s milking hands.

  116. Arioch says:
    @utu

    > If the West was really against Russia in times of Napoleon or Hitler the outcomes would be different

    And who exactly were “the West” at the moments of 23.06.1812 and of 22.06.1941 ?
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WWII_Europe_1941-1942_Map_EN.png

    > only because in both cases Russia was a part of strong alliances centered around England

    > and doing the work for what now we may call the Anglo-Zionist empire

    Don’t you think those claims are defeating one another?

    Either England had “strong alliance” that did not required Russia.
    Or Russia was the only nation left that could do, what England and their alliances of shambles could no more.

  117. mcohen says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    Yes you might be right so I owe an apology to offended christians but I still wonder why we have these same articles week after week on unz.Might it be to discredit Russia through reverse vica versa.
    Ron unz has a great educational gig going here but allows the comment section to cause serious offense all in the name of “free speech”.

    • Replies: @Richard B
    , @Skeptikal
  118. Lazza L says:

    I refer to another recent article that notes that (((Bronfman))) is Yiddish for “liquor salesman.” No doubt his ancestors in Bessarabia screwed the local folks and had to leave in a hurry. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  119. Richard B says:
    @mcohen

    Typical projection from a JIDF Troll.

    Like clockwork. Right on schedule.

    Predictable, boring and corny.

  120. Richard B says:
    @mcohen

    “Ron unz has a great educational gig going here but allows the comment section to cause serious offense all in the name of “free speech”.”

    So free speech has to be abolished because Jewish Supremacists have fragile psyches?

  121. IM says:
    @utu

    I do feel like things are starting to make a turn in recent years, a lot more people are waking up to exactly this as populist movements/parties begin to gain traction. The Chinese are also generally quite aware in this regard and their rise represents a major power detached from such influence.

  122. @Miggle

    Emile Zola was (probably) not a Jew but he was a journalist consciously serving the interests of those behind the scenes, the Deep State, the way “journalists” do today. Journalists know which side of the bread the butter is on and what they have to say to be published and what their masters want to hear. That is why they are “journalists.” They are not “crusaders for truth.” The Dreyfus Affair was a combination of Masonic and Jewish interests, exemplified in the media. The Dreyfus affair was hatched in the shadows of the Memphis-Misraim lodge and under the high patronage of Rothschild.

    Dreyfus most certainly did not go to Devil’s island any more than planes hit the World Trade Center, now known as “One World Plaza.” The Masonic interests in the Dreyfus Psy-op were to overthrow the French government of the time and displace the Catholic Church as the established Church in France which happened with a series of laws in 1905. Particularly because of the anti-modernist activism of Pope Leo XIII (despite what you may read in today’s Wikepedia). The Jewish interests were to create the impression that there was “Antisemitism” in order to get Jews interested in Zionism, a plan of the Ashkenazi high command, in which the majority of Jews, especially Sephardim, were totally uninterested. The Dreyfus affair got the ball rolling and the First Zionist Conference was held in Basel in August 1897 which led directly to WW I and the Balfour Declaration. Herzl was a journalist hired by the Hidden Interests to attend the “secret trial” of Dreyfus and to make political hay out of it. His books were translated before they were written. Not only the accusation was phony, so was the outcome. Surely you have been to the theater and seen some melodramas? And so was Herzl, for that matter, a phony. He was not the father of Zionism, he was merely an actor hired for his writing skills, and discarded when he was no longer useful but an impediment. Weizmann, who knew what was what, was full of contempt for him.

    Dreyfus was born in 1859. He died in 1935. He was out of sight from 1894 to 1906. But he was not imprisoned on Devil’s island. And, as you can see, he did “not age prematurely.” Where do you get that he was the only “Jewish officer” in the French Army? Jews like Benjamin Disraeli have always claimed that half of Napoleon’s Marshals were Jews. And Napoleon himself for that matter, since who but a Jew, in their eyes, could possibly be that smart?

    Alfred Dreyfus was a fake from beginning to end. The affair was a fake from beginning to end. The consequences were real, and what its authors desired. He was, moreover, not an artillery officer, but an intelligence officer. History, as Henry Ford said, is bunk.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  123. Richard B says:
    @joeshittheragman

    Lots of people held out as long as they could before coming to that conclusion.

    I guess that’s what they call “bonding to your abuser.”

    But another reason is that, for all of his imperfections, the Goy isn’t capable of the kind of sneakiness, shamelessness, dishonesty and betrayal that they are. So we have a hard time of even conceiving it.

    That would explain why it’s been so easy for them to fool most Goys.

    But the flip side of being fooled is waking up to the fact. And, as the article makes clear, that’s also an important part of this whole pattern.

    Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI) certainly knows this. Hence the bogus Antisemitism Laws, Hate Speech Laws, Hate Hoaxes, and 24/7 Anti-White Propaganda.

    The important thing to keep in mind is that Whites don’t need all Whites to wake up. They just need a critical mass. So that even if JSI is successful in removing the Goy from the scene, that critical mass can unleash holy hell before it’s all said and done. It very well may be.

    Again, JSI certainly knows that much. Which explains the hysterical defensive measures that are constantly backfiring and exposing them, waking up yet more Goy in the process.

    This isn’t over by a long shot.

  124. @Ron Unz

    Ron, I cannot agree here. A single example–Crimean War. And then, of course, involvement of Great Britain in Russo-Japanese War. Of course, the issue of Intervention (allegedly to keep Russia in WW I, in reality other reasons are forgotten, conveniently) of just about everyone 1918. We may, of course, go further back in history with Poland traveling as far as Moscow (hence the monument to Minin and Pozharsky at the Red Square). But the issue is much simpler–enough to look at today’s world–it is not a theorem but axiom, European in general, and Anglo-Saxon in particular, so called “elite” hates Russian guts and always did, which a pathetic state of the so called “Russian Studies” field in the West a direct testimony to that. Cold War 2.0 came about precisely because of that. So, some exceptions in the West in terms of attitude to Russia, merely confirm the rule–in the end, American Republic decided to commit suicide precisely by Russia. But let a jumbo American “hero” talk, and I quote–he captured the issue perfectly:

    “The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese and, from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all-out son of a bitch, a barbarian, and a chronic drunk.”

    George Patton, The Patton’s Papers, 1940-1945. Martin Blumenson, Da Capo Press, 1996. p. 557.

    This is precisely how European “elites” think, this is also what is in the foundation of the European psychosis driven by cognitive dissonances in regards to Russia. Well, this and utter incompetence and lack of serious education of those “elites”.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @IM
    , @Skeptikal
    , @Malla
  125. @Jacques Sheete

    Gotta keep it simple, you know!

    Correct. Hollywood formula all the way: good guys-bad guys. Nothing in the middle.

  126. @AnonFromTN

    Smart people try to know as much as possible about their enemies. But this is not the case here.

    It never was, few knowledgeable voices were usually ignored in favor of open and primitive flattery and reinforcement of own delusions. Obstinacy is often an obverse side of being intellectually primitive. I guess the discourse of the last 5 or so years is a superb demonstration of that fact. Be that Ukraine’s coup or pathetic exhibition of Russiagate, lost wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, lies and media circus, in the end, a complete inability to produce competent leadership–the agony of the old “order”, precipitated by precisely what you described.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  127. Miggle says:
    @ploni almoni

    Provide us with references instead of just shooting off innuendoes..

    Everything you write can be debunked but I’d need to refer to the books and haven’t got time at the moment.

    Just two points.

    Emile Zola was (probably) not a Jew but he was a journalist consciously serving the interests of those behind the scenes, the Deep State, the way “journalists” do today.

    Zola was actually attacking those behind the scenes.

    … and displace the Catholic Church as the established Church in France which happened with a series of laws in 1905.

    That Church deserved it. Its priesthood were all or almost all anti-Dreyfusards while most of the Protestants were Dreyfusards, opposing the outrageous conviction and the army’s persisting with false accusations when Esterhazy, the actual author of the bordereau, had been identified very clearly, very obvious. Again, the accusation against Dreyfus was false, and the forensic handwriting evidence was false.

    The Pope’s Church damaged itself hugely and paid the price, no longer had privileges it never deserved, pre-Enlightenment privileges long past their use-by date. Why would one denomination be “the established Church” where there is separation of Church and State?

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @ploni almoni
  128. bjondo says:
    @joeshittheragman

    The rule of thumb is, everything jews say is a lie, including the words, and, and the

    Well,

    spawn of the Father of Lies.

    5ds

  129. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Ron, I cannot agree here. A single example–Crimean War. And then, of course, involvement of Great Britain in Russo-Japanese War….We may, of course, go further back in history with Poland traveling as far as Moscow (hence the monument to Minin and Pozharsky at the Red Square). But the issue is much simpler–enough to look at today’s world–it is not a theorem but axiom, European in general, and Anglo-Saxon in particular, so called “elite” hates Russian guts

    Well, Andrei, since we very sharply differ in our views on the behavior of Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia, let’s confine our review to the three centuries prior to 1917. Is there really any pattern of other European countries “ganging up” on Russia or viewing it as a particular enemy. I don’t see it. About the only small exception that comes to mind is the Crimean War, where Britain and France were allied against Russia. And in the Russo-Japanese War, Britain backed Japan while Germany backed Russia.

    But in all the other major conflicts that come to mind, Russia had various allies, indeed, was usually part of the larger alliance.

    For example, during the long Napoleonic Wars, Russia was allied with Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Spain against France standing alone. During Frederick the Great’s big war, Russia was allied with France and Austria against Prussia (with financial backing from Britain). During the Great Northern War, Russia was allied with Poland-Lithuania and Denmark against Charles XII’s Sweden.

    Actually, I think a much stronger case can be made that for about a century Europe had traditionally “ganged up” against France, partly because France was so strong and was trying to conquer/dominate all of Europe. The same thing had previously happened to the Spanish+Austrian Hapsburgs, for much the same reason.

    I really think the history of that era is that all the European countries fought each other, with the strongest one often facing an alliance of the lesser powers. Since Russia back then wasn’t that strong, it didn’t suffer that fate.

    • Agree: Malla, utu
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  130. Truth3 says:

    You have to totally admire Ron Unz in all his capacities.

    A true 21st Century treasure.

    Thank you Mr. Unz.

    • Agree: annamaria
  131. Robjil says:
    @Miggle

    In France of today there is no separation of Zion and State.

    The same thing in Britain and the entire west.

    France’s dropping of the Catholic Church left her open to another religious group to take over.

    It is 500 BC in France today and not the 21st century with Zion and State ruling France.

  132. MikeP says:

    Thank you for this eye-opening article. What happened to the Russians in the 19th century was repeated on the Serbs in the 1990s (our allies in two world wars) with the endless fake news stories of “rapes” and “atrocities” (which were largely debunked but never corrected) by the corporate-controlled Western mainstream “free and fair” media. It all makes sense now. The truth shall set you free! All decent and moral people of the world need to read this article to understand how the globalists operate.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  133. @Ron Unz

    If memory serves, Napoleon was opposed by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Britain (in the best Anglo-Saxon tradition) stayed out of real war with Napoleon until Waterloo, i.e., until the result was already predetermined. These three empires lost the battle at Austerlitz, and only after invasion into Russia Napoleon’s army was destroyed. In the “Battle of the nations” near Leipzig in 1813 these three empires were joined by Sweden, whereas Polish and Italian troops, as well as German troops from the Confederation of the Rhine, fought on Napoleon’s side.

    Crimean war (where Britain directly participated) was not the only instance when European powers propped up crumbling Ottoman Empire to prevent Russia from getting bigger chunks of it. The opposition from Britain and France was a decisive factor that prevented Russian Empire from absorbing most of Ottoman possessions (looking back, that was a good thing for Russia).

    Not to mention Hitler’s war, where virtually all Europeans participated on Hitler’s side, the only exception being Britain. Although Soviet propaganda did its best to paper over the fact, there were a lot more French volunteers fighting on Hitler’s side than fighting against Hitler. In fact, Hitler’s allies Italy, Romania, and Hungary sustained huge losses on the Eastern front fighting the USSR (served them right, if you ask me).

    Yes, Russian imperial family was more German genetically than Russian, but mixed blood was a norm for all royal families in Europe. Royals at the time had to marry exclusively royals, and Germany, consisting of numerous kingdoms, had more royals that the rest of Europe combined. That did not prevent the royals in all countries from promoting interests of the nations they ruled, not the nations they came from.

    Also, serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861, the same year slavery was abolished in the “land of the free”. So, one has to ask who was “boorish and backward” and who was painted as “boorish and backward” and why.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  134. @Ron Unz

    Ron, the list could be, of course, augmented with 1242 and invasion of Teutonic Knights and emergence of Alexander Nevsky as Russia’s Saint. And, of course, Europeans fought each-other all the time. It is just that whenever they went to Russia it always ended in a bloody cataclysm, such as mutual Napoleon-Russian slaughter at Borodino or, for that matter, eventual enrollment of Russians into the category of the untermensch, together with other Slavs, an “honor” not afforded to other Europeans. We all know (or some want to pervert the reality) where all that got us.

    As per:

    other European countries “ganging up” on Russia or viewing it as a particular enemy

    French and British press prior to Crimean War was very much in the mode of portraing Russians as…well…barbarians. Racial factor was always present. And confining Russia’s history to merely three centuries prior to 1917 is not the way to view it, because Russia didn’t end after 1917, nor did she stop her existence after 1991. In the end, why should we avoid looking at the way things are now or should we ignore Mr.Clapper’s reference to Russians defective genetics and tacit approval of Western media of such POV? Even today, French don’t consider Russians to be European people (thankfully today Russians do not give a rat’s ass about French or any other European or American opinion, finally), I believe (from the top of my head) only 20 something percent of French view Russia as “European”, only Germans view Russia as Europe with slight majority.

