These are bad times for Barak Obama, and humiliations seems to fall upon him every day. Yesterday it what a double-whammy: first NBC and the WSJ announced that Obama’s approval rating were at a historical low and then Forbes announced that Obama’s most hated adversary, Vladimir Putin, had displaced him in the Forbes world’s most powerful person list and was now the most powerful person on the planet, followed by Obama and right after him Xi Jinping.
Of course, these are pure “media events” or, more accurately, non-events. Nothing really happened. But to a image and media centric politician like Obama these are very, very bitter pills to swallow because the send him a double message: both the people and the elites see you as a loser, in sharp contrast to Putin who is viewed as *the* big leader with whom everybody has to deal to get anything done.
Even the always hyper submissive and unconditionally subservient European leaders are taking some wholly symbolic, ambiguous and oblique steps to express their (wholly hypocritical and fake) dissatisfaction with the USA. Another non-event, and yet its also a real humiliation: since when do US colonial satraps get to voice criticisms, even indirect ones?!
In many ways, Obama has proven to be even more incompetent that Dubya because while under (Bush) “Junior” most of the planet did hate the USA, there still was a small list of countries which remained loyal to the USA no matter what: Israel, the KSA and the EU. Obama has managed to alienate even those.
Obama is now hated and despised everywhere, at home and abroad, while his most determined adversary is praised for his strength. I can’t say I am sorry for him because while I personally never believed a word he said, I know of many good and decent people who really believe that Obama represented “change we can believe in”. Obama betrayed these people and he deserves every bit of the humiliation he is now subjected to.
The Saker
Saker Message:
and yesterday Obama decided not to attend Game 6 at Fenway Park even though he was in Boston all day… Even Bush II had the balls to show up and face the boos a few years ago.
Bush II’s foreign policy was criminal and catastrophic but in some ways I prefer Dubya to Obama. Dubya delivered for his constituency and probably believed in the things he claimed to stand for (I doubt he had any idea of the truth behind (9/11) Obama has betrayed all those who had such hopes in him. He is the living embodiment of what Malcolm X meant when he compared the liberal fox to the conservative wolf. At least the wolf doesn’t pretend to be your friend.
Then Snowden gets a job in Russia and the news for the potus just keeps turning down. It doesn’t bother me a bit but I know how mean they are so anything can happen and it won’t be good for Main Street.
Thanks Robert for your last sentences:)
@Robert:Malcolm X meant when he compared the liberal fox to the conservative wolf. At least the wolf doesn’t pretend to be your friend.
I fully agree. I also think of all the times when Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said that he much preferred Likud in power than the Labor party, it’s the same deal. And in the US Democrats are definitely more dangerous than the Republicans. Dubya was an insecure, ignorant idiot and probably a nice guy. Obama is charming, highly educated, smart, and utterly completely immoral with not a single moral or ethical fiber in his entire body. Dubya would be easy to break since he is a weakling, but Obama would betray his mother if that brought him an advantage. Just remember how he betrayed his own pastor (Jeremiah Wright) with zero scruples or how he lacked the balls to stick to his comment that the Cambridge police was stupid (notice – he did not even have the courage to call them racist).
Just before Obama was elected the first time I posted this little something about Obama:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-would-malcolm-x-say-about-barak.html
Five years later I can only say that Obama is a typical “house Negro”, just like the rest of them: Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Susan Rice, Eric Holder and all the other “Toms” while in power while “field Negroes” Cynthia McKinney are booted out of Congress courtesy of AIPAC…
As for the Malcolm X types – they simply get murdered…
Speaking of Malcolm X – I miss his compelling personality and presence (even though I only saw him on old video footage) every day. Just imagine for one second if Malcolm X was alive today! Imagine what he would have to say about what is going on. Yet all that’s left is spineless subservient sheep who serve the System and never dare to challenge any aspects of it. They can’t even recognize Malcolm X for the giant he was. How sad.
The Saker
Obama never “betrayed” anyone. People fooled themselves and need to take responsibility.
Candidate Obama sang the irresistibly sweet Siren’s telling his Believers that he would protect their rights with respect to the FISA laws. Immediately after Candidate Obama got the nomination at the Democratic Convention he switched his vote with respect to FISA.
Jaws dropped but the fooled voted for him anyways — TWICE.
Obama is the greatest liar ever to sit in the White House, even Nixon was better than Obama. Or are they the same?
I will never, ever vote for anyone again. This man, murdered hope.
Fernando
@saker
A little off topic.
