Replies: @Dumbo, @Marcali

Replies: @Marcali

Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse, @BuelahMan, @Marcali

Replies: @baythoven, @Robert Dolan, @36 ulster, @Fumanchu, @silviosilver, @Marcali, @Chester Stomp, @JimDandy, @Petermx

You may find Mark Solonin interesting too.
 

The statistical study reported that during the second half of 1941 the Red Army had lost 6,290,000 small arms. O­ne has to ask: what happened to the very reliable Russian rifles? Did they fail? All six millions of them? Or, rather, millions of rifles, and tens of thousands of tanks and cannons were abandoned en masse by the Red Army soldiers fleeing in panic?
.
.
.
The success of my first book allowed me to carry o­n with the research. In 2006, "Peacefully sleeping airfields" was published. The book's name mocks the myth about the peace-loving Soviet air force. I show that it had not been decimated o­n the ground by the very first strikes of the treacherous Luftwaffe, and the reason of Soviets' poor performance is, as in the case of their ground forces comrades, their unwillingness to fight.
 

Replies: @Marcali, @Marcali, @JPS

You may find Mark Solonin interesting too.
 

The statistical study reported that during the second half of 1941 the Red Army had lost 6,290,000 small arms. O­ne has to ask: what happened to the very reliable Russian rifles? Did they fail? All six millions of them? Or, rather, millions of rifles, and tens of thousands of tanks and cannons were abandoned en masse by the Red Army soldiers fleeing in panic?
.
.
.
The success of my first book allowed me to carry o­n with the research. In 2006, "Peacefully sleeping airfields" was published. The book's name mocks the myth about the peace-loving Soviet air force. I show that it had not been decimated o­n the ground by the very first strikes of the treacherous Luftwaffe, and the reason of Soviets' poor performance is, as in the case of their ground forces comrades, their unwillingness to fight.
 

Replies: @Marcali, @Marcali, @JPS

Der Angriff, edited by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, was the ideological flagship organ of the Nazi Party. Describing it as a “nationalist German newspaper” is extremely misleading.
 

There’s not the slightest historical doubt about the very important Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s commemorated by the Nazi-Zionist medal. Whether it could be called an “alliance” is a matter of semantics.
 

Replies: @Marcali, @Ron Unz

WWII BOOK REVIEW: WHY GERMANY NEARLY WON
https://www.historynet.com/wwii-book-review-germany-nearly-won/

The first surprise in checking out this book was that I could find no reviews about it in professional military journals. The above link pretty much explains why - Author Steven D. Mercatante is a talented amateur who "relies heavily on secondary sources, especially those by David Glantz, instead of broad research."

The nine-year-old book costs more than I'd like for a casual purchase, and it's not available at my local library either. The Internet Archive does have it, and in few quick searches I saw no obvious howlers. But I don't much like reading books on a video screen.

https://archive.org/details/whygermanynearly0000merc/page/n1/mode/2up?q=suvorov

Thanks for the suggestion though, and I'll be on the lookout for this book if I can find it at a more "affordable" price.

Replies: @Marcali

According to his own statements, Suvorov considers himself, his wife and children to be Ukrainians.
 

Suvorov's expose weaves a complex mass of credible facts taken from Soviet memoirs and postwar studies into a less credible web of conclusions. While documentary evidence is sufficient to defend his thesis regarding Stalin's strategic intent prior to June 1940, there is considerable less evidence to support his more radical contention concerning Stalin's aggressive war plans for 1941. As coldly logical as Suvorov's arguments are and as credible as the individual facts which he cites may be, the whole of Suvorov's case regarding Soviet intentions in 1941 remains incredible. The validity of Suvorov's conclusions are contradicted by a wide range of archival materials including newly released and extensive Soviet documents on the war (all secret or top secret), German archival materials, and materials which document the parlous state of the Red Army in 1941, and which indicate that any Soviet offensive operations contemplated in 1941 would have bordered on the lunatic. Stalin may have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic.

Extensive Soviet archival reports, orders, and plans, which have been released within the past several months, and recent books dealing with Soviet strategic planning in 1940-1941, clearly indicate that, after the fall of France in June 1940, the Soviets frantically sought to defend themselves against what they increasingly believed was the threat of an inevitable (and probably successful) attack by Germany. The records of Soviet fronts, armies, corps, and divisions in the days immediately preceding and following the outbreak of war fail to provide any evidence to support Suvorov's claims, and instead substantiate the reverse conclusion. German records also contradict Suvorov's arguments. They, too, point to the appalling state of readiness of the Red Army, although the Germans woefully underestimated the mobilization potential of their foe and eventually paid the price. The well-documented dismal performance of the Red Army before 1941 in Finland and Poland, and during 1941, renders Suvorov's arguments even less credible. In short, all available sources indicate that the condition of the Red Army was not suited to the conduct of large-scale offensive operations in 1941.
 