    Well, Andrei, since we very sharply differ in our views on the behavior of Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia,

    The (pathetic) state modern West in general, and the United States in particular find themselves in today has almost everything to do with this “difference” because United States is nowhere near in learning the actual history of the Cold War nor of Soviet Russia. But, as I said, learning real history is very hard. Things will continue to get worse increasingly in the West. By now, it is probably late any way, and I say this with a great sadness.

  135. IM says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    ““Russian Studies” field in the West a direct testimony to that. Cold War 2.0 came about precisely because of that”

    I don’t think this is the case exactly. Cold war 2.0 came about because the RF decided to halt the sytematic and planned extermination of the Middle Eastern nations by Israel, basically all the ME wars. If it weren’t for this i really don’t think it’s possible that thing’s would have reached this point. No matter what other factors, and i’m not saying that it’s not correct, however no one elses interests take enough precedence. Basically the putcsh in kiev was a direct response to “a strike on Damascus is a strike on Moscow” if i got the exact wording right. All subsequent pressure should be seen through the lense of enforcing Israel’s interest here.

    I think many things that would appear to be a matter of competence are better explained by outright malice or premeditated evil. Rather than stupidity killing the empire it’s more like an intentional sacrifice to the Moloch.

    • Replies: @Arioch
  136. I don’t think this is the case exactly. Cold war 2.0 came about because the RF decided to halt the sytematic and planned extermination of the Middle Eastern nations by Israel, basically all the ME wars

    Hm, for some reason I thought that West became very upset with its puppet Georgia having its ass handed to it by Russia in 2008 and with the United States and EU fomenting bloody coup in Ukraine and Russia reacting, very astutely and unexpectedly, to that in 2014. Syria happened after and later. I understand a desperate desire to put everything squarely on Israel and Jews but I can tell you that there are very many WASPs who hate Russian guts and what Russia represents completely on their own, with or without baneful Israeli (very real) influence on US foreign policy. So, get your facts straight first. I would suggest to read Putin’s 2007 Munich speech.

  137. Skeptikal says:
    @mcohen

    “serious offense all in the name of “free speech”.”

    Serious offense to whom?
    I bet I know who would like to man the “free speech” goal posts!

  138. Skeptikal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    ““The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese and, from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all-out son of a bitch, a barbarian, and a chronic drunk.””

    wow. Talk about projection.
    Not to mention all-around boorishness and vulgarity.

  139. Skeptikal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    ” I can tell you that there are very many WASPs who hate Russian guts and what Russia represents completely on their own, with or without baneful Israeli (very real) influence on US foreign policy.”

    Which WASPs? Document?
    What facts are to be gotten straight? You provide no counterfacts that I can see.
    Seems to me the Neocons hate the Russians the most.
    I am not aware of any particularly hatred of Russia or Russians among my various friends, aside from the fact that a few of them have fallen for the Russiagate hoax. But some of those are American Jews. I.e., not typical WASPs. I can almost imagine that WASPs are too blase to give a shite about Russia. If they are Trump supporters then there is every reason for them to resist the Russiagate hoax and this would seem to lead to at least questioning the stream of Russia hatred. .

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  140. @Andrei Martyanov

    read Putin’s 2007 Munich speech

    Putin drives Western politicians into uncontrollable hysterics. Normal Western politician never utters a word of truth (Remember: “How do you know the politician is lying? – His lips are moving”). In contrast, Putin tells in advance what he is going to do, and then does exactly that. This totally disorients Western establishment.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  141. @Skeptikal

    wow. Talk about projection.

    Projection and frustration. Patton thought of himself as an aristocrat and, for some reason, great general–a myth gladly spread by US Cold War propaganda and Hollywood, such as this BS about Patton and Rommel. he was frustrated that he never met such true monsters as Meinstein or Guderian in battle (Patton mostly dealt with second-rate under-strength pale shadow of Wehrmacht) at the peak of their power, or ever, and that these were Russian Asiatic subhumans who, in the end, defeated German Panzers. So, for an oldest American general in WW II in Europe, who also failed twice mathematics in Academy and had serious issues with dyslexia, why not project? He called Marshall Tolbukhin an “inferior man”. You see, those damn Russians are always in the feet of America, preventing her from becoming this city on the shining hill. Frustrating, really;)))

  142. @Skeptikal

    Which WASPs? Document?

    1. Improve your reading comprehension–I am talking about US “elites”, not everyday Americans among which I have many friends, some of them dearest and love them wholeheartedly;

    2. Russiagate is not enough, eh? Well:

    https://observer.com/2017/05/james-clapper-russia-xenophobia/

    While at it, you might as well acquaint yourself with this too–try to find (now removed) original, thankfully Russians kept it:

    or still hanging out there:

    Good enough document or direct quotes are ranked low in your book?

  143. @AnonFromTN

    Putin drives Western politicians into uncontrollable hysterics.

    Russian history drives them too. That is why they cannot face own ignorance because it tells more about them, who they are, then about Russia. And then, of course, there is this teeny-weeny issue of warfare which, somehow, is “taught” in their Ivy League political “science” and other useless courses, where most US power elite originates from, in such a peculiar way that one has to ask the question how they managed to lose every single war in the last 20 years.

  144. Druid says:
    @the grand wazoo

    It’s already here. War, Wall Street shenanigans, prostitution industry, erosion of civil rights and free speech, hollywood trash, etc.

  145. @Andrei Martyanov

    Lady History to the West,
    “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  146. @SeekerofthePresence

    Lady History to the West,
    “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”

    What modern West is fast becoming–there is very little in it which is worth saving, other than some material artifacts. Most current Western culture is degenerate and, in fact, I don’t think we are at the bottom yet. Sexual deviancy and suffocating political correctness soon to turn into totalitarian society–yep, who needs such “West”. Saving people, bearers of best Western traits, however, may become a strategic task and by people I don’t mean armies of perverts and political and intellectual classes, which are utterly corrupt and degenerate. Coming economic crisis (I mean its acute phase) will provide some answers how and when.

  147. Bleikr says:
    @mcohen

    This must be a troll post. I can’t think of the logic otherwise.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  148. IM says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I’ve read nearly all of his major speeches and i watched that one several times. The nibbling away at Russia’a periphary has always been there, there’s never in recent history not been a time where they’re pulling this sort of thing, but it never really escalated past a certain point. The point that i’m trying to make is that this confrontation is not in WASP supremacist interests. It represents a complete discarding of those interests in the pursuit of something else all together, and obviously this thing is much more important. In fact nearly all of the confrontations in the ME have served to knock the US down one peg at a time. They could have easily had Russia as an ally, it really wouldn’t have taken much, and it would have allowed them to dominate the planet for quite a while longer, though it seems something in Syria was worth throwing it all away for.

    Regarding the dates the Syrian civil war started before the Maidan. The events i described whereby Obama backed away from atacking Syria directly the first time came before that. It was only after the Maidan that the RF began their overt military campaign in Syria. I believe these events were direct replies to one another. Again i’m not saying that things would be rosey otherwise but i think this statement that Israel is the only issue with enough clout to launch a new cold war over. Most certainly you can see that absolutely nothing takes precedence over it. What would appear to be insanity is easily explained by this point imho.

    It’s not that i’m so fixated on jews to the detriment of everything else, it’s just my honest appraisal of why the US seems to be determined to dismantle it’s empire one brick at a time. If what your saying is true that WASP supremacism is the operative factor then they would be doing everything they could to strengthen the position of their country rather than bleeding themselves out as such. And yes obviously trump is trying to do that however it’s also obvious that he will probably put the last nail in ‘the empires’ coffin over Iran…… for Israel.

    Atleast this is my interpretation, i’m happy to hear any alternative.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  149. @KenH

    Whites are still the braintrust and backbone of the American economy and that will likely never change.

    Strangely enough, that’s true in my experience. Jews tend to be political comisars, non-whites tend to be empty suits, women tend to do rote things they don’t understand, whites tend to act as if they don’t see what’s happening with the other groups and pretend that everything is like them. I’d always hoped for more from all of these groups, but so far no luck.

    Counterinsurgency

  150. @Richard B

    They’re insane.

    Aren’t we all.

    The current Western situation has devolved into a vulgar brawl. No beliefs or claims of holiness have survived, not Jewish (documented liars, not very smart, greedy), not Christians (beliefs given up in the name of Christianity), not Islamics (tear up their own countries unless they have a bloody handed ruler or can bribe all their citizens), not anybody. We’re in a slugging match, nobody trusted enough to referee.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Richard B
  151. Hank Yobo says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Britain (in the best Anglo-Saxon tradition) stayed out of real war with Napoleon until Waterloo, i.e., until the result was already predetermined.

    So let’s all forget about Trafalgar, Aboukir Bay, Copenhagen, Flanders, the Peninsular War, and various campaigns in the Americas. The UK spent almost as much money to defeat Napoleon as it did during the First World War and mobilized about a million men. Would you still like to contend that the UK didn’t show up until Waterloo?

  152. @IM

    It’s not that i’m so fixated on jews to the detriment of everything else, it’s just my honest appraisal of why the US seems to be determined to dismantle it’s empire one brick at a time. If what your saying is true that WASP supremacism is the operative factor then they would be doing everything they could to strengthen the position of their country rather than bleeding themselves out as such.

    Two major factors behind it–one is perfectly demonstrable in this thread with what passes here as “history” being anything but. Again, I repeat, 2008 and wiping the floor with and partition of Georgia happened even EARLIER than Syria. It matters where the countdown starts. I know some military “experts” both in US and in Russia (same people who construct anti-Russian narrative in the US) who thought that Russia will get her nose bloody fighting “US-trained” and partially equipped Georgia. The whole thing was over in less than 120 hours. The second one–I wrote already the second book on this issue: a steady decline in intellect, competence and experience in US “elites”. Once last people from George H, Bush left the stage it was over. US political class can not produce true American statesman–it simply lacks capacity and methodology since it is based on false assumptions and wrong lessons. In general, this class is afflicted with deadly disease called exceptionalism and, in its many behavioral manifestations, is reminiscent of Asiatic (or Middle Eastern) satrapies–no surprise here once one reviews WHO constitutes this class today both on the left and nominal right.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  153. @Hank Yobo

    So let’s all forget about Trafalgar, Aboukir Bay, Copenhagen, Flanders, the Peninsular War, and various campaigns in the Americas.

    The seat of any government is on the land (c). Per Waterloo–my suggestion you acquaint yourself with Connely’s excellent treatise.

    https://www.amazon.com/Blundering-Glory-Napoleons-Military-Campaigns-dp-0842022317/dp/0842022317/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

    This is not to mention the fact that prior to Waterloo Napoleonic France was crushed never to recover to its former glory (recall Russians in Paris in 1814 and who presented city keys to Alexander) , do not forget Prussians. They played their role, you know.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  154. Low IQ comments as usual. The Czar was no angel, neither was the Church at the time of the revolution. Both were pretty much like our current govt. and Church here in Merica. Corrupt as hell, living the high life while the peasants live in poverty. The Church was about as anti-Christ as it gets, stood by and watched people starve while they lived like kings. There’s a reason why the Russian people supported the Bolsheviks in overthrowing the Czar and the corrupt Church.

    I think the situation then was much like it is today in America in regards to Jews and exploitation of the workers/peasants as well. Sure, theres lots of Jews involved in the exploitation, maybe even more than there are gentiles. But its not all Jews, there are just as many gentiles willing to take advantage of their fellow countrymen as there are Jews. I think the Czarist govt. as well as the others in the ruling class scapegoated Jews to escape from their own guilt. Much like we see going on today. Blame the “Jews” not the system itself. There were also Jews among the working class that were exploited by the capitalists, just like the gentiles.

    But don’t let reality get in the way of your propaganda. As far as Solzhenitsin, the more I read about him the more it seems he was just a tool of the CIA and Zionists, he was a fan of Pinochet in Chile, thought the Vietnam war was a good idea. Seems he is just a useful idiot of the war machine.

    http://www.idcommunism.com/2016/08/solzhenitsyn-rotten-legacy-of-fascist.html

    This is why I say the corporate media, as well as “liberal” politicians are 100% responsible for all the hate and division. They’re never honest about any of this stuff, because the media is owned by CAPITALISTS. They’re perfectly happy with all the hate being directed at the “Jews”, if they weren’t they would be critical of our current “economic system” instead of remaining silent, or just whining about all the “antisemitism”. They know exactly what they’re doing. The blood is on their hands.

    Desert fox is tarded.

  155. @Andrei Martyanov

    Hey, don’t let it worry you. Common knowledge since Vietnam and USSR vs. Afghanistan that inflicting casualties (including deaths) are the way to defeat an expeditionary force. Nothing personal, just a contingency that Scales said wouldn’t be used..

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  156. @Skeptikal

    Patton. A very direct man whose desire to enter politics seems to have gotten him killed.

    You should consider that Russians shoved into the Red Army meat grinder of WW II and given a few months of combat time might actually _be_ an all-out son of a bitch, a barbarian, and a chronic drunk. Combat tends to do that to anybody.

    Counterinsurgency

  157. Richard B says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    There’s certainly plenty of insanity all around. It seems to be the case that humans are always on the verge of it.

    But there are distinctions worth making.

    One I would make is that Jewish Supermacy Inc. is the one group who has the power to effectuate their insane demands to be placed above criticism, loved unconditionally and blindly obeyed. Islam, LGBT, Latinos, Blacks and Asians (in that order) aren’t far behind.

    But then, they’re all the Proxies of JSI.

    That leaves Whites, Christian or Secular, out in the cold.

    And that just happens to be the only group who at least tried to replace tyranny with freedom, blind obedience with individual conscience and social coercion with social cohesion.

    They did their best and got pretty far. But now it’s over.

