by Peter Lavelle for The Duran
The political abuse of history to deny the Soviet Union’s decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany is dividing peoples and is serving to rehabilitate European fascism.
As the 71st anniversary of fascism’s demise in Europe approaches, history is being re-cast, particularly events before, during, and after World War II. This history is being reinterpreted and even rewritten in a number of post-Soviet and Eastern European states. This approach often undermines, or even denies, the role the Soviet Union (its peoples and soldiers) played in the defeat of Nazi Germany. This has less to do with historical knowledge than it does with scoring cheap geopolitical points in the present at Russia’s expense.
In some Baltic republics and quite openly today in Ukraine, Nazi collaborators are honoured as war veterans, while Soviet war memorials are moved, dismantled and, in some cases, publicly destroyed with great media fanfare. Most in Russia consider this not only insulting, but also a dangerous rehabilitation of ideas that their citizens paid such a high price to eliminate. This is especially painful when the suffering people of Ukraine’s Donbas remain the subject of assault and punishment by the western-backed regime in Kiev that openly celebrates Nazi collaboration.
The hitherto accepted history of World War II (or the Great Patriotic War, as it is known in Russia) is undergoing revision. Ordinarily, this should not surprise anyone; up until recently, such traditional narratives were the product of the Cold War. The ideological conflict that pitted Soviet ‘developed socialism’ against Western capitalism resulted in diverging ideologically couched explanations for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
The Western take was that the Allies, specifically the United States, “saved the world from tyranny in the name of democracy and other liberal values.” Soviet ideologists, by contrast, stressed “the defeat of a murderous and very aggressive ideology: fascism.”
As long as the Cold War continued, these two renditions could coexist, although the West consistently understated the Soviet contribution to Hitler’s defeat and whitewashed the fascist movements in Eastern Europe. All of this started to change with the Russia-accepted self-collapse of the Soviet Union and the withdrawal from the Cold War in 1991.
Every country and every society needs a common history. National narratives bind a nation together and create a sense of community. All the new sovereign states that came into being with the end of the Soviet Union are very keen to establish new national histories. But in doing so, most of them have had to address specific and often painful episodes related to World War II and the decade of the 1930s and early 1940s.
As the successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia adheres steadfastly to the belief that it liberated a great swathe of Europe from fascism. To craft what they believe are coherent, if not self-satisfying, national histories, many in the Baltics, Ukraine, and some Eastern European states now like to challenge Russia’s historical rendition (and seemingly with Washington’s encouragement). They claim that not only did the Soviet Union not liberate them from fascism, but that it replaced Nazi Germany as an occupying power.
Embedded in this claim is a double-edged sword. First, those who argue that the Soviets should not be credited with defeating fascism implicitly also deny the role of those in the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe who sacrificed their lives to end Nazi rule. Second, there is also denial about how many in Eastern Europe actually did welcome the end of Nazi tyranny and accepted communist ideas. Many were more than happy to see the demise of collaborationists, fascists, racists, and ultranationalists.
To be sure, there were those who didn’t, and their grievances are legitimate and should be heard; however, history is not as black and white as nationalist historians and governments (then and now) would like us to believe. For example, I lived in Poland during much of the 1980s when the free trade union Solidarity was enjoying its greatest popularity. At the time, Polish society was polarised; one-third of the population strongly supported Solidarity, and one-third the pro-Moscow regime, while the remaining third waited on the sidelines to see how the standoff between those two would end. And to this day, some Poles still have many good things to say about communist Poland.
What is very disturbing about historical revisionism when it comes to World War II is the attempt to airbrush from the record fascist ideas, groups, and individuals that infested Europe in the 1930s and ’40s. The Cold War-era interpretation of World War II was a convenient opportunity to overlook nasty homegrown fascism all over Europe, particularly in the east. In Ukraine, there isn’t even an airbrush in play today, just a western media closing its eyes to rhetorical and imaginary that is truly shocking.
After the war ended, few wanted to dwell on how fascism and gross right-wing nationalism — very often anti-Semitic — captured the imagination of the European body politic. Political imperatives were far more important, and so confronting the Soviet Union took precedence. It became acceptable to ignore unpleasant episodes.
This is still happening today, particularly in Ukraine. Instead of facing up to the sins of the past, it is all too easy to blame contemporary Russia for the real or imagined sins of the Soviet Union. Using this line of argument, Russia can and should claim it, too, was a victim of the Soviet Union.
It is unfortunate that a new discursive pathology has come into vogue. Many feel that the sole way to prove their historical legitimacy and virtue is by casting themselves in the role of victim. This is history gone wrong. All too often a person’s national identity is defined by how someone else wronged him or her.