There can be no doubt at all that Stalin was going to be watching for a chance to take over the rest of Europe, but that was not in the cards for 1941. Maybe not for a very long time, for German military power at the time was awesome. If Hitler had been a peaceful man, he'd have immediately started construction of a counterpart to the West Wall fortifications - an East Wall. Even the very strong 1944 Allied armies had a real problem tackling the "The Siegfried Line" though it was manned by the vastly degraded Wehrmacht of that date. Quote from The Sharp End by John Ellis:

I don't care if the guy behind that gun is a syphilitic prick who's a hundred years old - he's still sitting behind eight foot of concrete and he's still got enough fingers to press triggers and shoot bullets.
 

Replies: @Ron Unz, @Levtraro, @The Alarmist, @Marcali, @Dutch Boy, @Cassandre, @selfdo59

Replies: @Marcali, @sherlockohms

Very well said. Putin will not let the filth (that now runs rampant in America) destroy Russia.

Once the central banks have completely implemented their planned AI-controlled digital monetary and financial system, we Americans will all be held hostage in their empire, sentenced to their unipolar prison, confined in their digital gulag.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/moving-toward-global-empire-humanity-sentenced-unipolar-prison-digital-gulag/5818824


Legislators in California are considering a bill that would allow state officials to separate children from their families without letting the parents know until after the fact.

Government authorities could do this for children who struggle with gender identity problems but whose parents are not being “ affirming ” of their new identification as the opposite sex, or as nonbinary, gender fluid, pansexual, or one of the other made-up genders or sexual orientations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/california-considers-separating-children-from-their-un-woke-parents?fbclid=IwAR3japDt80BLYGMwJ_aT1U1I8A_6y1u3bhgV-9vbsqobK1yfQJwzLnuOZhg

America is looking like that crazy person on the street, punching himself in the head. How else do you explain this epic act of national self-destruction?

https://dailyreckoning.com/we-have-met-the-enemy/

This week, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced legislation to allow unrestricted immigration to any person claiming to be LBGTQ. Co-sponsors of the bill include Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. How is any of this a re-election strategy?

It’s not. If these matters are not adjudicated, it will be a civil war strategy.

Replies: @Realist, @Marcali

Replies: @anonymous, @Notsofast, @Haxo Angmark, @Dumbo, @Angharad, @HT, @Marcali, @but an humble craftsman, @Jett Rucker, @Derer, @anonymous, @Richard B, @Thomas Covenant Unbeliever, @paranoid goy

Replies: @Marcali, @Thomasina

Shhhh....
My friend, don't pour gasoline on the raging bonfire of anti-Semitism.
Leopold and Loeb were 2 innocent Chicago youths of
American Ethnicity who read too much Nietzsche.
That's everything there is to know about the case. Nietzsche made them do it.
And dog ate their homework. Clarence Darrow said so. End of story. Love and kisses.

On related note - recently I tried to find on the Internet a well-known painting of a Hungarian artist:

"Jewish Ritual Murder" by Munkácsy Mihály

His Wiki bio article, another Wiki article where his numerous paintings are listed in chronological order, Google Images, DuckDuckGo - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA !!!

Good job. I am entering my VISA# and making donation to ADL now !!!

Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert, @Marcali

Replies: @Anon, @Wokechoke, @emerging majority, @emerging majority, @Slav, @Marcali, @Durruti

Replies: @Marcali, @Pop Warner

Germany winning WWII means Germans exterminating tons of Russians, other Slavs and 'undesirables' and reducing the rest to slave status.

It doesn't mean Germany victory over UK and US. At best, the German-led order would have dominated continental Europe and Russia. Germany had no means to invade the UK that was safeguarded by a powerful airforce and navy. And the US, forget it.

Even with German victory, UK and US would have remained independent of German power, and Jews could have taken over there just the same.

Or Jews, having invented the atom bomb first, could have used it on Nazi Germany.

Replies: @Valjean72, @Marcali

And what qualifies him to take on this role? According to the New York Times, “Mr. Garland told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was determined to hold Russians accountable for war crimes they are committing in Ukraine” because his “family escaped the Holocaust in Eastern Europe.”[6]
Wait, didn’t the Russians liberate Auschwitz?
 

Replies: @Marcali, @Shamu, @Thomas Covenant Unbeliever, @OilcanFloyd, @anonymous

>What is wrong with free nations joining NATO?