I had a Syrian working for me last year. We used to discuss about the air duels fought between Syria and Israel during the yom kipur war. I was amazed that the Syrian side caused that much damage as he claimed. I was sceptical so I read whatever I could. Do you have any write ups on that or anything else you can point me towards? Since all Syrian equipment was Russian/Soviet , I assumed you would know about it.
As for Obama, thre was an interview with Jimmy Carter on Bbc where early in Obama’s presidency he was talking about the kind of pressure Obama was under. I think Obama got fed up with all the people pressing on him. He’s trying to make a dying system survive. And much of his behaviour fits in with your Anglo theory.
Regarding Bush, an Indian journalist Saeed Naqvi (a shi’ite) was giving a lecture on geopolitics in the Middle East. And he spoke of another journalist M J Akbar (a Sunni) telling him that if the Shias had or believed in a 13th Imam, Bush would be him since Bush had removed every enemy Shia Iran had.
I am sorry I don’t provide links or references.
Mindfriedo
@saker
Check it out Pepe Escobar has linked your article
http://rt.com/op-edge/obama-bombs-putin-rules-074/
Mindfriedo
@Mindfriedo: I was amazed that the Syrian side caused that much damage as he claimed.
While his figures could have been inflated, there is no doubt that the Israelis had huge losses, especially from Syrian air defense systems. You have to realize that the Israelis have one thing in common with the Americans: they never admit to combat losses unless they are trivial, or they are forced to admit them. The 2nd thing you really need to understand is that the Israelis are nowhere near the great soldiers they like their propaganda says. Lastly, US military equipment is vastly over-rated, ridiculously so really. So this is when you meet Vietnamese, Syrian, Afghan or Iraqi soldiers who have been on the receiving end of REAL US/Israeli military they are far less impressed than those of us who get their news from the TV. I would even argue that this kind of “we are invincible” has another very bad consequence: not only does the opposing side realize pretty soon that this is all bull, the US/Israeli soldiers who ALSO are indoctrinated in this kind of nonsense undergo a very nasty shock when they realize that the “gooks” or “sand niggers” not only do not run, but that they fight back, often with more courage and skills than the US/Israelis can muster. And that has a devastating consequence for morale. This is why the best American soldiers are those who have learned NOT to trust their own propaganda, but who did not break down when faced with a determined enemy. Then they become very, very effective indeed. For the Israelis, this is harder, because unlike the Americans, they are prone to panic as soon as their racist ideology of supremacy collapses. Typically, the Israelis go from total arrogance and hubris, to utter panic and despondency. This is what happened to them in 2006 against Hezbollah.
if the Shias had or believed in a 13th Imam, Bush would be him since Bush had removed every enemy Shia Iran had.
HAHAHAHA!! This is a good one – I will have to share that with some of my Shia friends. Seriously, while Bush was clearly no Imam, he was the victim of an absolutely *brilliant* Iranian strategic ploy to redirect the Neocon warmongering from Iran to Iraq. One day in the future somebody will research the role of the Iranians in manipulating the Iraqi exiles and these dumb Neocon bastards and how they managed to get Dubya to free Iraq from Saddam and pretty much hand it over to various Shia groups, at least a good part of it. Iranians are world-class diplomats and world-class intelligence specialists who pulled off a real miracle of strategic thought: they managed to develop their country without ever giving the US a good excuse to attack them. Likewise, their patronage of Hezbollah and their current low-key but effective role in protecting Syria is nothing short of brilliant. I deeply admire these folks who are smarter than their Israeli or US counterparts by several orders of magnitude, imnsho…
Check it out Pepe Escobar has linked your article
Pepe is really being very very kind to me, which especially makes me happy since I have an immense respect for him. All I can say is that I am deeply honored by his kind support for my modest efforts.
Cheers!
The Saker
Hi Saker, And Mindfriedo.
Regarding the 1973 war, some Egyptians rather unfairly belittle Syria’s accomplishments, which were quite impressive. Early in the war, The Israelis had to concentrate most of their forces in the north since Syria is closer to Israel proper. In the south, they could afford to trade space in the Sinai for time. This gave Egypt an excellent opportunity, which they failed to take, to seize the central passes in the Sinai. When they finally tried on October 14, the Syrian attack had been beaten back and the Israelis had ample time and plenty of resupplied US equipment to move their forces south.