    Now we’re entering a Hi-Tech Dark Ages.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  158. @Andrei Martyanov

    there is very little in it which is worth saving, other than some material artifacts

    That little bit is very important, however. Belief in the importance of the individual, belief that truth independent of human opinion exists and is important, belief in an important physical universe, subject to laws known by man, all these things are specific to the West. If the West vanished, so would these ideas. I suspect that they will last through the next reorganization; they have lasted through several already.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Robjil
  159. @Andrei Martyanov

    There are several meanings to American “Exceptionalism”. The one used by today’s elites has little to do with the historic meanings, such as “the only country in the world that gives sovereignty to the general population” or the American dream of doing well by benefiting others, or the desire to set an example of a happy and well ordered country, faithful to Christ, and leave the rest of the world alone.

    The present meaning of “Exceptionalism” would be nearly synonymous with “omnipotence”, or perhaps “megalomania”. It showed up during the Kennedy administration: This is a paraphrase of beliefs at that time: “We can do whatever we decide to do, so the important thing is not in the action, it is in the decision”. Jupiter aiming a thunderbolt couldn’t have been more full of himself. It just got worse after that.

    Counterinsurgency

  160. @Counterinsurgency

    Nothing personal, just a contingency that Scales said wouldn’t be used..

    In Russia calling for “killing Americans” on TV would have gotten you Article 282 of criminal code and, in case of Russian officer (acting or retired), suggesting this (hard to imagine, but still) some serious issues with honor. But then again, you should really read up (Lester Grau, may I suggest) on Soviet War in Afghanistan. Repeating beaten to death allegedly “military” cliches (aka “Common Knowledge”) is not a substitute for actually knowing what is going on and why.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  161. @Richard B

    They did their best and got pretty far. But now it’s over.

    All that’s over, no question. But there’s a story about this situation:

    Supposedly Hitler didn’t die, was put in suspended animation after WW II. He awakes a century later, to a group offering him leadership of a renewed Germany. After a few seconds thought, he says:
    “I accept, on one condition: This time, no more Mr. Nice Guy.”

    That’s what we’re looking at. No more Mr. Nice Guy, no referees, the cities have had their day, China depends on a world trade network that it can’t protect, the European have imported new internal enemies worldwide, and Africa has more people than it can feed. Putin, ex-KGB and not an obligate Nice Guy, heading a USSR that’s probably capable of autarky and determined to be left alone, Also, everybody has a whole new set of weapons now.

    Counterinsurgency

  162. Hank Yobo says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    And you might want to read Brewer’s Sinews of Power. The UK never pretended to be a great land power since its army was kept in check by parliament. Historically, it relied upon the “Wooden Walls” of the Royal Navy to protect the nation, including its capital, London, from invasion. However, it used its financial strength to subsidize allied military forces on the Continent–including Prussia–as well as pay for its own, eventually victorious, expeditionary forces. Again, the UK spent almost as much money to fight Napoleon as it did Wilhelm II. Sterling helped to keep allied armies in the field. Moreover, almost a million of George III’s male subjects served under the Union Jack, out of a total population of slightly over ten million. To suggest that the British were mere bystanders is simply not credible. Wellington, not winter, defeated Napoleon at Waterloo.

  163. @Hank Yobo

    Let’s recall history.
    Trafalgar – 1805.
    Wiki (not a reliable source) says that British army numbered ~220,000 men when Napoleonic army numbered ~ 1 million.
    Brits pushed Napoleon out of Spain in 1814. Rings any bells? That’s the year Russian Cossacks in Paris enriched French language with the word “bistro”.
    Waterloo was in 1815.

    Now, what happened between 1805 and 1814?
    Britain had a gunboat war with Denmark and Norway (1807-1814).
    Britain sent ~40,000 soldiers to the Netherlands in 1809. Not surprisingly, without much effect on Napoleon.
    Britain waged war with the US in 1812.

    Meanwhile, where was Britain in the battle of Austerlitz in 1805? Nowhere.

    Where was Britain during Napoleon’s Russian campaign in 1812? Busily fighting the US.

    Where was Britain in the Battle of nations near Liepzig in 1813? Nowhere.

    The British contribution to Napoleonic wars was mostly financial. Reminds me of some other tribe, naming no names.

    BTW, I like your moniker. I admire honesty, like when a Yobo (Yob, Yobbo) calls him/herself a Yobo.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    , @Ron Unz
  164. @Bleikr

    Yes, mcohen is a troll and a shill for Israel. There’s no logic past that in his rantings.

  165. Hank Yobo says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Funny thing that Napoleon, like Hitler, spent a lot of time, effort, and money to defeat the UK. He couldn’t and didn’t. It stayed in the fight and used its strategic, economic, and geographical resources to its best advantage. What country wouldn’t? I wouldn’t expect to see British regiments fighting in deepest Europe because there was no reason to be there. It would have been a long march from the coast through occupied Europe. However, British sterling made its presence felt. You do realize that British forces began fighting the French on the Iberian Peninsula in 1808? That’s where Wellington earned his spurs. The UK was fighting the US in 1812 only because the US invaded Canada that year. Washington think-tankers unwisely decided to use the Napoleonic conflict for their own advantage. I see from Russian commenters that they do not think much about the value of maritime strategy in international conflicts. I guess that is why they still haven’t figured out how to operate nuclear submarines.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  166. Ron Unz says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Meanwhile, where was Britain in the battle of Austerlitz in 1805?…Where was Britain during Napoleon’s Russian campaign in 1812?…Where was Britain in the Battle of nations near Liepzig in 1813? Nowhere.

    The British contribution to Napoleonic wars was mostly financial. Reminds me of some other tribe, naming no names.

    I’m no huge expert on the Napoleonic Wars, but I really don’t think that’s a fair characterization…

    Britain had always been a naval/financial power, and I think those factors were certainly important in Napoleon’s defeat, including all of the major naval victories and the blockade of Europe. Would it be fair to claim that Britain played little role in World War IIWorld War I simply because its ground forces were so much smaller than those of France or Russia?

    Also, from everything I’ve read, Wellington’s small expeditionary force in Spain was crucial in supporting the Spanish rebels against the French Occupation, and Spain was often characterized as “the bleeding wound” in Napoleon’s empire. According to Wikipedia, the French suffered around a half-million casualties in Spain, half of them killed, which certainly isn’t a trivial figure.

    Basically, France under Napoleon was extremely strong, which is why it took the combined effort of Austria, Prussia, Russia, Britain, and Spain to (barely) defeat it. I really think without Britain, Napoleon would have very likely won.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  167. Ron Unz says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    French and British press prior to Crimean War was very much in the mode of portraing Russians as…well…barbarians.

    That’s a pretty silly argument. During WWI, the Britain and American press portrayed the *Germans* as savage, Hunnish barbarians, when everyone knew perfectly well that Germany was probably the most advanced country in Europe and certainly had the finest universities. Moreover, the British Royal family was almost entirely German, and Wilhelm II was Queen Victoria’s beloved eldest grandchild.

    And, of course, Europeans fought each-other all the time. It is just that whenever they went to Russia it always ended in a bloody cataclysm, such as mutual Napoleon-Russian slaughter at Borodino

    Sure, Borodino was a very big battle. But Leipzig was an even bigger battle, and there were many big battles in the Napoleonic Wars. Are you saying all other battles fought weren’t “bloody cataclysms”?

    It sounds like you’re not disputing my claim that during the couple of centuries prior to 1917, say since Peter the Great’s time, Russia was generally regarded as just another European country, though geographically much larger and somewhat more backward than most, sometimes an ally and sometimes an adversary, just like all the others. I’ll admit that prior to Peter’s modernizing reign, it probably was regarded as semi-Asiatic, but didn’t Peter pretty much have the same opinion?

    the list could be, of course, augmented with 1242 and invasion of Teutonic Knights and emergence of Alexander Nevsky as Russia’s Saint.

    But why make a big deal of the fact that the Teutonic Knights tried to conquer Russia 800 years ago? All the various European countries have always been trying to conquer each other since the Fall of Rome. Why should Russia be any different? Anyway, didn’t the Mongols conquer Russia around that same time, and force it under “the Tatar Yoke” for centuries? So except for WWII propaganda needs, why not focus on the (successful) Mongols rather than the (unsuccessful) Teutonic Knights?

    I’m sure the French still remember how the British tried to conquer them during the Hundred Years War which began a century or so later, but does that mean the British didn’t regard the French as Europeans?

    It seems to me if you look at the historical maps up to 1917, for hundreds of years Russia had been massively expanding and conquering lots of other people. So why blame other people for similarly trying to conquer Russia?

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  168. @Ron Unz

    Britain had always been a naval/financial power

    This did not stop Britain from taking French colonies on other continents during Napoleonic wars. It’s more a matter of priorities than capabilities. Greed always trumped heroics in Britain. Reminds me of the same tribe.

    BTW, French losses in Spain were to Spaniards, not Brits (recall Goya’s paintings), same as his losses in Russia were to Russians, not Brits, and his losses in Europe were to Prussians, Russians, and Austrians, not Brits. W/o Britain, external and internal debt of Russian, Prussian, and Austrian governments would have been greater, but the fate of Napoleon would be the same.

    As to WWII, only one “victor” managed to contribute to the defeat of Hitler less than Britain – France. The dates tell the story. Technically, Britain declared war on Germany after Germany attacked Poland (its partner in crime of dismembering Czechoslovakia) in September 1939 (does “phony war” ring any bells? Or “Drôle de guerre”, if you prefer French?). British troops “heroically” ran away after Dunkirk, when the French essentially surrendered their country to Hitler. Germany attacked USSR on June 22, 1941.

    So, the war lasted six (1939-45) or four (1941-45) years. Britain entered the war with Wehrmacht on D-day, June 5, 1944, less than a year before unconditional surrender of Germany, after most of Wehrmacht was annihilated on the Eastern Front. Just in time to divide the spoils, though.

    You (or that Yobo personage) can say that there was landing in Italy in 1943. So there was, and the first thing the allies did was imprison Italian guerillas who fought fascists. In Greece Brits and Americans fought those who fought Mussolini and Hitler until 1949. Luke 6.43-45 comes to mind: “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

    WWII is rightly considered the end of British Empire domination of the world. Some victory, this.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @utu
    , @Hank Yobo
    , @Malla
  169. Ron Unz says:
    @AnonFromTN

    As to WWII, only one “victor” managed to contribute to the defeat of Hitler less than Britain – France.

    Oops! That was just a typo. I meant to write World War I.

    However, in the Napoleonic Wars, I really do think that Britain’s role was at least as important as that of any of the other major powers allied against France. And although I haven’t studied the Peninsular War, I’ve always had the impression that Wellington’s regulars were a very important factor in assisting the Spanish guerrilla in the very heavy losses they inflicted upon the French.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  170. utu says:
    @AnonFromTN

    You and Admiral Martyanov perfectly exemplify the post-Soviet orphans who often have a very fragile egos that need a constant reinforcement with memes that Russia is great, under appreciated and an innocent victim subjected to unjust and perfidious plots by foreign powers. The theme that Russia alone destroyed Napoleon and Hitler that keeps coming from your quarters becomes tiresome. I understand that your egos are hurting but instead of lashing out at foreigners consider reevaluating whether the level of your pride and aspiration might have been somewhat overblown, that perhaps you and Admiral Martyanov were victimized by the Soviet educational system and propaganda.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @annamaria
  171. @anonymous

    Whites greatly dominate the economy and resentment is being whipped up against them by agitators.

    The “whites” who presently dominate the US economy are disproportionately Jewish, and in order to prevent the lynch mob from coming after them first, their lying media are whipping up an anti-white frenzy (Abolish ICE! Open borders! Reparations!) among the colored races against lower-class and rural whites, whose average incomes–and lifespans–have been plummeting for years.

    All clear now?

  172. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeP

    True. This image in particular was useful in proving that the Serbs were starving their captives in “concentration camps”.

    It turns out that this was a fully open refugee camp for all nationalities. The skinny guy was paid to pose in the middle and the barbed wire was surrounding a tiny electrical station. The “reporters” deliberately filmed from the inside of that enclosure to get the desired effect.

    Then they won a bunch of journalistic prizes for the stunt.

    • Replies: @Malla
  173. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I believe you’re underestimating the Jewish influence in shaping Western politicians’ and Western media’s “convictions”.

    The Jews want to take out Iran now but Russia and China are next. This is painfully obvious, Andrei.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  174. Hank Yobo says:
    @AnonFromTN

    So, the war lasted six (1939-45) or four (1941-45) years. Britain entered the war with Wehrmacht on D-day, June 5, 1944, less than a year before unconditional surrender of Germany, after most of Wehrmacht was annihilated on the Eastern Front. Just in time to divide the spoils, though.

    Where was Rommel between 1941 and 1943? Why did the air bombardment of Berlin begin in earnest a year before D-Day? Apparently the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest military campaign of WW 2, never took place.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  175. Robjil says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    The west is kaput.

    It is Zion and State now.

    We can talk about things about Zion and State on sites like Unz and in books.

    One good thing is that the US and UK allows books to be printed about what Zion and State is doing to our planet. In most European countries and Amazon it is not “allowed”.

    The west gave up Church and State and replaced it with another religious group – Zion and State.

    The west has to give up on Zion and State. It really is old school. It is 500 BC stuff, for God’s sake.

    If you don’t believe what I saying. Look at the news, everyday, all the time.

    Here is a good example of our Zion and State in action.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-consisted-standing/

    Nethanyahu’s speech to the US Congress on March 3 2015

    It is giving say it was just well received would be to commit the callous crime of understatement. In Netanyahu’s pep rally, rather speech before the US legislative branch, Congress interrupted to applaud 39 times. 23 of these were standing ovations. 10:55 of the 40:30 of Netanyahu’s exhortation consisted of applause. In other words, 27% was Congress applauding and doing standing ovations.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  176. @Ron Unz

    Sure, Borodino was a very big battle. But Leipzig was an even bigger battle, and there were many big battles in the Napoleonic Wars. Are you saying all other battles fought weren’t “bloody cataclysms”?