In the theoretical fantasy world of women, manlets, and faggots, nothing -- but in the real world where real nations, led by real men, have legitimate security interests and concerns which they feel must be protected, there's a lot wrong with Ukraine joining NATO -- it crosses a red line declared many years ago by Russia (link):

Putin’s Munich speech: "NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself, or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust."
 

Russia and Putin watched as NATO aggressively (and needlessly) expanded, in violation of assurances given to Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Putin waited 8 long years before recognizing the autonomy of the LPR and the DPR (link); it was clearly a step he did not want to take -- he wanted a negotiated settlement, and was willing to accept and maintain the territorial status quo in eastern Ukraine -- but instead of acting in good faith, Ukraine and the West cynically used sham Minsk agreements to win time in order to arm Ukraine.

Also, one the last things poor, second world nations of the former Eastern Bloc ought to be doing is spend money modernizing their military to be NATO compatible, benefiting the US military industrial complex.

How much of a sacrifice would it have been?

Replies: @Folkvangr, @Marcali

Replies: @Priss Factor, @Marcali

" According to the sources cited, the German-led invasion force included 3,350–3,795 tanks and
3,030–3,072 other AFVs, with the latter including 1,055 armored half-tracks, 1,367 armored cars, 301 assault guns, and 257 tank destroyers. This numbers seem to roughly match what I’ve read in various histories. "

Well, if you want to count half-tracks (most of which were not armored) and artillery (but I agree that Sturms should be counted), so maybe you should refer to the total number of armored vehicles Germany used (most in the Eastern front), it was some 50,000, as we see it in Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

The main point I made against your article was not 7000 armoured vehicles used by Germany in Operation Barbarossa, but that the amount of simply tanks in Operation Barbarossa was much bigger than in this Ukraine war. The Soviet Union used some 100,000 tanks in the war against Germany, while in the war against Ukraine Russia only has about 6500 usable tanks (and only 3300 of them were operational tanks before the war, so those pulled from storage are being fast upgraded now by adding explosive armor to T-72Bs and night vision to T-62 (yes, they use T-62s in this war).

The estimate of the number of Russian tanks that has been destroyed in Western sources, like US and UK intelligence, is not from the Oryx pages (though the New York times etc. do use Oryz as it is public information). It is from satellite images. There are many satellite images of the operational tank and storage tank areas and one can count how many tanks have disappeared from there. For instance, close to Finland there are Russian garrisons. In the Summer, when I looked at the satellite photons, they were half-empty. The way the Western militaries estimate things is quite sound and your doubts are not justified. Russia has lost 2000-3000 tanks in this war, and the militaries have mlore precise estimates that they do not tell.

Replies: @Marcali

1. Ukraine is not a sovereign nation. Since declaring "sovereignty" in 1992, the UN is waiting for the required paperwork to declare them, as you say, a free nation. One thing required is delineated borders and treaties or agreements with EVERY bordering country agreeing to said boundaries. The Ukraine has yet to furnish said agreements. They've been in a border dispute with Poland FOR DECADES and they'll never get an agreement with Russia until those eastern Russian speaking areas are allowed (as voted 98% in a free referendum) to rejoin Russia. So if they aren't according to INTERNATIONAL LAW a sovereign nation, then why do you call them a "nation"???
2. What's wrong with a free nation like Cuba being allowed to put Russian missiles on their land after having been invaded by America????

Replies: @Marcali

because if they do they won't be free anymore.

Replies: @Marcali

Replies: @Donald A Thomson, @Neddal, @Tallest Skil, @Anonymous, @Observator, @Passing By, @Paul S, @PetrOldSack, @Paul S, @GMC, @PetrOldSack, @Marcali, @Poupon Marx, @profnasty, @anonymous, @Johnny 99, @QCIC

Wars that Ukraine started since Jesus Christ:

-zero-

Wars that Russia/Soviet Union started:
Ehem:
(THAT HISTORY DOWN THERE, 👇IS "ONLY" UNTIL 1748...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
(if you were a school principal and they bring you two kids who just had a fight over a pencil, and you know that one of them has been to your office 💯 times, who do you immediately assume is the one who started the fight and is a trouble maker?).