It was a tragedy and one that rested on betrayal. Hafez al Assad agreed to join Sadat in the war on the promise that Egypt intended to move towards and take the central Sinai passes. In fact, Sadat only intended to grab a 10 km sliver of land east of the Suez Canal. Egypt’s Chief of Staff, General Saad el Din Shazli revealed this fact in his book about the war (he was declared persona non grata in Egypt when he denounced the camp David accords and had to go into exile for a while, and to spend 3 years in prison when he returned…thus Egypt rewards its best heroes.)
The “13 the Imam” did quite inadvertently do a great favor to Iran. I look forward to a “14th Imam” to destroy the House of Saud.
“So this is when you meet Vietnamese, Syrian, Afghan or Iraqi soldiers who have been on the receiving end of REAL US/Israeli military they are far less impressed than those of us who get their news from the TV”
This is demonstrated in an eye opening documentary called Restrepo, has anyone seen it? Naturally it did not receive that much attention because of how realistically it shows the “war” as pointless, futile, and just generally stupid it really is. Very little modern warfare takes place on the traditional battlefield of army vs army looking each other in the eye and going toe-to-toe. Nowadays it’s fought with airstrikes, robots, intelligence and, increasingly, computers.
@SG: Restrepo
Yes, Restrepo is a very good documentary (for those who have not seen it you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqzj2P2EqDQ or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zk0Ipk5Jbo).
Nowadays it’s fought with airstrikes, robots, intelligence and, increasingly, computers.
Well, here I disagree. Or, I would put it this way – wars which will be fought with airstrikes and robots will also be *lost* because – with the exception of some aspects of arial and naval warfare – most warfare will still center on the moral qualites of the soldiers participating in it. If anything, the Divine Victory of Hezbollah over Israel was the perfect illustration of the fact the outcome of even very modern wars can be decided by the moral qualiteis of the soliders.
True, the US *wants* to fight wars with technology, but when is the last time the US actually did win a meaningful war? Which is ironical because when forced to count on their own individual qualities and not on technology, US soliders can fight very well (as they did in the Pacific during WWII or in Korea). But that over-reliance on technology actually weakens the US military (and produces grotesque monsters like the F-35)
My 2cts,
The Saker
“most warfare will still center on the moral qualites of the soldiers participating in it.”
True, good point. I suppose this is reflected in the fact that the US hasn’t really “won” anything since, like you said, WWII, in large part for the simple reason that the soliders’ hearts and minds aren’t in it. I’ve often said that the last “noble” war that was fought was WWII.
And one can write all day about the PTSD and suicide that result from these people witnessing such atrocities. It’s really so sad to see troubled young minds so thoroughly taken advantage of and sent off to foreign lands to kill the West’s manufactured “enemies”. I am no fan of any government, but I must say I am happy that my country (Canada) did not send my countrymen to (at least most of) the Middle East/North Africa.
“Barak Obama: hated, despised and humiliated both at home and abroad”
Is this really about obama? or is it about the office of the presidency?
The talking heads portrayal is to attach the blame on the person. In this case, after the next election, the legitimacy of the office will return, at least for a period of time. Hence the lying and deceptions continues.
One could only ‘hope’ that perhaps someday the american public would wake up and see the ‘regime’ for what it is and not just the person occupying the house.
About the US soldiers I always have to remember the anecdotes of my father and my uncle (my mothers brother). It was in WWII (I’m of pure German origin even if I’m French now). My father was one of the late recruited adolescents (he was 17 in 1945) that fortunately hadn’t had to fight. They surrendered at their first encounter with American troops. Their leading Officer had considered that the war was over and that it was pointless to send more children to their death*. So their battalion had to make sure to meat the Americans without risking engagement. So they hid in the forest and let the GI enter it (because they were moving) and on the signal of their Officer they rose up and revealed themselves with white flags. The situation was not really high intensity but was shocked the most my father and his buddies was the reaction of the American soldiers, they literally crapped their pants and went hystertical, probably because they were so oblivious of how they so easily ran into something that could have been a trap.
Story of uncle in next comment.
* This officer, an eastern front veteran, even shot 2 SS Officers who were running around trying to squelsh any surrendering efforts of the regular troops.
As for my uncle, he was always rolling his eyes when someone talked about the heroic US soldiers. They were according to him the worst wimps in the battlefield, they only had their massive quantitatively material superiority for them (it was said that it took 5 Sherman tanks to take out one Tiger, unfortnately there were 7 of them there). In the battlefield they were inadequate and broke down nervously at the first shot. That’s what my uncle told us and he would know, as he made it through the war in the Elite Paratroopers corps. He was on every major battlefield of the war: Eben-Emael, France, Crete, Russia, Finland, Italy (he was on Monte-Cassino nearly until the end). He survived, he was even decorated with goldene Nahkampfspange “golden close combat clasp”. He had deep respect for the Finns, the Russians, the French and Belgians soldiers but not for the GIs.