    1. Leipzig was a three day affair as opposed to 8-hour long Borodino slaughter. Till WW I Borodino officially remaine4d the bloodiest battle in human history. Simple as that. In terms of rate of casualties (number of casualties per time unit, which also has serious operational implications, not least through morale levels) it still remains one of the bloodiest battle in history and it is the bloodiest battle of Napoleonic Wars. And then, of course, Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia in 1812–5 months. I am not going to narrate consequences of that for Russia such as documented by General Bogdanovich but losing all of his Grand Armee’ and inflicting catastrophic devastation on European Russia is kind of well known thing to anyone who wants to know. So, yes–scale of losses and of devastation does matter, a great deal.

    2. So, sure there were very many big battles, but it was namely after invading Russia that Napoleon found Russians in Paris. The scope of geopolitical re-balancing here kind of, sort of matters a great deal, especially when Talleyrand brings you the city keys.

    That’s a pretty silly argument. During WWI, the Britain and American press portrayed the *Germans* as savage, Hunnish barbarians, when everyone knew perfectly well that Germany was probably the most advanced country in Europe and certainly had the finest universities. Moreover, the British Royal family was almost entirely German, and Wilhelm II was Queen Victoria’s beloved eldest grandchild.

    I am keenly aware of that and how Germans were portrayed in WW I. However, I want to dispute the silliness of my argument for a simple reason that it was precisely Western Europe which placed those “dirty” Slavs into subhuman category and still continues to do so, unless, of course, we all want to play dumb here and dispute obvious facts. This continues to be the case even today–the way the was NO reaction whatsoever by US media to Clapper’s statements kinda gives a ball-park set of attitudes towards Russians (and many other Slavs, how about Serbs) by Western powers that be as a subhuman material.

    It seems to me if you look at the historical maps up to 1917, for hundreds of years Russia had been massively expanding and conquering lots of other people. So why blame other people for similarly trying to conquer Russia?

    I don’t blame anyone, I merely state obvious historic facts–Europe goes to Russia, it all ends with geopolitical cataclysm because it initiates a sequence of events which go out of control of those who goes to Russia with malice in whatever form. It is just that it is very difficult to explain it to everyday Americans what continental warfare is and how it shapes geopolitical discourse. I am on record in 2014 that the United States signed a sentence to itself once it went to Russia by means of instigating the coup in Ukraine and spilling Russian blood. Here we are today. Same scenario played out for centuries but with different means, once one makes serious allowances for technological paradigm. West doesn’t learn, modern West can not learn–its elites are badly educated and lack crucial understanding of the nature of military power and its applications. Simple as that.

    I’ll admit that prior to Peter’s modernizing reign, it probably was regarded as semi-Asiatic, but didn’t Peter pretty much have the same opinion?

    Yes. To a large degree. He also was influenced by his terrifying experience with Streltsy, allegedly one of the major reasons for his epilepsy. At that time modernization of Russia was spelled Westernization.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  177. @Anonymous

    I believe you’re underestimating the Jewish influence in shaping Western politicians’ and Western media’s “convictions”.

    In the US? I don’t think so–I am perfectly aware of the whole strata of American public which plays catastrophic role in keeping pro-Israeli agenda alive and well in the US and they are not Jews. They are so called Christians, aka Evangelical Christian Zionists–an important voting block. Europe is a separate case–their elites are even dumber and more brain-washed than in the US. Having said all that, Imperialism is as American as the Flag and apple pie and all that was on display in the times when Jews in the USA were nobodies. The fact that they managed to manipulate and penetrate US “elite” is merely a testimony to the decline and corruption of this elite. Look around yourself and you will recognize them by their fruits. Many of those fruits are not of Jewish origin.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  178. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Look around yourself and you will recognize them by their fruits. Many of those fruits are not of Jewish origin.

    You keep saying that but I’ve looked, and found out that virtually every one of those fruits is soaked with Jewish poison. This is especially true for the US foreign policy.

  179. @Anonymous

    but I’ve looked, and found out that virtually every one of those fruits is soaked with Jewish poison. This is especially true for the US foreign policy.

    I am sure Spanish-American War was instigated by Jews. I am sure John O Sullivan was a Jew and Manifest Destiny was squarely a Jewish plot;)))

    • Replies: @bjondo
  180. By now you may have realized that the Moon landings were a hoax. Well, so was the Dreyfus affair, a hoax. The bordereau was planted, and torn up in large pieces so that it could be glued back together again, and later published in a newspaper, where someone “recognized” the handwriting. Yeah, right. In fact, the bordereau was not even planted since all the Alsatian maid had to do was SAY she found it in a waste basket in the German embassy. The offer to sell secrets was fake. (They weren’t even secrets.) The trial was fake. Dreyfus imprisonment was fake. Emile Zola’s indignation was a fake. Results were those desired. Fooled You!

    Cherchez le Juif.

    By the way, the Bordereau disappeared when the Germans were on their way to Paris. Just coincidence. And you, you too are a fake.

  181. bjondo says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Manifest Destiny seems to be an idea from Torah. Jew thinking.

    Johnny O probably more inspired by Old than New.

    If thinking is Torah not Christian Testament, then one is Jew no matter the self-declaration.

    Jew never forgot (never forget never forgive) Spain and 1492. Strong supporters and participants maybe instigators of Spanish-American war a’ la Iraq, WW1, WW2, Libya, Syria, more.

    Strong participants in Spanish Civil War of 30s.

    Off the cuff thoughts.

    5ds

    • Agree: Robjil, Malla
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  182. @Robjil

    Netanyahu is a piker compared to Stalin’s standing ovations.

    But I take your point. I’d say that it’s an epiphenomenon of the West’s decay, rather than a sign the the West is being replaced by, say, Judaism, but I could be wrong. We’ll have to wait and see.

    Counterinsurgency

  183. @Andrei Martyanov

    But then again, you should really read up (Lester Grau, may I suggest) on Soviet War in Afghanistan.

    Thanks for the author. Grou was prolific (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/107428.Lester_W_Grau ) and I have only the normal human lifespan. Would you be kind enough to recommend a particular book as a starter?

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  184. @Counterinsurgency

    Here is Grau in “condensed” version in terms of assessments of that war.

    https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/fmso/m/fmso-monographs/202210

    This is a good monograph to serve as a primer on that war. There is, of course, a wealth of literature on that in Russian, including some interesting memoirs, but it may require a creative use of Google Translate.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  185. @bjondo

    If thinking is Torah not Christian Testament, then one is Jew no matter the self-declaration.

    Alrighty then, how then should we treat damn (“Jewish”) Bolsheviks who thought both Torah and Bible (New Testament) were BS? I ;)))

    Jew never forgot (never forget never forgive) Spain and 1492. Strong supporters and participants maybe instigators of Spanish-American war

    Ahem, what about US Civil War? I am sure there is a serious Jewish involvement in that too. In fact, I am sure, this documentary explains it all;)

    • Replies: @bjondo
  186. bjondo says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    the bolsheviks sure acted like jew. torah deep in brain cells.

    killed priests, christian russians, burned churches, spared synagogues, made anti jew thought a crime.

    judah benjamin, #2 in the south, was jew. absconded to europe/london(?) with south’s treasure.

    north, i will have to think about plus euro involvement in u.s. civil war of aggression by north. sure jew made out like bandits trade. plus their heavy involvement in slaves, north and south and africa and carib.

    sorry, my time on computer over. maybe tomorrow.

    5ds

  187. Skeptikal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Re ”
    “Improve your reading comprehension.”

    How boorish.

    But to continue, you say, “I am talking about US “elites”, not everyday Americans.”

    No, you did not write a word about US elites.

    Furthermore, what makes you think I don’t know a lot of WASP elites?

    I might even be one myself.

    Not that it matters, but your boorish putdown does.

    Akin to this: “So, get your facts straight first.”

    You are a patronizing boor.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  188. Skeptikal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Hey, I am smarter than any of you.
    “Simple as that!”

    Gawd. What a conceited ass.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  189. @Skeptikal

    No, you did not write a word about US elites.

    Here it is.

    But the issue is much simpler–enough to look at today’s world–it is not a theorem but axiom, European in general, and Anglo-Saxon in particular, so called “elite” hates Russian guts and always did, which a pathetic state of the so called “Russian Studies” field in the West a direct testimony to that.

    http://www.unz.com/article/myth-and-the-russian-pogroms/#comment-3348249

    FYI, General George S. Patton was US “elite” and had his views shared by many in D.C. But I am sure, you can make a case that US “elites” are not Anglo-Saxon ones and, in general, use Bill Clinton’s defense in terms of asking for explanation for what the word “is” is. So, I’ll agree in advance–I am boorish and conceited ass. So it is settled then.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  190. @Andrei Martyanov

    Am afraid you are right–the price of degeneracy is collapse. One hopes we will not take everyone down with us.

    1. Believe financial crisis greater than 2007-2008 will precipitate the fall. Derivatives positions are many times greater than then, with debt levels extremely high in European banks (like Deutsche Bank). Chaos in world markets will lead to

    2. Desperate measures by governments to hold their states together. The quickest step to gin up public support is war. But this war will not return societies to business as usual; they will be mortally wounded. Totalitarian rule will be necessary to police a rioting public as well as ruinous weapons. As Oppenheimer said, “The world would not be the same…death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  191. @Skeptikal

    Hey, I am smarter than any of you.
    “Simple as that!”

    You see, you, obviously, don’t understand a difference between “being smart” and having knowledge. I am most likely not only not smarter than Ron Unz, but without being in any way insincere, most likely much dumber. I mean it. But what I have what plays for me in this case is a first hand knowledge, and a broad one, of historic Russia which most people in the US simply don’t have. So, yes, I exploit this knowledge for pushing some of my points through. I simply have a very (I would say professional) good idea about level of US “expertise” in Russia and it is not good, to put it mildly. Am I being boorish again or in a ballpark? Now if you can define knowledge–that will help you understand why I am being boorish, or a conceited ass.

  192. @SeekerofthePresence

    with debt levels extremely high in European banks (like Deutsche Bank). Chaos in world markets will lead to

    I heard Deutsche Bank lays off people like there is no tomorrow. And I mean in many, very many, thousands. US Dollar’s reign is basically over in a sense that the United States simply has neither resources nor military power (always exaggerated) to coerce any significant, not to speak of super-powers, nation not to abandon it. It took Russia ten years (10) to win the conventional (and nuclear) arms race.

    Desperate measures by governments to hold their states together. The quickest step to gin up public support is war. But this war will not return societies to business as usual; they will be mortally wounded. Totalitarian rule will be necessary to police a rioting public as well as ruinous weapons.

    Yes, this is a framework–you nailed it. Russia and China are working hard not to allow that. But it is American weakness, not strength, which now is clear and present danger.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  193. The Jewish genocide of Slavs between 1917 to 1953 is what happens when the aristocratic ruling class lets Jews exploit the peasantry until they have acquired enough money and power to overthrow the whole country.

    Jews were murdering one Russian official after enough in the late 19th Century. They were undertaking massive international propaganda campaigns to defame Russia. They were already very wealthy and powerful in Russia and were using their money to promote communist overthrow.

    The Tsars and the aristocrats should have seen the writing on the wall. Instead they ignored the existential threat Jews posed, did nothing to stop it, and they paid a horrible price. So did tens of millions of others.

    The fate of the Romanovs best serves to teach Whites what happens when you’re too nice to the Jews: they kill you anyway because they innately and irrationally hate you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  194. @Ron Unz

    Jeffrey Epstein attempted to commit suicide.

    What are your thoughts? Do you think powerful people are trying to silence him?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  195. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    What are your thoughts? Do you think powerful people are trying to silence him?

    Well, I would certainly think so…

    Regardless of whether he was working for Mossad, himself, or the Martians, it’s pretty clear that gathering sexual blackmail evidence against large numbers of extremely wealthy and powerful people is hardly something you emphasize on your application for a life insurance policy.

    It will be interesting whether he arranged for all that evidence to be publicly released in the event of his untimely death. If he did and lots of people knew it, that’s probably the only thing keeping him alive. Then again, maybe some of the enemies of his blackmail victims would try to kill him for exactly that reason. So perhaps there’s an ongoing bidding-war for the most effective assassins and counter-assassins…

    • Replies: @IM
    , @S
    , @Arioch
  196. A very informative and useful article. I am just struck by how much this British Jewish storyline about what was supposedly happening in Russia anticipates our contemporary Holocaust story about what supposedly happened during WW2. The Semitic m.o. goes back a ways. doesn’t it

  197. IM says:
    @Ron Unz

    This is certainly true however if they were to assasinate him i doubt hanging as such would be the way to go. I’m not an expert outside of movies and such but there’s probably a hundred other ways they could have taken him out, and succeeded, if you think about going through the motions of trying to hang somebody while he’s still alive, i mean they could have heart atacked him and then set it up like he hung himself, however to try to hang him and not succceed doesn’t fit with my vast accumulated compendium of hollywood/bollywood prison hits. Hey, i’m no real expert on this subject :/. I think this is most likely either a warning, as in keep your mouth shut and we do this to you, or some kind of squel for atention/transfer as mentioned above.

    Furthermore considering the kind of people he could possibly implicate a la clinton and co. or even perhaps Trump, the level of security placed on him would be absolute to the point where killing him by individual initiative simply couldn’t happen.

    We can play it out a la game theory, hopefully somebody else can help out since not really an expert on this either.