1654–1667 First Northern War Eastern Europe Russia
Cossack Hetmanate

Poland-Lithuania
Crimean Khanate

Truce of Andrusovo
1656–1658 Second Northern War

Russian troops besiege Riga in 1656
Northern Europe Russia Sweden Inconclusive
Treaty of Valiesar
Treaty of Cardis
1662–1664 First Bashkir Rebellion Bashkortostan Russia Bashkir rebels Inconclusive; political defeat
The Russian government was forced to accept Bashkir demands
1670–1671 Razin's Rebellion

Razin's rebels in Astrakhan
Russia Russia Cossacks under Stepan Razin Victory
The rebellion is crushed
1676–1681 Feodor III's Turkish War Ukraine Russia Turkey
Crimean Khanate

Indecisive[3]
Treaty of Bakhchisarai
1683–1700 Great Turkish War

Russian troops capture Azov
Eastern Europe Russia (from 1686)
Austria
Poland-Lithuania
Cossack Hetmanate

Turkey
Crimean Khanate

Treaty of Constantinople
Russia stopped paying regular tribute to Crimea
1700–1721 Great Northern War

Russian troops assault the island fortress of Nöteborg

Russian troops capture Narva
Europe Russia
Denmark–Norway (1700, 1709–)
Saxony (1700–6, 1709–)
Poland-Lithuania (1700–4, 1709–)
Cossack Hetmanate (1700–8)
Prussia (1715–)
Hanover (1715–)
Great Britain (1717–19)

Sweden
Holstein-Gottorp
Poland-Lithuania (1704–09)
Turkey (1710–14)
Cossack Hetmanate (1708–09)
Great Britain (1700, 1719–21)

against Sweden
Treaty of Nystad
Defeat by Turkey
Treaty of the Pruth
1704–1711 Third Bashkir Rebellion Bashkortostan and Tatarstan Russia Bashkir rebels Military victory, political defeat
Russian government forced to accept some Bashkir demands
1707–1708 Bulavin Rebellion Southern Russia Russia Don Cossack rebels Victory
The rebellion is crushed
1717 Peter the Great's Khivan War Khanate of Khiva Russia Khanate of Khiva Defeat
Russian invasion of Khanate of Khiva repelled
1717–1847 Kazakh-Russian conflicts Kazakhstan Russia
Bashkirs
Cossack rebels

Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz tribes
Khanate of Khiva

Victory
The annexation of Kazakhstan into Russia
Russian Empire (1721–1917)
Date Conflict Location Russia and its allies Opponent(s) Result
1722–1723 Persian Expedition of Peter the Great Caucasus and northern Iran Russia
Cossack Hetmanate
Armenia
Georgia

Persia Victory
Treaty of Saint Petersburg
1733–1738 War of the Polish Succession Rhineland

Depiction of the Siege of Danzig by Russian and Saxon forces in 1734
Poland Poland under
Augustus III of Poland
Russia
Austria
Saxony
Prussia

Poland under Stanisław Leszczyński
France
Spain
Sardinia

Indecisive
Treaty of Vienna
1735–1739 Russo-Austro-Turkish War Eastern Europe Russia
Cossack Hetmanate
Austria

Turkey
Crimea
Victory
Russian victory
Austrian defeat
Treaty of Niš
1735–1740 Fourth Bashkir Rebellion Bashkortostan Russia
pro-Russian Bashkirs
Bashkir rebels Victory
The rebellion is crushed
Establishment of Orenburg
1740–1748 War of the Austrian Succession Europe

THAT'S "ONLY" UNTIL 1748...
SO, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
Again, if you were a teacher in a school and they bring you two kids who just had a fight over a pencil, and you know that one of them has been to your office 💯 times, who do you immediately assume is the one who started the fight?

Replies: @Political Science 101, @Marcali, @JR Foley

>Ukraine did nothing to Russia

What did Vietnam do to America? -- Grenada? -- Panama? -- Serbia? -- Afghanistan? -- Iraq? -- Libya? -- Syria? -- etc -- you're one of the malevolently unreasonable, belligerently stupid people I mentioned.

How much of a sacrifice would it have been for the US to simply say, out of respect for the security interests of Russia, that Ukraine would not be allowed to become a member of NATO? -- how much of a sacrifice would it have been for the EU to say Ukraine would not be offered full membership, but instead it and Russia would both be offered commercial access to the EU under the same, favorable conditions?

As I said before (link), the problem today is that the West is run by women, manlets, and literal faggots, people who don't understand that if you bully and humiliate MEN long enough, they will eventually fight back.

https://www.investwithalex.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/nato-expansion.jpg

Replies: @Marcali, @Juvenalis, @eah

That would simply imply what the population would be if the trend in population growth continued as previously and not how many people were actually killed. The negative blips are mostly due to people killed and who died of whatever cause and they hardly add up to what you mentioned.