It’s only anecdotal and was told to me 40 years ago so I can not say it is incontrovertible truth, but that is what real soldiers said about them (there were also other anecdotes during the years that were in the same vein but now all the veterans of WWII I knew have died out, I can not reask for details).
What was my point with these anecdotes?
Don’t believe Hollywood (and mainstream) for an accurate depiction of people or historic events.
@gallier2: yes, the anecdotes you describe are similar to many others I heard also. And yet, we must also recall how the American fought the Japanese in the Pacific, often in very close combat, or how they fought in terrible conditions in Korea with, frankly, antiquated hardware. But yes, in WWII the Americans really had it easy if only because they very carefully waited until Germany was de-facto defeated before even entering the war seriously. And yet, having spent a lot of time with American officers I would caution anybody about underestimating the US military. Hollywood always shows us either crude brutes like Rambo or Ray-ban wearing jocks like this sissy Tom Cruise in Top Gun. What Hollywood does not show is the very well educated, highly patriotic, dedicated officer who does not underestimate his enemy, who does not freeze or run in panic (though crapping your pants is a reflex and not a result of cowardice) and who truly cares for his men. Having met these types myself I don’t want to forget to mention that they also exist. Also, and as in any other military, a lot depends on the branch of services and the unit we look at. But yes, I would agree that while the US society is a highly bellicose and violent one, the US culture is not a real warrior culture like the German used to be or like the Russian one. For one thing, when is the last time Americans fought to actually defend *their* land, families and country? Very few countries fight well in wars of aggression: the Germans – yes. The Brits – yes. The Russians – so,so. The French – no. The Japanese – yes. The Chinese – no. In fact, I think that there is a direct correlation between the degree of susceptibility to ideological brainwashing and propaganda and the ability to fight effective wars of aggression. The fact that the Americans are not that good at it just shows that its hard to really make them believe their own ideology. Same for the Russians, by the way. Whereas the Germans, Brits and Japanese will go in for “king/country/Reich/nippon/tenno” (you name it) and aggress very effectively.
Fun discussion, thanks! It reminds me of my years studying towards a degree in Strategic Studies (sigh of nostalgia!). Cheers!
The Saker
Interesting and in fact we’re on the same page here. My uncles anecdotes aside (and he was hardly objective, wasn’t he), I would nonetheless be careful with qualifying WWII as a war of agression of Germany. That is, of course, the standard view nowadays, but in that time, in the perspective of the Germans, it was felt from the getgo that they were the victims of an international cabal going back to WWI. I’m not saying that it was the case, I’m only saying that it was what Germans of that time believed. Therefore, their attack on Poland, Benelux, France and then even of the USSR, can be seen as preemptive strikes to defend the country. I know, this sounds rather revisionist, but what I try to express, is that big events can only be understood if one tries and accept the point of view of the other of that time.
@gallier2: their attack on Poland, Benelux, France and then even of the USSR, can be seen as preemptive strikes to defend the country.
Ok, I disagree with Poland, Benelux or France, but I do tend to agree with the famous ex-GRU spy Viktor Suvorov that Stalin had decided to attack Germany even before Germany attacked the USSR. Hitler only preempted a Soviet attack. HOWEVER,
Just listen to Hitler’s speeches, or read Mein Kampf (I did, every single page of it), there is no doubt at all that Hitler had the conquest of Europe in mind since the beginning and the fact that in the Soviet case he was just preempting an inevitable Soviet attack does not mean that he did not want to get the Russian “Lebensraum” anyway. If Stalin had been not a Communist but a hippie, if instead of guns the Soviet industry had been mass producing bongs, waterpipes and shiloms to distribute to a population of meditating peaceniks, Hitler would have attacked with just as much gusto as he did in reality. Only two words, when combined, tell you everything you know about Hitler’s view of Russia: “Lebensraum” and “Untermensch” (sounds like modern Israelis, no? LOL!)
this sounds rather revisionist
GOOD!!!!
ALL historical research is *by definition* revisionist, don’t you think? There is no point in writing the same stuff over and over and over again (unless you deal with school manuals). But any interesting historical research has to be revisionist to be valuable.
“Revisionist” is, like “discrimination” one of those very good and positive words which have been unfairly given a bad reputation which completely distorts their original meaning.