    But to start off considering Trump has control over this individual then he would effectivly have control over the man’s trove of information and accumulated blackmail material. We can consider whether or not he would have control over him, if it was his initiative to bring him in and if he intended to weaponise the information he would provide. This seems like the most likely course to me and in this instance if that were the case our enterprising pedovore would have security possibly compareable to the president himself.

    Alternative scenarios where he was randomly brought in as result of police initiative alone appears to me, to channel your detractors, to be rediculous coincidence theorist nonsense of the worst kind!

    Another alternative is that pariotic elements within the USG and officer corps are striking back at the blood drinkers and actualy going about cleaning the swamp. It’s possible that Trump is involved himself in this. In such a scenario they may not care if epstein dumps his information and this may be the desireable outcome, since all are pedovores and all must be purged in rightous fire! In this instance they probably wouldn’t care if he’s killed or not as long as they’ve secured the information, and perhaps killing him intentionally would be a means to get the information dumped, though i doubt this due to the uncertainty, most likely, again they would like to have it firmly in their grasp before he’s disposed of.

    As for other scenarios i’m not sure tbh.

  198. S says:
    @Ron Unz

    it’s pretty clear that gathering sexual blackmail evidence against large numbers of extremely wealthy and powerful people is hardly something you emphasize on your application for a life insurance policy.

    That’s remindful of an episode of the old Desilu tv series the Untouchables. This one mobster’s specialty crime was blackmailing other mobsters, who naturally couldn’t even think of going to the police. The entire scenario struck me as rather amusing at the time I watched it.

    The blackmailing mobster didn’t come to a happy ending if I remember right.

  199. Anonymous[247] • Disclaimer says:
    @Staudegger

    The Tsars and the aristocrats should have seen the writing on the wall. Instead they ignored the existential threat Jews posed, did nothing to stop it, and they paid a horrible price. So did tens of millions of others.

    The fate of the Romanovs best serves to teach Whites what happens when you’re too nice to the Jews: they kill you anyway because they innately and irrationally hate you.

    Well said.

  200. Arioch says:
    @Miggle

    ….the article about the Toxic Myth …..

    Great link, thanks!

  201. Arioch says:
    @Lazza L

    BTW, is was told that one of reforms of that oh so great tsarist government in late Russian Empire was exactly settling liquor-selling taverns in villages.

    Peasants themselves rioted and burned those taverns, then tsarist government punished peasants with armed forces and re-instated those liquor fast food “dump in one out of control bilge all you was earning for year” hallmarks of civilization.

    But yeah, it was all perfect and dandy and then there came Bolsheviks out of thin air.

  202. Arioch says:
    @IM

    > If it weren’t for [Russian aid to Syria and Iran] i really don’t think it’s possible that thing’s would have reached this point

    Probably so. But

    1) what you describe is the difference between charged gun merely held to your head and charged gun held to your head and fired. Was holding you at gunpoint “reached that point” of firing, or not yet.

    You might think whether the gun was fired or not yet makes a lot of difference. Well, in a sense it makes. You are either dead right off, or not yet. However the structure of the situation is the gun charged and aimed, and was it fired already or will be tomorrow is of lesser importance.

    Basically, after Munich Speech 2007 and Western absolute rejection of it Russia could only claw her place under the sun – or collapse and “pay and repent, repent and pay” (as our pro-Western “oppositioners” coined, and hardly could they coin better).

    There then was Georgian invasion into Osetia 2008-08-07: West asked Russia is it was all big words or if Russia meant business. Russia put the money where the words were.

    And that was where Cold War 2.0 started. Yes, it had NOT YET escalated to post-September-2015 stage. But it was started.

    2) also you seem to regard events in Osetia 2008 and in Syria 2011 and forth as something isolated from Russia, irrelevant, not being part of Cold War 2.0

    It was, you argue, only after Russia jumped into other men’s business in Syria that Cold War started, as Western reaction to Russian taking on their militants in Syria, to Russian aggressive meddling.

    That does not add up. There were Russian military bases, however small, in both Osetia and Syria. Attacking those nations was attacking Russian army. Attacking Russian army is an act of war against Russia.

    What you basically need to prove for you “thing’s would have reached this point” to become cardinally important, is just to prove that willful armed assault at Russian army installations by Western proxy did not constitute Cold War 2.0

    Good luck with that

    • Replies: @IM
  203. @Jake

    THANK YOU FOR CLEARLY STATING THE BOTTOM LINE:

    This is a spiritual war. You lose it – and anti-Christ Jews win it – when your war efforts are based on anything other than orthodox historic Christian dogmas and morals and identities.

  204. Arioch says:
    @Ron Unz

    I once speculated that reason Epstein fled so abruptly into USA could be that he suddenly felt that USA prison can be much more safe place for him, than huge free worlds outside USA.

    Guess Berezovski, if given a choice, would prefer Russian prison to British grave as well.
    Granted, Magnitsky’s case shows Russian jail is not as safely protected as one might hope.

    I was laughed off then. But… What options we have?

    1. It was a theatre. Either Epstein pretended suicide or someone pretended attempt on his life, but it was arranged to rescue him just in time.
    2. Epstein was arrested to be killed. This leaves the damning question WHY Epstein chosen to so swiftly came back to USA when the hunt for him already started.
    3. Epstein really found himself between rock and hard place, and the said rock has so long tentacles that it can mess things even in US jails.

    In the latter case Epstein was a bait to have him near assassinated while recorded who and how tried it.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  205. IM says:
    @Arioch

    I don’t think a gun pointed to the head and fired/not fired is an appropriate metaphor. Let’s try somebody sitting around at a table holding a knife and every so often under the table with all the elements of plausable deniability and a facade of civility he’ll give you a prod with it, not so much as a stab to do major damage and elicit serious retaliation but just to show you he can. And this is absically without any provocation and it’s somethign he generally does to most others as well. For the most part this was accepted as the price for, depending on your position, admitance to the ‘west’ or for mindlessly throwing away the power that came with the soviet union. Anyway it was acccepted that this is the status quo we brought upon ourselves and to some extent it kinda works so we don’t really need to rock the boat. Then one day it escalated, over some obscure reason to the point where this guy, out and out tried to kill you, therefore the status quo was no longer tolerable, it’s necesary to overturn the table and pull out your own knife.

    Two points i would like to make here:

    Firstly i think there’s a good case for interpreting most of these major conflicts such as WW1, WW2, cold war and many others through the lense of a continous anglo saxon war of domination waged against the rest of the planet. This takes the shape of beating down any possible competitor to the current hegemon or undermining the rise of a competing power via some underhanded means. In order to ascertain the motivation of the US in a given action we must asess it through this parradigm, as in does this action serve to strengthen the position of anglo dominated world order? If not then we must ask why and to whose benefit?

    Secondly i think it’s plain for everyone to see that Mr Putin did not want the current arragement, and everythign indicated that he was willing to put up with ALOT in order to be a part of the west. I put this down to throwing good money after bad, as in we gave up our empire for this, so whats a few more slaps to the face, as well as the lack of a viable alternative. It’s also clear to me that Vladamir Vladamirovich woud prefer to align himself with the west rathern than with China and to a good extent he was riding on Trump being able to repair relations. You may dispute these statements, that’s upto you, it’s just my accumulated subjective impression based on observing their behaviour over the years.

    So when looking at the encroachment and nipping away at the periphery expanding NATO etc… should be interpreted as the expansion of imperial domination. You could just as easily pen the destruction of Yuguslavia as the begining of the second cold war but no, this would not be accurate as the cold war never ended, it never even began we just have a continous series of actions that reinforce anglo domination. From the breakup of Yuguslavia, to the induction of the baltic states into NATO to any other of the countless hostile actions, any of them could be penned as the start of something but in this context it’s irrelevant.

    Now we also have to asess the behaviour of the RF in response to alll of these provocations, which from what i can see is always the absolute minimum that they are absolutely forced to take, and this also is when they are absolutely pushed to the limit. Again this is my asessment and i personally don’t even agree with this, in many instances i feel like they should have taken the initiative, but forget about that for now. So when we look at the conflict in Georgia and the RF was forced to intervene, however they did nothing more. That was it. It’s not like something went pop in the Kremlin and they thought “We must take revenge! We will strike at this collective West!” or some such. That was it. They did the bare minimum and left it. Even further down the line, years later it’s not like they waited till they were stronger to retaliate. Again i won’t speculate on things that aren’t visible to us however life went on so to speak. And this pattern follows on untill this day. We can’t call it a war because the Kremlin is not trying to damage them, or to even achieve any concievable victory. To put it simply they are waiting for the ‘collective west’ to come to it’s senses. They have never taken the initiative to atack, in every theater we only see a minimal response that i must emphasise again is coerced out of them.

    Now if we continue these trains of thought and apply it to the more recent events and the escalation, we can think in terms of
    a) what reactions the Kremlin was forced to make
    b) does forcing such and such reaction help anglo imperial domination

    I apologise as i’m reaching my limit and my head hurts. I’ll try and quickly wrap this up.

    To put it simply through their own initiative and actions throughout this periode people who’s motivations you ascribe to anglo supremacism have forced a country that:

    a) Wasn’t taking any initiative to upend the status quo.
    b) Was happy to acede to their leadership
    c) Had already effectivly surrenderd.
    d) Wasn’t a peer competitor, except for militarily
    e) Was basically willing to forgive all the deprivations against it or atleast abstain from taking revenge.

    to take measures to decisivly put and end to their financial and military hegemony and seriously acelerate the push to as they say a ‘multi polar world’. This with the backdrop of a rising China which actually wasn’t any of the things listed. It would have been understandable to go after China from the onset, from an anglo supremacist point of view. The war for anglo domination i mentioned is NOW LOST. Centuries of maniacle scheming to stay on top, well they basically wiped their ass with it.

    While you guys want to put everything upto sheer incompetance it’s rather obvious that a large chunk of the USG is aware of these realities however they are being kneecapped by groups with diffferent motivations.

    I can’t really illustrate this for you anymore than is already done through countless articles on this site. Obviously something in Syria was so important that it was worth forcing the Rf to put an end to anglo-domination of the globe, something that takes such precedence as to ignore the rising China, exhaust their positions fighting with someone that means them no harm and is barely even retaliating. Obviously somebodies interests are being served here and it’s not that of the ‘anglo-supremacists’ as is said.

    I sugest you read Thierry Meysans articles regarding the Neo-conservative movement to get a grip of who they are, how they came to be and what are their motivations.

    Now please, i’m sorry to say as i’m generally a fan of Mr Martyanov’s writing, but you guys are only serving to alienate people here against yourselves by trying to push a narrative that anybody that’s read even one Philip Giraldi article would be able to see past.

    Anyway this is my last reply, any doubts/ queries and i forward you to any of the countless other articles on this site. It’s been explained in meticulous detail inumerable times here.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Arioch
  206. Skeptikal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    This is what you wrote *in the post to which I responded*:

    “Hm, for some reason I thought that West became very upset with its puppet Georgia having its ass handed to it by Russia in 2008 and with the United States and EU fomenting bloody coup in Ukraine and Russia reacting, very astutely and unexpectedly, to that in 2014. Syria happened after and later. I understand a desperate desire to put everything squarely on Israel and Jews but I can tell you that there are very many WASPs who hate Russian guts and what Russia represents completely on their own, with or without baneful Israeli (very real) influence on US foreign policy. So, get your facts straight first. I would suggest to read Putin’s 2007 Munich speech.”

    No mention of elites.
    Your “reading comprehension” comment is still boorish.
    What *is* your problem?
    You could have responded, “I mentioned elites in comment no. X.”
    But no, you prefer to make a snotty putdown about “reading comprehension.”
    And you take an arrogant, conceited tone in other posts.
    Indeed, “so get your facts straight first” is in the same vein.
    You are some kind of military expert with multiple titles to your name, I read, and are considered an expert in your field.
    So what is the deal with the snark, rudeness, arrogance, and haughty putdowns?
    Chip on shoulder about something? Can’t get a girlfriend?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  207. utu says:
    @IM

    Good comment. You clearly are trying to be honest and detached in your attempts of parsing the reality. Honesty and detachment are not attributes of your interlocutors.

    ” but you guys are only serving to alienate people here against yourselves”

    Follow this and you may see how various Martyanovs here are actuated and what purpose do they serve.

    • Replies: @IM
  208. Seraphim says:
    @Skeptikal

    Military career people always despise the ‘civilians’. It is not necessarily a ‘chip on shoulder’ but it has to do with some stars on shoulders. The acquired habit of giving (and receiving) orders that must be obeyed without discussion and executed ‘exactly and promptly’ influences their behavior and ways of speaking in the everyday life. They must be always right. That’s why it’s difficult for them to face contradiction.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  209. @Andrei Martyanov

    Here is Grau in “condensed” version in terms of assessments of that war.
    https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/fmso/m/fmso-monographs/202210

    OK, I’ve read the .pdf.

    As expected, the Russian Army conducted itself very well by military professional standards. The planning and execution were unusually good for a military force of that size.

    It is also not apparent that the Russian Army withdrew solely because of the political effect of casualties (although I’m sure that they were important), but rather because the entire USSR was in its last few years of existence. The surprising thing is that the Afghanistan operation was kept up as long is it was kept up.

    However, it is also true that Afghanistan lived up to its reputation as impossible to conquer, and contributed (by resource drain) to the USSR’s end. One hopes that the US would draw a lesson from that.

    Old story, concerning the French Revolution:
    Supposedly Louis XVI and his finance chief were riding in the King’s coach one day when it occurred to the King to ask how much the coach cost. The finance chief had the answer, and it was several times more than comparable coaches. The King asked why, and the finance chief reviewed the contractors and thir charges, pointing out where savings was possible. In each case, the King pointed out that Noble X owned Company Y, and that the high charge was a subsidy (bribe?) needed to keep Noble X in the King’s coalition. At the end, both agreed that nothing could be done. This, supposedly, after the 7 year’s war had bankrupted France so badly that the Revolution was only a few years away.
    And then France had a re-organization.
    Point? It’s always the case that nothing can be done. Then, if enough is wrong, it’s done, often with immense collateral damage. Seems to be the way human society works, US and Russia both.