Replies: @Marcali

I am not convinced. Here's an illustration of Russia's population since 1897.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Russia_population_1897-2010.png/800px-Russia_population_1897-2010.png?20110219194228

Other than WWII and the Civil War there have been no major drops in population numbers, and perhaps a couple of million during a year of hunger. If anything it is capitalism which is killing off the Russians as made clear at the top of the graph.

Replies: @Marcali

On further review, the correct term would be "cumulative". "Rolled" as you use it to stand in for "cumulative" is jargon or a slang term, at least in this context.

The 61,000,000 killed figure might not be accurate. Adult men of productive years undoubtedly would have to represent some large proportion of that number. If the Soviet regime killed off that many of the inherently most productive group within society, how did the regime build up industry, fight and win massive a war and then compete with the United States in world power for the next four decades?

There may be an answer, but we need to know what it is.

Replies: @John Johnson, @Marcali

Most of these "X billion people died from communism!" claims all come from CIA propaganda like "Black Book of Communism." They have no relation to reality.

Replies: @Marcali

'Hitler' did not invade Poland, Germany and the U.S.S.R. split it.

As I said, a joint victory parade was held, and photographs of it are still extant.

Poland had its own territorial adventures in 1938, cutting off a bit of then Czechoslovakia, and a little elsewhere IIRC.
　

Stalin was massing troops to take Germany and then the rest of Europe. That’s why the Eastern Front was such a bloodbath; the Soviets were preparing for a defensive, not an offensive war
 

Replies: @Marcali

This adds up to about 225,000,000 dead in about 70 years. Seriously, the Soviet women of childbearing age must all have been constantly pregnant to make up for these staggering losses, the ones who weren't themselves dead of course. How did the Soviet Union rebuild after World War II and for decades thereafter compete with the West in the space race and in military power with everybody dead? How did they defeat the Wehrmacht with everybody dead?

I think there is something wrong with these numbers. You know. You know.

Replies: @Mark G., @Hulkamania, @Wokechoke, @Marcali

Replies: @Marcali, @HdC

While it is thought that the lend lease scheme did shorten the war
it is not thought to have been decisive in the outcome in the East
IE: Russia would have won regardless.

The UK on the other hand could have fallen without lend lease.

PS. Lend lease was eventually repaid it was a loan not a gift.

Replies: @Bookish1, @Marcali

Replies: @Treg, @Franz, @Marcali, @Priss Factor, @Tallest Skil, @Anon, @Slav, @Anonymous, @Robert Dolan

Replies: @Curmudgeon, @Wokechoke, @Fluesterwitz, @Joe Wong, @Che Guava, @Andi, @annamaria, @Valdemar IV

Did the Russkies ever pay for any of those billions in war materials, perhaps secretly via gold shipments to America, or did the commie double agent FDR just give it all gratis to his best buddy Stalin? I don't think even historians know the full truth of this Russia collusion. And who was really calling the shots during World War Jew? The globalist ziocabal?

Replies: @Wokechoke, @Marcali

The excess death of the Red Army was due to the communist way of warfare:
 

Most of the casualties cited by the Russians, were of their CIVILIANS. European Russia was heavily damaged by the war. Retreating German troops burned and executed as they ran. Much of this is cited in Clark's "Barbarossa." Russian prisoners, were brutally treated & murdered by the millions. The Russians returned the favor, after their victory at Stalingrad.

German Generals such as Brauchitsch, opposed the War, from the beginning. They insisted Germany would lose such a war. Hitler, ever the Zionist agent of the Rothschilds and other Oligarchs, followed their directions, to the ruin of Germany, and the rest of Europe (the Zionist aim - was to create a shock-effect that would drive the Jewish people to seize the land of another people, the Palestinians).

War is rarely begun for good reasons, and rarely ends with any good results. My grandfather, a career officer in the US Navy, participated in the War Crime trials that were held in Japan after the conflict. He told me that the major criminals got away. I, not yet a teenager, did not understand him.

It is a pleasure discussing these important Histories with you. Keep Thinking!

Dr, Peter J. Antonsen - nom de guerre, Durruti

Replies: @Marcali

Replies: @Marcali

Whom should we rely on reliable History?
 

Replies: @Marcali

Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the gulag system.” (“Stalin’s Jews,”, Sever Plocker. YNet News, 2006)
 

Those who push -

Jewish Guilt for Soviet Crimes

 

commit the crime of PROPAGANDA.

There is much Trash on "Unz Review."

*Soviet crimes are overstated, as Zionist/American imperialist crimes are understated.

"the Red Army, led by the Jew Leon Trotsky and his Jewish subordinates Ephraim Sklyanksy and Jacov Sverdlov, murdered between 120,000 and 150,000 people. (Two Hundred Years Together, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Chapter 16. Columbus Falco, translator)"

*Never rely on Solzhenitsyn for reliable History.