Today states blame other states for their own problems in the present because of a very specific, and again self-serving, interpretation of what happened in the past. Equally unfortunate is the knee-jerk tendency to blame “Putin’s undemocratic Russia” for the woes of its neighbors. This is politics on the cheap and a contemptible attitude to what history should really be all about.
Denying the Holocaust is a legal offense in Germany. This is the case in many countries in the world and is morally right. Consigning to oblivion the murder of millions of people is simply wrong. Russia wants the same to hold true for the 27 million Soviet citizens (at the very least) who gave their lives to defeat Hitler’s murderous regime.
It is important to remember Germany and France embarked upon an open and honest discussion to reconcile their long-standing historical differences after the Second World War. What we see now is the opposite: history is being used to divide countries and peoples in Eastern Europe and Russia. These divisions, in turn, open the door for the worst possibility: the slow but very real rehabilitation of a new form of fascism.
Peter Lavelle is anchor of RT political debate program CrossTalk. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Their ‘reward’ for all that sacrifice, death & destruction was this:
“Declassified American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.
“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen. William J. Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05/05/somnolent-europe-russia-and-china-paul-craig-roberts/
‘Denying the Holocaust is a legal offense in Germany. This is the case in many countries in the world and is morally right. Consigning to oblivion the murder of millions of people is simply wrong’
I’m beginning to smell a rat. This now, after a recent farce about Suadi Arabia and the 28 pages.
“Consigning to oblivion the murder of millions of people is simply wrong” is NOT the same as historical study and its conclusions–Mr. Lavelle is speaking as a “believer” in one (or more) summations of history, and ALL summations should be subject to dispute and re-evaluation and “revision”–based on fact, not ideology.
It is always a judgement call to say that something is “morally wrong.” It does not here and cannot anywhere masquerade as historical fact.
Are you suggesting that an appropriate study might reach the conclusion that holocaust denial is “morally right”?
Leuchter Report.
_Work_ camp.
The Nazis were cruel evil serial-murderers, those revisionists who attempt to white-wash them are evil liars.
Nevertheless the Zionists are no Penny better. They are after all the ones who financed and pushed for Hitler’s rise (Hegelian Dialectic) to occupy and ethnically cleanse Palestine and to make themselves uncriticizable
One sentence cut out. Don’t attack other commenters.(Mod)
I prefer Stalin. Although Stalin made mistakes for a too long time and was a bit late in realizing the the Zionists are not his partner. At the end they most likely killed him.
But I rather won’t discuss that subject in public.
@Cassandra: The fact that they were killers and murderers on many layers and levels (shooting, raping, stabbing to death, beating to death, mass-executions, pogroms, genocide, Dr. Mengele’s “experiments” on children, etc etc etc) doesn’t mean, that the gas story was necessarily true.
The official story has as many holes as the official NIST report about 9/11.
And it is legally __forbidden__ to scientifically verify what has or hasn’t happened.
If it is forbidden and illegal to put science onto the table – what is it then? Reminds me of “this world is a slice, believe it or get to inquisition”.
But probably I can even be jailed for this sentence alone.
So, it was only an example of what one should not think and – above all – never write.
Independently from that, watch this video as recommended by Eimar:
/moveable-feast-cafe-2016-05-07/#comment-235225
Scientific verification is not legally forbidden but it is a red herring, mostly physically impossible long after the fact and completely unnecessary. There are many kinds of evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” other than autopsies or air samples.
You aren’t one of those who believe that all that Zyklon-B was used to try to save the prisoners from lice-spread typhus, which “as we all know” kills a higher ratio of the infected than ebola after causing them to lose 100 lbs. in a fortnight, are you?
Have you read the Nuremberg documents, or just bought into some stranger (in two senses) posting on a website that they don’t prove anything?
@ Martin
Spot on. Years ago I went through the trouble of finding out the Jewish population in occupied Europe, subtracted the number in the first census after the war and the migration flows, mostly to US, and came up with a figure of less than 1 million. That was my test about the supposed 6 million: a blatant lie. Then came out a Polish government report on the subject and the estimate was 1.5 million.
Zion has used that 6 million figure to justify their massive still on-going crimes with the blessing of the victors of WWII. My disgust is such that sometimes I wonder if Hitler was right after all and that scum should have been eliminated from the face of the earth. Why they were so hated throughout history when many other minorities (e.g. Gypsis) were tolerated? Even the English kicked them out in 1640s.
@Anonymous: One has to be very careful here. Not all jews are right-wing Zionists, and even some who are, are so only because the Z-media never tells them the truth.
On the other hand many Zionists are non-jewish.
Zionism is more about opportunist politics, than about religion.
As for the 6 millions figure I must agree: They used the same number over and over from 1890(!) on!
I saw jpeg’s of old americal newspaper articles from the persiod 1890 to 1935.
There are also interesting clips on yt about original speeches of very influential figures from before the war (from USA and other countries).