  210. @Seraphim

    Military officers are always supposed to ask for a report prior to taking action (“Why are you doing so and so? Why is the truck out of fuel? “). Excuses are not accepted, orders are then issued. Most officers don’t, and there are at present severe problems in the officer corps.

    Counterinsurgency

  211. @mcohen

    What if they are right? Truth means nothing when religion is involved.

  212. @utu

    Sorry for the delay: I was out of town, giving invited talk at a different institution. Also sorry for not fitting you preconceived ideas. My personal ego is just fine: having come to the US with PhD without any networking opportunities locals have since college, I did better than 99.9% of the locals in my field. Besides, my skin was hardened by peer reviews of my numerous papers and grants. Anyway, comments about ego are typical ad hominem, so let’s just compare numbers.

    Napoleon. In the Russian campaign, out of the invading army of ~685,000 soldiers Napoleon lost all but 27,000 soldiers that successfully ran away from the Russian Empire. Thus, Napoleon’s losses in Russian campaign were greater than his losses in all his other campaigns put together.

    Hitler. Nazi Germany started the war with the USSR by sending 80% of its armed forces. On the Eastern Front Hitler lost over 2 million soldiers (killed, missing, and POWs) plus ~3.5 million wounded and sick. That was more than on all other fronts and campaigns combined. By December 1944 more than 2.7 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front, as compared to ~340,000 killed on the Western Front. I can give more stats, but the picture is clear to anyone willing to see (as the saying goes, nobody is as blind as someone who refuses to see).

    So, if anyone was victimized, that’s those gullible souls who swallowed Western propaganda. I can only pity you guys: deluded people make stupid mistakes that even intellectually inferior people don’t make when they are better informed.

  213. IM says:
    @utu

    Thank you for your kind words.

    I wouldn’t be so harsh though i understand exactly what your talking about.

    In order to answer Skeptikal and Seraphim as well it can come down to a few things. Most commenters of a socialist bent tend to put moral imperative over civility and decorum. This point is pinnacle to most moralist and socialist thought, even if not outright acknowledged it’s generally implied and permeates that environment. Basically they think that whatever issue they have is generally important enough to agressively impose upon others. Though as long as they maintain a concept of ethics they’re basically tolerable and some are well meaning and you can pretty much get along with them, like Martyanov for e.g. even if he is a bit snappy.

    Then there’s out and out Trotskyists or people who acede to the Trotskyite premise whereby basically they use morality as a cover for the most horrific ethical degeneracy known to man. Any amount of lying and barbarity is fine as long as it serves their moral imperitive, which is usually a bullshit pretense for some kind of nefarious motive. My experiance with these people have been absolutely harrowing. There’s a few of these guys floating around on these boards.

    What’s more concerning is that even at this juncture where the Tribals inc have quite brazenly proclaimed what can only be described as an omerta against the RF that commenters like Martyanov are still covering for them. This is pretty fucking terrifying. I would even understand a few years ago, but by now it simply is not much of a secret anymore, yet these commenters and the RF in general are trying to supress awareness of this.

    This is why i place my hopes squarely on China, yellow vests and co. and PERHAPS the european right. I don’t think the RF intends to confront the Tribe and co. in any meaningful capacity and it’s generally reflected in their pundits, even if they do smack down the US and quislings, the Tribe is still a whole another ball game.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @utu
  214. @Hank Yobo

    The battle of the Atlantic, huh? Out of many millions servicemen lost by Germany in WWII, the battle of the Atlantic costed Nazi Germany ~30,000 sailors. Enough said.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    , @reiner Tor
  215. @Arioch

    I suspect that this guy Epstein is doomed (not that I’d shed any tears for that scum) for the simple reason that too many powerful forces agree on one thing: dead people tell no tales. The US Deep State (both “Democratic” and “Republican”-leaning) wants him silenced. British establishment (not just Royal family) wants him silenced. Both CIA and Mossad don’t want him to talk. So, it might be “suicide”, car crash, plane crash, or whatever, but the result will be the same: he will be dead. He will get his right deserts, but those who used him won’t. Too bad.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Malla
  216. Hank Yobo says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Enough said.

    Not quite. Rommel, 1941-1943? And you keep playing intellectual rope-a-dope by ignoring facts which prove your statements wrong and then try to counter with more intellectual “chaff”–a Bomber Command term–in a fruitless effort to sustain your argument. Stalin: Order No. 227, remember?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  217. @Hank Yobo

    So, you change the subject to Stalin’s order 227 – establishment of penal battalions. Yes, about 422,700 Red Army personnel were sentenced to penal battalions, out of ~34,000,000 who served during WWII (~1.2% if your propaganda allows math).

    If we change the topic to orders, how about German Nacht und Nebel directives:
    On 7 December 1941, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler issued the following instructions to the Gestapo:
    After lengthy consideration, it is the will of the Führer that the measures taken against those who are guilty of offenses against the Reich or against the occupation forces in occupied areas should be altered. The Führer is of the opinion that in such cases penal servitude or even a hard labor sentence for life will be regarded as a sign of weakness. An effective and lasting deterrent can be achieved only by the death penalty or by taking measures which will leave the family and the population uncertain as to the fate of the offender. Deportation to Germany serves this purpose.
    On 12 December, Armed Forces High Command Feldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel issued a directive which explained Hitler’s orders:
    Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminals do not know the fate of the criminal.

    Or maybe you can comment on this fact:
    Out of 5.7 million Soviet POW taken by the Germans 3.6 million died in captivity. Of 3.3 million German POW taken by the Soviets, 374,000 died in captivity.

    Yes, Rommel fought in Afrika against British and US forces. How big a role in WWII did those battles play?

    Maybe you’d want to switch topics again? And lose the argument again.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Hank Yobo
  218. Anonymous[287] • Disclaimer says:
    @IM

    Good comment. Your instincts are correct.

  219. @AnonFromTN

    Some 10% of German military production went into the fleet, which in wartime mostly meant submarines. Another perhaps 40% went into the air force and air defense (including producing radar systems etc.) The air force’s share of fuel consumption might have been even higher.

    In 1941, roughly two thirds of the German air force were engaged on the Eastern Front. In 1942, roughly a third. The rest was fighting the RAF.

    It’s fair to say that in 1942 (while American contribution was still small) Britain single-handedly tied up close to one third of German military hardware. All the steel that went into submarines could have been used to build tanks. All the airplanes fighting British bombers would have been on the Eastern Front fighting Soviet airplanes. Do I need to mention that above Stalingrad, Germans didn’t have air superiority at the crucial moments in November 19-22? Would things have changed with German air superiority in the region? Not to mention the 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, which could also be used against tanks or as field artillery, don’t you think a few thousand of them (tens of thousands were protecting German cities already in 1942) would have made a difference at Stalingrad? Especially together with those hundreds of tanks built instead of those U-Boots?

    You are acting as if military only consisted of soldiers and nothing else, and sailors killed could be compared to infantrymen killed.

    Had the UK not fought on in 1940-41, while the USSR was supplying Germany with foodstuffs, fuel, all kinds of metals and other important raw materials, the USSR would have been in an impossibly difficult position in 1941.

  220. @AnonFromTN

    Yes, Rommel fought in Afrika against British and US forces. How big a role in WWII did those battles play?

    Rommel’s forces were relatively small, but those were all elite formations. Basically we’re talking about two elite Panzer divisions and a number of other troops. Had they been stationed around Stalingrad, they could have prevented the successful encirclement of the German Sixth Army. (An American contribution was that an SS-division was diverted from the Caucasus to France around September, in anticipation of the American invasion of North Africa and the thus necessitated German occupation of Southern France. This division might have helped von Manstein extricate Paulus’s doomed troops from Stalingrad.)

    Then there’s the question of Italy. The Afrika Korps could not have kept fighting without the Italians (there were Italian units integrated into it, many of those elite formations themselves, though certainly not as good as elite German formations), especially the Italian fleet and air force, which kept the supply route open. Italy in turn required lots of German coal and some oil shipments. Those also could have served the Eastern Front, had Germany (and Italy) not been forced to fight Britain.

    I’m not saying the UK single-handedly won the war, as it went bankrupt around 1941 and was only kept afloat by American loans and aid; it had no chance of winning without the other two major powers joining it. But the USSR also had basically no chance of destroying Germany on its own. Especially in 1942 it came in handy that a huge portion of German war production was diverted into fighting the British, and by 1943 the other contributions (like stagnating German war production in the crucial summer months of 1943 due to the then raging bombing campaign; and of course by that time Lend Lease) of the Western Allies were also of great importance.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  221. @reiner Tor

    Answering both of your posts. Many of your points are debatable. Besides, history does not have a subjunctive mood: what happened actually happened the way it did, “what ifs” are exactly that, “what ifs”.

    I am not saying that Britain and the US did not contribute to the defeat of Germany. All I am saying is that popular Western historiography claiming that the UK and the US defeated Germany is false, the bulk of that war was fought and won by the USSR (just like the bulk of the war in the Pacific was fought and won by the US). Otherwise one cannot explain how come both Berlin and Vienna were taken by Soviet troops, and how come Churchill and Roosevelt sold virtually all Eastern Europe to Stalin. Neither of them were charitable, to put it mildly.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  222. Hank Yobo says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Please try and remain cognizant of your original position and the corrective replies they elicit. Your original statement was:

    Britain entered the war with Wehrmacht on D-day, June 5, 1944, less than a year before unconditional surrender of Germany,

    This mistake prompted my reply that you had overlooked Rommel’s campaigns against the British in North Africa between 1941-1943. Clearly, for even a layman like myself, 1941-1943 preceded 1944 and makes your original statement untenable.

    The reference to Stalin’s Order 227 goes back to an earlier kerfuffle of some months ago in reference to the “valor” of Soviet troops and, I believe, in which you participated. I’m not changing the subject. Rather, I merely pointed out more of the intellectual chaff that has appeared from time to time in the comments section. This forum shines when it doesn’t degenerate into a pissing match. I, personally, learn a great deal from the insightful remarks made by people outside my narrow field of interests and expertise. Maybe you will too.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  223. annamaria says:
    @AnonFromTN

    The “corrupt clown Sarko” is a war criminal. Remember Libya. “Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency:” https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-emails-reveal-nato-killed-gaddafi-to-stop-libyan-creation-of-gold-backed-currency/5594742

    The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  224. @Hank Yobo

    Tell you what, I learn a lot here. And I skip pissing matches. Throwing feces is for monkeys, so humans who do that did not evolve yet.

    But I learn two kinds of things. One, I get references to sources of info I did not know existed, and discover facts unknown to me. Two, I learn the power of propaganda: there is no telling what incredible BS some people sincerely believe when it’s repeated often enough. See, I lived my first 32 years in the USSR. This made me immune to all sorts of propaganda. I learned to assume that if its propaganda (i.e., comes from governments or those MSM that parrot the official line), it must be a lie. Just think of it: no propaganda ever promoted the times table. Why? Because it is true.

    • Replies: @utu
  225. @annamaria

    Sarko is not an exception. If you name a single head of state who is not a war criminal, I bet that s/he was murdered, like Olof Palme, or will be murdered. At a minimum, that head of state will be overthrown by a “color revolution” organized by war criminals.

    Fiat money is not a French specialty, either. The US dollar is a prime example. At least half of aggressive wars the US started after WWII aimed to protect the Ponzi scheme of the US dollar.

  226. @Andrei Martyanov

    I believe (from the top of my head) only 20 something percent of French view Russia as “European”,

    Hmmmm, I believe it’s between 30% and 40%. For instance, during last presidential election, both Francois Fillon (who won the primaries for center Right) and Marine LePen (who was the final contender against Macron) made clear they thought of Russia as an ordinar neighbor.

    20% (or less) is the correct percentage for French media.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  227. annamaria says:
    @Mikhail

    “I heard a personal account of someone whose distant family relation had commanded a detachment of Cossacks to put down a riot.”
    — The above article provides an explanation to the fuzzy “account of someone whose distant family relation commanded a detachment of Cossacks.”

    There are, however, a lot of relatives of Jewish butchers of Russians, which live mostly in Israel and the US. Where are their accounts? At least, a “family relation” of Lazar Kaganovich (the right hand and henchman of Stalin) has written a book about the “Wolf of Kremlin.”

    The living progeny of the Cheka, KGB, GULAG Jewish bosses know the personal accounts of these prominent organizers of mass executions and tortures. Why there are no published accounts?

    On the other hand, there are Jewish “historians” like certain Anne Applebaum (of the Integrity Initiative fame) and similar opportunists who have been trying to peddle their “understanding” of the history of Russia.

    “Part II: The Integrity Initiative’s Foreign Agents of Influence Invade the United States:” https://larouchepac.com/20190110/part-ii-integrity-initiatives-foreign-agents-influence-invade-united-states

    The UK cluster of includes Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post, Ed Lucas of the Center for European Policy Analysis, Bill Browder and Vadim Kleiner from Browder’s operations, and, not surprisingly, Sir Andrew Wood, of Orbis Business Intelligence, the firm founded by Christopher Steele …

    The Integrity Institute is led by Christopher Donnelly, a very well placed British military intelligence officer with an impressive career in NATO, the Ministry of Defence, and in military destabilization operations. Donnelly is obsessed with and paranoid about Russia.

  228. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    “Be that Ukraine’s coup or pathetic exhibition of Russiagate, lost wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, lies and media circus, in the end, a complete inability to produce competent leadership–the agony of the old “order.”
    — Agree. Excellent description.