Replies: @Marcali

{And how far was St.Petersburg from the Crimea?}


How far is Stalingrad from Budapest?
What were Hungarian Nazi troops doing there, killing and murdering Russians?
How far are the Falkland Islands from London?
How far are Hawaii Islands from Washington D.C.?

How far are nomad Turks from East and Central Asia, their real homeland, from Crimea?
What happened to all the indigenous Christian peoples of Asia Minor -- Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks -- when nomad Muslim Turks invaded from their homelands in Uyguristan and exterminated them?

Muslim Turks and Tatars had established a base in Crimea, from where they kept raiding Slavic/Russian lands, abducted Slavs, and sold them into slavery. Millions of Christians were thus fed to the savages. Until Catherin the Great sent the Russian military to clean out the savage nomad infestation from Crimea.

France and England are indirectly responsible for the Genocide of Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks. Without their help, Ottoman Turks would have been crushed by Tsarist Russia, their criminal empire would be dismantled and they would be in no position to carry out a Genocide.

Replies: @John Johnson, @Marcali

Replies: @Anon, @Political Science 101, @Marcali, @anarchyst, @Doug Ryler, @anonymous, @Richard B

What is the incidence of taxation in your case now?
A friend of mine said they require a copy of tax return at some churches. Erosion of trust in full display, man. LOL.

Replies: @Marcali

Perhaps a more interesting and relevant question would be WHY Britain, France, and Turkey attacked Russia in the Crimean War.

Britain and France are literally thousands of miles away from the Black Sea. Nothing that goes on there is any of their business.

Turkey was at odds with Russia mainly because the Russian government was trying to protect Christians who lived under Turkish rule from persecution. The British and French didn't care then - as they don't care now - about Christians living in the Near East or, for that matter, anywhere else.

Had Russia been in a position to send fleets and armies to attack and capture Portsmouth, Le Havre, and Brest - killing hundreds of thousands of British and French people in the process - how would the Western history books assess that?

Replies: @Wokechoke, @Marcali

This is so typical of a religious mind: If you do not give your money to some dudes who live off your labor (parasitic priests), than you are the lowest form of life. You are incapable to fathom that a superstion-free individual can be human, raise a family and be an honest man. This IS a satanic way of reasoning. Only Satan can think along these lines, only Satan can deny you the right to spiritual freedom and decency. If, according to what you adhere is true and there is a supreme force up there, then it is Good and Evil in One. I just can't see how the mess we have been in here for so long can be explained or redeemed by any faith or sacrifices.

Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Marcali, @Wokechoke

Replies: @HammerJack, @Marcali, @Wizard of Oz, @Lurker, @anonyms, @fish

Replies: @Realist, @Anon, @Brosi, @Joe Wong, @Slav, @Kinky Friedman, @Abbott Hall, @Marcali

Replies: @JWalters

Putin does not want Washington’s nuclear missiles parked on his western border.
 

Replies: @Dieboomerdie, @Anon, @Marcali, @Curmudgeon

Democracy allows 50%-1 vote to come from stupid people, still the smart ones win. You cannot devise a better system for smart solutions to rule.

Replies: @Joe Levantine, @Marcali

Replies: @Marcali, @theMann, @Old Brown Fool, @CSFurious, @Joe Levantine, @Tiska

But it is very plausible in this situation. 1) Donbass had been BEGGING Russia to take them over back in 2014 - just like they did when Crimea asked. Since Russia didn’t - they declared independence. That’s what the fight has been about for 8 years. Aside from that - Anyone who was remotely pro Ukrainian had left after February.

Replies: @Marcali

Donetsk: 99%
Lugansk: 98%
Zaporozhie: 93%
Kherson: 87%

This is how the people of the Ukraine vote in free elections when they are uncoerced by Nazi thugs. May other regions get to vote in the future in similar free referenda, after their Russian language is legalised, their Russian political parties are legalised, and their Russian media is legalised and free to operate. It looks like only the Russian army can now ensure these free and democratic conditions since the collective West is firmly behind Nazi thuggery and repression.

About Germany, why don't they rise against their Yankee occupier? So Yanks have bases there. Soviet bases did not stop the Hungarian people rising in revolt. So they lost in 1956, but now they are free. Well they still need to free themselves from the EU and NATO but foreign bases are no excuse not to rise up in defense of your own interests.

Replies: @Marcali

I am aware of Geifman with having an interest in Revolutionary Russia, what is the purpose of your copy-paste here? I don't see it.