Take the example of Suvorov: his books contributed to a fantastic, wide, and deep re-interpretation of WWII. One does not even have to agree with his views (some of which are rather silly, by the way) to be thankful that he triggered a most interesting debate which involved a big part of the general public in Russia, Germany or Poland which otherwise would have never studied their recent history as after he published his famouns “Icebreaker” (“Ledokol” in Russian). His best book, however, is “The Purification” (“Ochishchenie” in Russian) and which has not been translated into French or English, at least to my knowledge. In this book he gives a completely different view of the so called “Stalin purges”. This book is 100% revisionist and fantastically interesting (convinced me for sure).
So anyway, LONG LIVE REVISIONISM :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
:-) thank you for not reacting with a Povlovian reflex to the word revisionism, as most people do.
one comment regarding Suvorov-Rezun: he is absolutely not a credible source, and has been already very thoroughly put apart by real professional military historians like Isaev.
in particular, Isaev wrote not one but even two books dedicated to debunking Rezun’s numerous lies, one of them is called “Anti-Suvorov”, the other one’s name I forgot but it’s also easy to find.
please read Isaev – he’s a very professional and extremely knowledgeable military historian (recently got his PhD) with an engineering backgound in his first education, so there’s flawless logic in almost everything he writes.
after you do, I very much doubt you’ll still believe that Stalin had preemptive plans to attack Germany (Isaev discusses the various claims of Rezun for this for several chapters in one of his bunks and utterly debunks each and every one of them).
@Anonymous: Suvorov-Rezun: he is absolutely not a credible source
Here I half agree and half disagree. Yes, Suvorov-Rezun did write many silly things and yes he did make up some rather silly interpretations. HOWEVER, he is also extremely intelligent and his main thesis he proves very powerfully. If you read Russian, PLEASE read Очищение:
http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov4/index.html
http://lib.rus.ec/b/54920
http://www.e-reading.biz/book.php?book=55182
If you read it, you will immediately see why the official military establishment hates him, and after that you will re-read the entire debate between Suvorov-Rezun and his opponents in an entire new light.
Also if 75% or even 80% of what Suvorov wrote in Icebreaker and the following books is absolute nonsense, it leaves 20%-25% which is true, and that is enough, I think, to make his case.
Yes, he is not an official historian, yes he is a traitor, yes he does lie about the circumstances of his defection. But still, he is a fantastic revisionist historian because the really kicks the official version of history in the groin, and that is what good history is all about – attacking the official/accepted version, is it not?
Cheers,
The Saker
@VINEYARDSAKER:
Yes, I’m Russian – and I have read Ledokol etc, though not the book you cited. It all looks very “eye-opening” and revolutionary at the first glance (in the 90s you could say it was the most popular take on WW2 history in Russia – all bookstores were full with that crap), but completely falls apart when subjected to serious scrutiny with real archive-confirmed numbers, as done by Isaev.
It would be way beyond the scope of a blog comment to even point out the most basic of Rezun’s fallacies and outright lies – as I’ve said people have written entire books about those.
Let me just say this: I am a hard, math-based scientist by education (mathematician/CS) and for me, only solid and provable facts count, and only people from whom I do see the culture of using facts and clear logic are worthy of my consideration.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes, and even the insanely meticulous and pedantic Isaev has been occasionally found to be inaccurate. But in his case it’s usually some minor figure like the exact caliber of cannon type X, the exact thickness of armor type Y on the side of little-known tank family Z, or something like that. None of his mistakes that I have seen pointed out so far changes the total picture that he paints in the slightest.
On the other hand, people like Rezun – even apart from his highly dubious personality as a traitor, British special agencies employee, and so on and so forth – fail to take that hurdle in my book simply because of their staggering amount of obvious and easily pointed-out factual mistakes (like completely false citations or made-up numbers), wild exaggerations/speculations with no solid proof, and just glaring dilettantism all over the place. And his mistakes are frequently global and grande – pointing them out totally reduces the whole point he’s trying to make to complete rubble, as Isaev does many times over in his Antisuvorov book.
Simply speaking, if the guy, provably, writes fabricated falsehoods 10 times in a row, why should you even bother if he – maybe – got it right the 11th time? he’s a crackpot, not worthy of being given the time of day by anyone serious.