  229. annamaria says:
    @utu

    “your egos… perhaps you and Admiral Martyanov were victimized by the Soviet educational system and propaganda.”
    — Why it is so easy to spot a coward who prefers to slander people while being anonymous? Tell us about your ego, “utu.”.

  230. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    “..it is American weakness, not strength, which now is a clear and present danger.”
    — So tragically true. And the most dangerous weakness is the rotten moral fiber.

  231. utu says:
    @AnonFromTN

    I lived my first 32 years in the USSR. This made me immune to all sorts of propaganda.

    You are a perfect product of Soviet propaganda. The idea that you are somehowt immune to it is a proof of it.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @annamaria
  232. utu says:
    @IM

    Great comment.

    …commenters like Martyanov are still covering for them…

    This is what you must expect from Sovoks. In fact the Homo Sovieticus was designed that way. They continued to fall back on propaganda of Soviet Union achievements which includes the slaying of the Nazi Monster. There is no room for atonement and repentance for the crimes the Soviet system has committed. W/o the atonement Russia will not be resurrected.

    • Replies: @IM
    , @annamaria
  233. @AnonFromTN

    The only “what ifs” were the rhetorical questions, the answer to each of which is a resounding “yes.” Could the additional tens of thousands of 88 mm artillery guns could have been used against the USSR? Of course they could. Or could the steel tied up in U-Boots have been used to build additional tanks? Of course it could. Or could they have used the majority of their air force tied up fighting the British? Yes, why not? Or could they use the two elite Afrika Korps Panzer divisions against the USSR? It’s an idiotic question, of course they could.

    It’s not a “what if” that in 1942 basically a third of German war production went into fighting Britain. The ratio of war production used against the USSR went down over the course of the war, while the amount of war production lost due to British (and American) bombing went up. American (and to a lesser extent British) Lend Lease aid was also substantial. It’s not a “what if.”

    popular Western historiography claiming that the UK and the US defeated Germany

    I’m not sure who wrote that, but I surely didn’t. It’s a straw man. What I said was that without British and American help, the USSR would have lost. (By the way, fighting alone, the other two would also not have been able to defeat Nazi Germany.)

    Otherwise one cannot explain how come both Berlin and Vienna were taken by Soviet troops

    It’s totally unrelated to the question of whether the USSR alone could’ve won the war.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  234. @Hank Yobo

    I see from Russian commenters that they do not think much about the value of maritime strategy in international conflicts.

    All the more remarkable since Andrei Martyanov was once a naval cadet.

  235. IM says:
    @utu

    Thank you again.

    I think most importantly like i described above they can start with jettisoning Bronstein and ilk and then go on to question issues of ethics v morality and civility v morality and how this plays out in the development of the society. Hey, they may even come to really understand why China made it and they didn’t instead of repeating some banalities about corrupt elites.

    One thing i find rather sureal is the whole tribal issue considering that they WILL NEVER be forgiven for the SUs support of the arab states during the israel/arab war.

  236. @utu

    This comment shows that you know about the USSR in the 1960-70-80 about as much as I do about life near Alpha Centauri. Current unanimity of “opinions” in Western MSM was achieved only twice before: in Hitler’s Nazi Germany and in Stalin’s USSR. The variety was much greater in the USSR after that. Not to mention that, unlike current Western propaganda, Soviet propaganda never stooped to comrade Ogilvy-style stories. They did not mention some facts, they put their spin on others, but they never invented total fakes and spread it as “news”.

    You are welcome to stick to your delusions, though. Just don’t be surprised when the reality turns out very different.

  237. Arioch says:
    @IM

    holding a knife and every so often under the table with all the elements of plausable deniability and a facade of civility he’ll give you a prod with it, not so much as a stab to do major damage and elicit serious retaliation but just to show you he can

    1. He can WHAT ? Can do a small prod? Or he can come from unpunished prods to equally unpunishable killing?

    2. Sounds like “your husband comes home drunk on fridays and beats s-t out of u and kids? So what? Did he kill you? No? Not even once? Stop inventing problems because of small prodding”

    3. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ukraine – it all were just small prodding?

    > accepted as the price for, depending on your position, admitance to the ‘west’

    No, the price said was different.
    West defrauded us.
    It was accepted exactly in same way as if trusted guest in your house suddenly backstabs you and while you try to get yourself off a floor and patch you wounds – he pokes through your house taking presents and gifts at his whim.

    That is not my idea of acceptance, YMMV.

    > Anyway it was acccepted that this is the status quo we brought upon ourselves

    It was not.

    > Then one day it escalated, over some obscure reason

    Nothing obscure.
    Slave patched his worst wounds and started breaking free, as the only way to secure his life.
    Slaver got both disgusted and offended by slave’s claim at being no less human than slaver himseld, and in need to make a case for other slaves.

    > to the point where this guy, out and out tried to kill you

    When slaves do not rebel they are not killed at large, only occasionally.
    You may argue that was acceptable and accepted by the fact of not-rebellion.
    Slavers would definitely push that interpretation

    anglo saxon war of domination waged against the rest of the planet.

    When a peasant grows pigs in summer to slaughter them (not all of them) in late autumn, one may call it domination. I would call it living at gunpoint. And the larger a pig is, the better are its chances to be chosen for beacon.

    Russia was not challenging western domination. It was striving to define its own secure and safe ground. But it turned out the founding idea of anglo-saxon domination is exactly having the whole world living and breathing by their permission. By Western idea existence of areas they can not squash means loss of domination.

    And i am not exaggerating sadly. Mere existence of Kim’s gov’t in Korea and Hussen’s in Iraq was claimed no less than a threat to US nation security.

    > it’s plain for everyone to see that Mr Putin did not want the current arragement

    So, it is all about Putin? One erratic Kremlin dictator, who mislead naive Russia from her “accepted” family where she was “prodded” on Fridays and was happy about it, right? It was a healthy family then misfit Putin corrupt her with crazy ideas and Russia from good wife turned into obnoxious and treacherous bitch. But nothing that can not be cured by a good manly lesson delivered to her, right?

    ….however it was meek docile Yeltsin who publicly threated Clintons with nuclear war.

    So no. It did not start with Putin, and Western fraud was not accepted.

    It was more about being stunned lost and being unable to believe to one’s own eyes.
    However drunk “small prodding” from West every friday night worked hard to make Russia finally realize: if u want to survive, u must secure survival.

    • Replies: @utu
  238. utu says:
    @Arioch

    You seem to be in a permanent unhinged state.

  239. annamaria says:
    @utu

    “You are a perfect product of Soviet propaganda.”

    — “utu,” have you noticed that “AnonFromTN” lives in Tennessee (away from the former USSR) and that he has a successful career in western academia as a scientist?
    If you want to see “perfect product of propaganda” visit Hasidic sections of Brooklyn or read the Russophobic ranting of Atlantic Council.

  240. annamaria says:
    @utu

    “This is what you must expect from Sovoks.”
    — The only time I heard someone saying “Sovoks” about former Soviets, was an obnoxious emigre from the former Soviet Union. He was not particularly smart and had rather poor manners. And his personal hygiene was a problem.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @utu
  241. @Parisian Guy

    Hmmmm, I believe it’s between 30% and 40%.

    Possible. My numbers were from the top of my head. What is for sure, though, was my surprise (at a moment) when I recognized that Britons had higher European “regard” to Russians, not to mention Germans who overall in their majority consider Russians to be Europeans, than was the case with France. Germans definitely see Russians differently than the rest of Europe and that is also indicative (despite Germany’s media being notoriously Russophibic and, basically, lying sacks of shit) of some serious continental dynamics and is indicative of Germany’s underwater social dynamics.

  242. @Andrei Martyanov

    Germans (the people, not the government or the Lugenpresse) are more realistic in many ways.

    However, there is objective basis for Europeans seeing Russians as something different from them. Russia (the Empire, the USSR, and the RF today) is not a country, it’s a civilization. It is different from both European and Chinese (often called Asian) civilizations, although it has elements from both. Also, Russia is huge, whereas geographically what is commonly perceived as Europe is a small peninsula of Asia, no grander than India or Indochina. Europeans had delusions of grandeur for centuries, and now the tables are turned. It galls them.

  243. @annamaria

    In most cases the term “sovok” is used by emigres who are not particularly successful. These people were born with serious defects, blamed their lack of success in the USSR on the Soviet system, emigrated, forgetting that they take themselves, warts and all, along. Naturally, they remained just as unsuccessful in the US. Dim-witted people never blame themselves for their failures, so they keep blaming the Soviets for it. Pathetic bunch. I’d pay no attention to those losers.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @Mikhail
  244. @reiner Tor

    I’m not sure who wrote that

    For starters you can (as a primer) delve into Earl Ziemke’s rape of strategic, operational and economic sense in his famous treatise (you can easily download its oroginal from US Army War College site), and then start with pretty much any “mainstream” historiography and Hollywood mass-pop-warfare flicks to understand that if you didn’t see (or experiences it) it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In fact each D-Day anniversary it is explicitly stated that these were Western Allies who “defeated” Hitler and “won” the war. Are Time magazine covers any good as an example?

    With all my profound respect to Ike.

    So, I am always fascinated with Westerners being “surprised” when presented with well-documented and irrefutable facts that far from not having a clue about USSR/Russia in 20th century, they do not know that combined West is in the business of non-stop rewriting of history since the end of WW II. Hell, since hell knows when.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  245. @AnonFromTN

    In most cases the term “sovok” is used by emigres who are not particularly successful.

    True, plus “Russian” Kreakls who are all, almost without exception, have useless “humanities” education and have zero skills or record of any success in any productive (or creative) capacity. A lot of it is office plankton, a lot of it are grant-eaters from Western NGO. Plus, of course, many in the West do not understand that Sovok in its origin is primarily anti-Russian (as in denigration of Russian ethnicity and culture), not anti-Soviet. But then again, considering what sources they use for studying Russia (basically dissident trash and propaganda)–one shouldn’t be surprised.

  246. @Andrei Martyanov

    Germany’s media being notoriously Russophibic

    Same problem in France (and probably in England). Our media are prone to peddle the US point of view. On the other side, as time goes, less and less Frenchs are trusting them.

  247. prawda [AKA "prawda a nie klamstwa"] says:

    Oh my God how the Poor Down Trotted Suffered in Poland for so many centuries by the Anti-Semite Bad Polish people?
    https://archive.org/details/youtube-Xt-siQyLQ9Ehttp://judaism.is/poland.htmlhttps://books.google.com/books?id=K2DgBdSCQnsC&lpg=PA188&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/02/04/e-michael-jones-on-jews-and-usury-part-2/
    E Michael Jones on Poland The Jewish Paradise

    Once you have commercial centers, like Prague, for example was a big Jewish commercial center for trade in slaves and so on. They had contact with the East because they were selling Slovak slaves and Prague was kind of an entrepôt for that type of thing. As this campaign of conversion took off in the West, the Jews who did not want to convert gradually gravitated toward the East and at this point it was Poland that became what they called the “Paradisus Judaeorum” (Paradise of the Jews) beginning and around the 13th century which is about when the conversion campaign started to kick off. And so the Jews gradually migrated there, and gradually they were given rights, and in a sense this was the beginning of the of the problem. They were given special status, they exploited that status through their main weapon Usury. One of the articles by Iwo Pogonowski that we published had a picture of the Jew and the Polish peasant. And the Jew is sitting behind his desk and there’s a big bottle of vodka there and the Polish peasant is scratching his head. Well what we’re talking about here is the Jew has lent him money and then he’s poured him some vodka to make him more, you know, likely to sign on the dotted line. And he’s scratching his head because he can’t figure out what compound interest is all about. And how he keeps paying in money and it never seems to pay down.

    So the Jews took over Poland, and Poland began to expand on this borrowed money and expanded into the East and they expanded into Cossack territory and basically everywhere that you went (By 1616, over half the Polish Crown’s land in the Ukraine was leased out to Jews) he alienated the local population – until the reaction came, and that was the Khmelnytsky pogroms of 1648. Khmelnytsky was a Cossack who had been cheated out of wife and money by a Jew and organized the resistance – and it was violent resistance – and now you found the Poles defending the Jews to some extent. But that was the beginning of the end for Poland.

    The Polish ruling class was a land-based aristocracy and land-based aristocracies always have trouble with money. In a sense the feudal period in Europe was basically: you owned the land and you had people on the land and those people owed you X number of bushels of grain, but you need money right now! So how are you going to transfer those long term prospects into short-term cash? Well that’s where the Jew came in, in terms of lending money. This was the case much later in Poland than let’s say in Italy, which was the forefront of economic development in Europe, the city-states in Italy, etc.

    So this is basically how they took control of the Polish aristocracy, by lending money. They did the same thing in England. They lent the landed aristocracy money and if the Jew lends you money you become the slave of the Jews. The classic instance of this was Winston Churchill, whose family was deeply involved and he became a representative of Jewish interest because they forgave his debts. That’s how they got their hold over the Polish aristocracy, because the Polish aristocracy felt that they could not engage in industry. They couldn’t, for example, make whiskey. That was beneath the dignity of the Polish aristocracy, so they would give licenses to the Jews. Well the Jews exploited this as a way of taking control of the peasantry. They used alcohol as one of their cultural weapons of cultural warfare and that was a constant tradition among the Jews. It was brought over here, and it’s dealt with in Henry Ford’s “International Jew”. There’s a chapter on “nigger gin” in Henry Ford’s book, which is basically this alcohol that was sold to the black population as a way of exploiting them. This was the tradition that they had brought over from Poland where the Polish aristocracy had simply licensed them as alcohol producers and the final moment came at the end of the 18th century when Poland was wiped off the face of the map by Prussia, Austria and Russia.