And of course Lenin is responsible for deaths well before he assumed the throne of Red Czardom by giving instructions from abroad.
 

Lenin left Russia in 1905 and did not return until April of 1917, he was out of the Russian Empire for over a decade. You think he was in exile with his wife, mother and two sisters carrying out in his spare time assassinations?

Replies: @Marcali

Apart from digging them out of their graves and putting their bones on trial, I don't see how Russia could have judged Jewish Bolsheviks for their crimes.

Replies: @Marcali

It's interesting that Yakovlev's book is published by Yale University Press, yet not included as part of their Annals of Communism Series. I get the feeling that Jonathan Brent did this out of respect for who Yakovlev was, but as it was largely a tirade motivated by his own religiously charged dogma he decided it was not of the standards to include in their series.

For those unaware, the Annals of Communism series was founded in 1992 by Jonathan Brent on behalf of a personal grant secured to Yale in 1991 by George Soros that opened the Soviet archives to Western scholars, Yale first then came Harvard etc.--the annals is the most comprehensive series on Communism published in the West.

Yakovlev's rantings are somewhat humourous, still though his claims are unfounded. How is Lenin responsible for the deaths in the Civil War, into War communism and the resulting Soviet famine of 1921-1922? How is a country invaded morally responsible for deaths resulting afterwards, as claimed by Yakovlev's 30 million alone on Stalin. The highest death tolls for example in the Gulag also came with Hitler's invasion in 1941, Stalin is responsible for those as well? I see no value in ordering this book having read the pages on Google book previews.

Replies: @Marcali

Thanks, I can't seem to locate a PDF scan so I'll probably order a copy.

I have noticed on Google books that Yakovlev spends much time castigating the Bolsheviks for practically every outcome. He blames Lenin personally responsible for up to 10 million deaths just from the Civil War, 1918-1921 seems quite hastily and quite ridiculous. He then blames Stalin on p. 16 personally responsible for almost 30 million deaths for being unprepared for Germany's invasion of the USSR...

How is this supposed to be unbiased? p. 32 he blames Stalin for 60-70 million deaths, claims Stalin didn't have time for them, and after Stalin departed to hell to report to the devil. Lol. Also blames Lenin for the Soviet famine of 1921-1922 and the 5 million died.

The theme continues.

Replies: @Marcali

Nobel Prize-winning author and historian Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that Jews ran the Soviet gulags where 66 million Russians perished from 1917 to 1953. (Solzhenitsyn’s source for the 66 mln figure was a friend at Leningrad University, Ivan Alekseevich Kurganov, an economist and statistics professor with access to Soviet archives.)
 

"Three Numbers"

Here is what Kurganov reported in his work "Three Figures", which was repeatedly published in the emigre press, and in 1990 was also published in the newspaper "Arguments and Facts" number 13 (494):

“F. Dostoevsky back in 1871 suggested that the social reorganization of society could cost the people one hundred million heads.

The revolution in Russia began with the uprising of 1917, then unfolded in the Civil War, industrialization, collectivization and the complete reorganization of society. During this time, the people suffered really big losses, especially in the initial period of the revolution and during the period of Stalin's dictatorship.

Here are some numbers:

- the population of Russia in 1917 within the borders before September 17, 1939 was 143.5 million;

- natural population growth for 1918–1939 it should normally be 64.4 million (according to a coefficient of 1.7, taken as the basis for the demographic calculations of the State Planning Committee of the USSR);

- mechanical population growth in 1940 - 20.1 million people. This includes the population of the territories annexed in 1940, as well as subsequent annexations (900 thousand - Carpathian Rus, 100 thousand - Tuva and the population of the borders with Poland specified in 1945);

- natural population growth 1940–1959 within modern boundaries, it should normally be 91.5 million;

- therefore, the total population in 1959 must have been 319.5 million;
- in fact, according to the 1959 census, there were 208.8 million.

The total population loss is 110.7 million people.

Thus, the population of the USSR lost in connection with the events of 1917–1959. one hundred and ten million human lives."

110 million human lives - simply monstrous losses!"

Mendeleev and the Finns

The most interesting thing is that they are not the limit. And you can deduce an even larger scale price of Bolshevism in Russia from the work of a much more authoritative scientist than Kurganov - Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev.

The father of the periodic system of elements was interested not only in chemistry, but also in other sciences, in particular demography. In 1906, in the work “To the Knowledge of Russia”, he wrote, based on the data of the first all-Russian census of 1897:

“For the whole of Russia, taken as a whole, on the basis of data collected by the Central Statistical Committee of Min-va V.D. on the number of births and dying, must accept an increase of no less than 15 people. per year per 1000 inhabitants. This assumption gives the following probable number of the total population of Russia over the years:... 1950 - 282.7 million. 2000 - 594.3 million.