@Anonymous0712:: I am a hard, math-based scientist by education (mathematician/CS)
Yes, and I can understand your frustration, especially considering that Rezun tries to convey the feeling that he is also 100% factual when at times he is clearly not. However, and speaking now as a trained (ex-) military analyst myself, I can tell you that there is a lot in what he writes which deserves attention. Rezun’s detractors have basically done two things: a) they have listed Rezun’s mistakes and b) they have engaged in endless ad hominem to smear Rezun. What they have failed to do is address the “bigger picture” as presented by Rezun. To take your example, you can list errors X, Y, Z in his writing and then say that he is a traitor, and all of that can be true, but you do not explain a) the positioning of Soviet military prior to Hitler’s attack b) why this attack was so devastating and c) how/why the same Soviet military crushed Hitler so soon later. Of course, when Rezun eyeballs what he thinks is Stalin’s date to attack Germany this is nonsense, but when he shows how deep the Soviet military was engaged in a pre-attack preparation he is unto something. Again, as a former military analyst myself, I can tell you that if I had been working for the OKW in Spring of 1941 and if I had a stream of information similar to what Rezun describes landing on my desk I would have raised a critical alarm with no hesitation.
But, I really beg you, read Otchishchnie which I found *amazingly* convincing. Let me conclude by saying that I am directly related to one of the “big shots” in the Soviet military which Stalin executed during this purge and all I can say is that Stalin was 100% right – my relative and the people around him were bloodthirsty, immoral butchers who were far more skilled at killing their own people than at fighting a modern war.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
@Vineyardsaker
> However … I can tell you that there is a lot in what he writes which deserves attention.
I thought so around 13-15 years ago. not anymore.
> Rezun’s detractors have basically done two things:
I beg to disagree. I think Isaev in particular has done much more than that. He went to extreme lengths to take literally *EVERY* single point that Rezun has made regarding his general theories, as in Stalin intending to attack Hitler, Staling “throwing men at Hitler” and so on and so forth, and proven it wrong – coldly, factually, with pages upon pages of concrete factual evidence stemming from very specific archive documents.
> To take your example, you can list errors X, Y, Z ….
I don’t even consider his writing in this respect. He’s a traitor apriori – a KGB renegade welcomed by the UK/MI6/younameit. but even if he were, I’d consider what he writes earnestly as a scientist. and I did – originally. however, with time, it was quite conclusively proven by much more serious people that the man is not a serious researcher, that he routinely falsifies and exaggerates his claims, that all his key points are clearly and provably false. I can’t ignore that either, so that my conclusion on him was pretty much self-evident.
> but you do not explain a) the positioning of Soviet military prior to Hitler’s attack
much too long to do here. please read Isaev’s “Antisuvorov” regarding RKKA mobilisation.
> b) why this attack was so devastating
much too long to do here. please read Isaev’s “Antisuvorov” regarding RKKA echelon-based deployment and Stalin’s + intelligence considerations.
> c) how/why the same Soviet military crushed Hitler so soon later
“soon” is quite an exaggeration, I’d say. technically, Hitler lost the war when he lost the battle of Moscow December 1941. but it took almost 3 whole years to push him back out of the USSR, with an extreme effort by the whole country (not to forget, some help from the West, as well – lend-lease, non-EU fronts, etc).
> Of course, when Rezun eyeballs … when he shows how deep the Soviet military was engaged in a pre-attack preparation he is unto something.
no, it’s all plain wrong. please read Isaev, I really can’t write a whole paper on this here.
> Again, as a former military analyst myself …. I would have raised a critical alarm with no hesitation.
critical alarms WERE raised. lots of them! but they were so often and so consistently *WRONG* that Stalin probably started to pay less attention to them than he should and ultimately even ignored a clear Sorge’s (Ramsai) report on the German attack being planned on June 22nd. in his place, I’m not sure I would’ve done better, considering the circumstances – even as it turned out to be a horrible mistake in retrospective.
> But, I really beg you, read Otchishchnie which I found *amazingly* convincing.
you’ve convinced me, I’ll read it, casting aside all my dislike towards Rezun.
> Let me conclude by saying that I am directly related
> to one of the “big shots” in the Soviet military which Stalin executed during this purge and all I can say is that Stalin was 100%
> right – my relative and the people around him were bloodthirsty, immoral butchers who were far more skilled at killing their own
> people than at fighting a modern war.
that’s amazing. I dont think I’ve ever seen or read anything like this before. usually people go to extreme lengths defending and embellishing their ancestors as “victims of Stalin purges” – even when in reality those people simply stole stuff, or abused their positions of power to get ahead or simply rape women.
my sincere respect to you – you are a really open-minded and honest person and a very bright analytic mind. the numerous reposts and this wave of public appreciation across the world speak for themselves, I think.