    They basically had partitioned Poland. This meant that all those Jews in the “Paradisus Judaeorum”, where they had all of these rights in Poland, now suddenly found themselves on the western border of Russia in a country that did not believe in equal rights for anyone. It was totally anti-enlightenment. And so as a result the Jews were unhappy. I mean very unhappy. And you see to this day this ancestral hatred of Russia among the Jews.

    Beginning at this point Russia has a huge revolutionary problem on it on its hands which it could not solve. It tried to solve it in a humane fashion, but Russia had swallowed something that it could not digest. And so the Tsar hears that there were reports of starvation in the Ukraine. Oh wait a minute, Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe – how is it the people are starving? What’s the answer to that question? The answer is the Jews. The Jews had lent money to the Ukrainian farmers and so the farmers couldn’t pay it back and so they owned the grain harvest and they were diverting all the grain to alcohol rather than to bread and people were starving to death in the richest agricultural area of Russia. And so they said, well, we have to deal with this. Let’s turn the Jews into farmers! Well that failed, because the Jew is not going to work as a farmer. Because farming is hard work. So you give the Jew a plow? What’s he going to do? He’ll sell it. Any farm implements he sells he tries to then take that money and parlay that into something else, so that failed. And so as a result you have this increasing revolutionary ferment in the Pale of the settlement that leads to the assassination of the Tsar.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  248. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I’m sensing that many Germans and Russians share an understanding of what it’s like to be negatively stereotyped in the collective sense, in conjunction with the fault-lines for that type of a caricature.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  249. utu says:
    @annamaria

    Annamaria is a nice smelling sovok. So what is your secret? What deodorants do you use to mask your sovok stench?

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @annamaria
  250. awry says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Solzhentisyn said they killed 66 million

    That seems an exaggeration. The 66 million number you are remembering is not the number of killed, but the total number of gulag inmates (not at a particular point of time but aggregated – I guess from the time of Lenin until the death of Stalin so 1922-1953 maybe) estimated by Solzhenytsin.

    he was hailed as a hero until he started talking about the jews

    He was a hero in conservative circles until the end of the Cold War, but progs hated him at least since that speech he gave at Harvard.

  251. @Mikhail

    I would have used that word myself in 1991. But the world changed a lot since then. The “democratic” countries (the US and its sidekicks) showed their true colors in 1990s very clearly, both in rampant thievery and their approval of Yeltsin’s bloody unconstitutional coup in 1993. Today frustrated thieves, domestic and foreign, hate Putin for curbing their thievery. Total denouement of the hypocritical West is the only reason Russian “opposition” gets no traction despite government performance that is far from stellar or fair. Basically, today American praise completely ruins the credibility of any politician in the eyes of Russians. Degenerate American elites still did not tumble to it.

  252. @Andrei Martyanov

    I haven’t read Earl Ziemke, so I don’t have much to say there, but lots of Western historians (for example Richard Overy) certainly think that the USSR’s contributions were considerable, and that at the very least it’d have been quite a bit more difficult for the Anglo powers to win the war without the USSR, nukes or no nukes. For example Germany might have been in an excellent position to develop nukes herself, had she defeated the USSR.

    Hollywood and Time and Life magazines are not “historiography,” and it must be noted that while Westerners (actually, mostly Anglos and maybe the French) downplay Soviet contributions (Germans and probably former Eastern Bloc peoples actually do understand that the Soviets played a large role in destroying Nazi Germany – they saw the Soviet juggernaut first hand, after all), Russians often do the opposite, as AnonFromTN just did. The belief that the USSR defeated Nazi Germany alone, or that it would have defeated it alone is just as distorted view of history as that the Americans or Anglos defeated it alone.

    I don’t know if I qualify as a Westerner. I grew up in communist and post-communist Hungary, and certainly Hungarian historiography until the 1980s actually kept downplaying British and American contributions to winning the war (in line with Soviet historiography). Lots of the books I read as a teenager (I had a keen interest in everything WW2 from an early age) were still written in the 1970s or 1980s, and basically were of the opinion that the USSR won the war single-handedly (an obvious distortion of reality), downplaying Lend Lease and any Anglo-American contributions. (Though some Hungarian historians mentioned that already in 1942 two thirds of the German air force were diverted from the Eastern Front, they failed to mention how large portion of German war production the air force represented.)

  253. @Mikhail

    I’m sensing that many Germans and Russians share an understanding of what it’s like to be negatively stereotyped in the collective sense, in conjunction with the fault-lines for that type of a caricature.

    Undeniably a contributing factor.

  254. @reiner Tor

    Hollywood and Time and Life magazines are not “historiography,”

    Wrong, they are on the most important level of mass public opinion which absorbs and internalized pseudo-historical memes which later translate into shared mythology. Overwhelming majority of people in the West has no time nor desire to read serious scholarly literature on the issue, nor, even more so try to rasp operational realities–it is boring and requires a backgro8und. hence, as Glantz and House state–Western WW II history is written primarily from German sources, or, in case of USSR/Russia, from such trash as Rezun (Suvorov), Solzhenitsyn and other Vlasovite-leaning “sources”. The result is a caricature.

    (Though some Hungarian historians mentioned that already in 1942 two thirds of the German air force were diverted from the Eastern Front, they failed to mention how large portion of German war production the air force represented.)

    Just FYI–Luftwaffe sustained catastrophic losses on Eastern Front in 1941-42. If you want expert opinion on that in English:

    There was a reason why Red Air Force finished WW II being the largest operational-tactical air force in the world.

    and that at the very least it’d have been quite a bit more difficult for the Anglo powers to win the war without the USSR

    Overlord was completely predicated on actions of the Red Army at the Eastern Front as was discussed and coordinated in Tehran (see Operation Bagration). You also have to take a look at this peculiar period after Kursk when USSR simply stopped asking for the second front–it created literally a panic within Anglo-American axis, hence such cooperative and hasty mood on their part in Tehran. As “without” USSR–Anglo-American alliance would simply lack sufficient resources to conduct successful amphibious landing anywhere in Europe faced with all might of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (not to mention Nazi Germany’s allies). Per Lend-Lease, it definitely helped and Russian position on that issue was steadily adjusted within last 30+ years.

  255. Anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @prawda

    Interesting. Thanks.

  256. @AnonFromTN

    Epstein, once he has served his purpose, will fall victim to the old adage: Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  257. @reiner Tor

    To be exact, I never said that the UK and US did not contribute to the war with Germany. However, w/o them the outcome would still be the same, although it would take another year or two and the damage to the Soviet economy would have been much greater.

    See, Russians don’t have European habit of giving up early to save your comfort and skin. Even in occupied Soviet territories Germans did not feel like winners. Their officers and generals bitterly complained about guerilla fighters (just like Napoleon, BTW). The damage guerilla fighters did was usually more psychological than material, but they kept Germans on their toes and scared all the time. Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon: he believed that as many Russians have grievances with their government, they are likely to help him. In both 1812 and 1941 Russians turned on foreign invaders first, saving their grievances for later, when the foreigners are kicked out of the country. There are traitors everywhere, including Russia, but in Russian culture traitors are considered maybe just a notch above child molesters.

    So, the participation of the UK and US shortened the war and reduced damage to the Soviet economy, but it did not change the outcome. In fact, Bismarck wrote about dealing with Russia many times, and his warnings turned out to be remarkably prophetic.

    • Replies: @Malla
  258. @Twodees Partain

    Exactly. That’s why he is a goner. Good riddance. To bad his handlers won’t suffer the same fate.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  259. @AnonFromTN

    ANON FROM TN

    Where’s the huge conspiracy? A bunch of poor white girls from bad homes wandered the roads of Miami and out of a mansion came a middle-aged billionaire with a passion for jail bait. Could have happened at a trailer park.

    Is this a heavily sophisticated operation?

    No. It is just the usual poor white runaways lured into underage sex.

    Epstein was not even clever about it. He told them to tell their female friends and they did until it reached the school authorities.

    Its the old tired tale of the wealthy preying upon the poor and dysfunctional. Fourteen year old girls wandering the streets of Miami at 1 AM are probably not from well-to-do families. No local or national political influence.

    Had the girl’s father had a name like Rockefeller or Trump, Epstein probably would have thought twice but he figured they came from broken and dysfunctional homes of single mothers, alcoholism, teen drug abuse, broken homes.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  260. @Jeff Stryker

    There would be no conspiracy in picking underage chicks and using them. The conspiracy is in serving underage meat to those you intend to blackmail

  261. annamaria says:
    @utu

    Actually, I was unfair to the Israelis in this case. You are, most likely, an unhappy emigre from the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the portrait of a person whom I heard calling others “sovok” could be somehow too close to your own appearance. In any event, your rude outburst of anger was not funny.

  262. @Miggle

    When you say the Church “deserved” to be dis-established in France because the priests were “anti-Dreyfusard” You are condemning us poor Jews out of your own Jewish mouth, for what do we “deserve” for being anti-Jesus? And what did Dreyfus deserve for his part in a political plot and fraud that helped to destroy France? Dreyfus was the lead and willing actor in a terribly destructive hoax. The affair was fake and he never went to Devil’s Island. What was Jesus? What do you deserve?

    • Troll: Miggle
  263. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Then they won a bunch of journalistic prizes for the stunt.

    They have been doing this for decades. This is not new. It was actually Milosevic who was working for the unity of Yugoslavia.

  264. Malla says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    A single example–Crimean War.

    Britain was afraid Russia may become too powerful in the Mediterranean. There was already a lot of distrust in between Britain and Russia because of the ‘Great game politics’.
    Britain always had a fear that Russia may find some way to get to the Indian ocean via Afghanistan and thus via British India. Russia would gain immensely in terms of trade if it had a link to all year warm water ports.


    The Great Game: the Afghan Emir Sher Ali Khan with his “friends” Russia and Great Britain.

    Russia was fearful of British commercial and military inroads into Central Asia, and Britain was fearful of Russia conquering a part of India to get access to the Indian ocean. This resulted in an atmosphere of distrust and the constant threat of war between the two empires.

    Europeans have always been fighting with each other across the world. the Brits and French fought it out in India and North America.

  265. Malla says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Demons devour each other at the top if they can get the chance.

  266. Malla says:
    @AnonFromTN

    As to WWII, only one “victor” managed to contribute to the defeat of Hitler less than Britain – France. The dates tell the story. Technically, Britain declared war on Germany after Germany attacked Poland (its partner in crime of dismembering Czechoslovakia) in September 1939 (does “phony war” ring any bells? Or “Drôle de guerre”, if you prefer French?). British troops “heroically” ran away after Dunkirk, when the French essentially surrendered their country to Hitler. Germany attacked USSR on June 22, 1941.

    Germany and Soviet both attacked Poland in 1939. but British and French did not declare war on Soviets to help the Poles. They ended up collaborating with the Soviets. Sending Land Lease help to the Soviets. Josef Stalin was repackaged by the lovely Western Media as ‘Uncle Joe’ .
    Britain and France sent back all Soviet POWs and refugees escaping the Soviet Regime back to Stalin and his butchers. It seems more like the Western elites loved Soviet Russia at that time but hate it now.
    I have always always found the relationship in between the Western Zio elites and the Soviet Union as well as present day China very very wierd.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  267. @Malla

    To be exact, Stalin’s USSR started the war with Poland on September 17, 1939, after Poland was already defeated by Germans, more than two weeks later than Nazi Germany (attacked on September 1, 1939).

    You are right in one thing: Russian “alliance” with China is quite unnatural. But it might become beneficial to both countries. One can count it as one of the greatest “achievements” of insane US foreign policy, which in the last two decades looks more like kindergarten tantrums than coherent adult behavior.

    • Replies: @Malla
  268. Malla says:
    @AnonFromTN

    See, Russians don’t have European habit of giving up early to save your comfort and skin.

    This is ridiculous. Russians are a type of European at least the Slavic Russians.
    Now I am not denying the fighting prowess of the Russians in history and the USSR in WW2 and their contribution.
    But that is rubbish.
    The British conquered the Sikh Empire, not something that can be done by people who want to save comfort and skin.
    The Sikhs had earlier conquered Afghanistan, and have a history of beating Afghans. The Russians could not conquer Afghanistan.

    When the Soviets went to Afghanistan it ended up as this

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  269. Malla says:
    @AnonFromTN

    One can count it as one of the greatest “achievements” of insane US foreign policy, which in the last two decades looks more like kindergarten tantrums than coherent adult behavior.

    In the last two decades? This has been like this since the beginning of the 1900s. I mean the American deep state has not changed much. Maybe the Soviet Union did played a part in stability in the world after WW2. China is not powerful enough yet to take that role. Not even close.

  270. @Malla

    Quite a few empires broke their teeth on Afghanistan. Alexander the Great was the first on that list, but Brits are there, too: three wars and nothing to show for it. Now it is the US turn: American troops are there longer than Soviet troops were, but no victory is in sight. They huddle with their ridiculously expensive toys in their heavily fortified bases. No doubt the US will declare victory in the end and run away.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  271. geokat62 says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Quite a few empires broke their teeth on Afghanistan. Alexander the Great was the first on that list…

    While the expression “broke their teeth” is somewhat graphic, it is important to emphasize that while the British and Soviets failed to conquer Afghanistan, Alexander, in fact, succeeded:

    We fight wars with men – and with ghosts. When it comes to haunted battlefields, Afghanistan is second to none. The specters stretch backwards from the Soviets, who failed in Afghanistan in the 1970s, to the British who suffered there in the nineteenth century, and all the way to Alexander the Great, who conquered Afghanistan long ago but at a terrible cost.

    http://barrystrauss.com/alexander-and-afghanistan/

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  272. @geokat62

    That was his Pyrrhic victory. Not to mention that it was more than 2,000 years ago. Not to mention that he did not get a chance to hold onto that possession for long.

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 Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?