According to official data from the 1989 All-Union Population Census, 286.7 million people lived in the USSR. That is, starting from Mendeleev's forecast, we can say that the Soviet regime cost Russia 250-300 million human lives. These figures, by the way, were cited in 1996, during the presidential race, in order to prove that only "bloody maniacs" can vote for the communist Gennady Zyuganov. Until you, dear readers, run away to hang communists on poles and demand Nuremberg-2, I suggest you compare the Soviet Union with Finland.

Having left the Russian Empire and safely not falling under the rule of the Bolsheviks, Suomi, according to the same scheme for calculating population growth, should have had 6.34 million people by 1960. But in reality it had 4.43 million.

Finland had its own Civil War, in which the “whites” won, and it claimed about 30 thousand lives. The Soviet-Finnish and World War II together claimed about 130,000 Finns. Even if all these losses are rounded up to 200 thousand, the question arises - where are the other 1.7 million Finns? Are these the victims of the bloody regime of Mannerheim and his followers? And who else could exterminate a third of the population of the country?!

Wrong Method

The thing is that the calculations of Mendeleev and his contemporaries were based on the fact that the population growth rate would remain at the same level as at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

However, later studies by demographic scientists discovered a phenomenon called the "demographic transition". Its essence lies in the fact that any country in the course of its socio-economic development goes through three demographic stages. On the first of them, the population grows slowly, since a high birth rate is offset by an equally high death rate. Then, thanks to the development of medicine, the death rate drops sharply, while the birth rate remains at a high level. As a result, population growth increases dramatically. This is the second stage. Finally, there is a decrease in the birth rate and, as a result, a decrease in population growth. This is the third stage. The reasons for the decline in the birth rate lie in the transition of the bulk of the population to an urban lifestyle, the emancipation of women, etc.

That is, to put it simply, a developed society is going through a process of declining population growth. In modern Europe, it has reached a level where the natural increase is either minimal or turns into a natural decline.

And when Kurganov in his work draws the USSR a growth rate of 1.7, he is silent that in the 1920s-1940s the growth rate in Great Britain was 0.49 percent, in Germany - 0.61, and in France - even 0, 13. And the growth rate of 1.7, declared as accepted by the State Planning Commission, is in fact the growth rate of the population of the Russian Empire in 1909-1913.

The more successfully the Soviet Union developed, the lower its population growth rate, as in other developed countries, became.

Kurganov's theme, Solzhenitsyn's arrangement

Mendeleev did not know about this. And Kurganov? Of course he did. Then why did you keep lying?

Because he really wanted to eat. Selling serious research about the USSR in the West in the Cold War era was much more difficult than political "horror films"

By the way, Ivan Alekseevich Kurganov died in New York in 1980, just a few years before the moment when the whistleblowers of the horrors of Stalinism already in the USSR began to cite his work as evidence of the scale of the “communist terror”.

Interestingly, even in emigre circles, Kurganov's manipulations were well known and seriously criticized.

“And what does Solzhenitsyn have to do with it? - an admirer of the writer's work will be indignant. - Well, the author referred to an unreliable source, he also emphasized that he did not come up with these figures himself!

Let's start with the fact that Solzhenitsyn, who positioned himself not just as a writer, but as a researcher, could not help but know about the viciousness of Kurganov's calculations. But that's not the point. Solzhenitsyn gave Kurganov's figures a meaning that he himself did not put into them.

What does Kurganov write? “The population of the USSR lost in connection with the events of 1917–1959. one hundred and ten million human lives."

And Solzhenitsyn says: "So, in total we have lost from the socialist system - 110 million people."

That is, the Nobel laureate declares everyone to be victims of socialism: both tens of millions of phantoms, which, as proved above, should not have appeared due to the laws of demography, and 27 million who died in the Great Patriotic War, and victims of the "Red Terror", and victims "great terror", and the victims of the "white terror", and the White Guards, and the Red Army, and innocent emigrants, and those who, like Kurganov, became Nazi accomplices and fled to the West, fleeing from well-deserved retribution. The author of The Gulag Archipelago lumped everyone into one heap - both real and virtual, and Bolsheviks, and enemies of the Bolsheviks.
 

Replies: @soll, @geokat62, @Hector Lives, @Marcali

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Passing By, @Druid55, @Bukowski, @Marcali

Replies: @Marcali

You forgot to add Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, among many others....

Replies: @Marcali