However, there are also many “normal” and peaceful jews like you and me, in fact probably more than 90%.
But they are actively getting suppressed by their “own” country.
One has to be fair, there are good people and evil people everywhere. The globe is not black/white. On the other hand many genocides were committed by non-jews, such as muslims and christians.
Search on yt for jews against zionism
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jews+against+zionism
And to answer your question: *No*, Hitler was definitely *not* correct.
How can you only think something like that??? Translate your “proposal” into images of dead women, girls, families. It is insane to ask for such “cleansing”. Who makes such suggestions shall kill himself first – but without blowing up innocent others.
p.s. I doubt that Hitler was even honest about his intentions. He himself was a political Zionist (I did not say jewish!) asset.
Your whole post is historically wrong,and more than a little smacks of nazism. There are few around here more anti-zionist than I am. But I stop at anti-Jewish hatred and pro-nazi ideas. Certainly the zionists inflated the figures of the Holocaust.But it still ran into the millions.The nazis were a bad bunch. And since they willingly killed 3 million ethnic Poles,and millions upon millions of Russians.Why on earth would you think they wouldn’t kill millions of their most hated enemies. I never have been able to understand the nazi apologist thinking in denying something with so much evidence. Its like you must think ,”oh well, we’ll admit we killed all those non-Jews.But deny we killed the Jews”. As if somehow that makes you look better.Believe me,no, it doesn’t make you look better.
@Uncle Bob 1: You should maybe specify that you don’t mean me.
Or didn’t you read what I wrote?
The rest of what I wrote came from asking interesting questions over decades.
Yes, it does make a difference! Because nobody (of the political leadership) in the West ever cares about the 27 million murdered Russians (let alone all the other 25 to 30 millions who died in WW2), but they alwyas come up with these “6 Millions” every day and in every newspaper.
Also look what they have done to the Aethiopian jews (that they don’t accept as genetically “clean”) and check out which crimes they have committed and keep doing to the Palestinians.
The so called Holocaust was their 9/11.
Everything they did since than is derived from it.
You really did not read what I wrote.
Here again: /the-second-world-war-history-and-remembrance/comment-page-1/#comment-235999
I defended Jews several times, every time.
But chances are you don’t know what Zionism really is. That makes me wonder, given how skilled you are in most other areas.
And as said, every historian should have watched the original Leuchter Report videos from the 1980ties.
Not you Martin. It was the anonymous that you answered,my comment was in answer to.
Uncle Bob: Ah, ok. But that’s why one should always include the RE name.
It is past 7 am in the morning here and I now go to bed.
In that tired condition my processing power decreases, but my vulnerability to feeling attacked rises.
Ok, good night (day).
And rgds.
Ah, btw: Uncle Bob, in 2003 I had a very romantic love affair with a Ukrainian-Jewish girl.
So if you still think I’m a Nazi, think again.
Haha,Martin,I have never ever considered you as a nazi. I would say you are about as far from a nazi as possible. Though having had a Jewish girlfriend in the past isn’t any reason way I would think you weren’t. Its your Communist and pro-Russian sympathies that show me that.
@Uncle Bob: When speaking of the most deadly Racism and Nazism, you are directly not only talking about Hitler (yes!) but euqlly as much 1:1(yes!) about Zionism.
Only enter the search tags
gaza 2012 war
https://www.google.de/search?q=gaza+2012+war&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiki_zR-M7MAhVL3SwKHSiHBrMQ_AUICCgC&biw=1280&bih=851
and
gaza children
into google images, and be sure to scroll down if you can take it (because it appears you need this) :
https://www.google.de/search?q=gaza+children&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNmbXR987MAhUEECwKHZWsAdYQ_AUIBygB
First you completely ignored all my personal replies that I sent you for almost half a year, and now that you finally did respond, you did so with such invalid claims.
You make me wonder. Advice: Don’t watch too much AIPAC tv.
For the records: Correction: The computer has re-set its clock after many debugging reboots into different UNIX installations. It is really already past 9 am.
(just in case that specific anonymous user is verifying each of my statements again)
I consider zionism as a carbon copy ideology to nazism. And certainly don’t like either one of them. But this isn’t a “beauty” contest.Nor a debate about “which one is worse”. Nazism has the “numbers” record for direct “kills”. But the zionists are gaining on them today. So in the future who gets the “Guinness” record for being the worst,if up for grabs. To misuse an old saying “I was pro-Palestinian before it was cool”. So I don’t accept any thinking that I support the Israelis because I don’t hate Jews,that’s just total BS. The Jew haters don’t give a fig-leaf about the Palestinians. They just use their cause, as a stick to attack Jews with.
Correct. That’s why you saw me reminding Vot Tak every time, that Jews != Zionists.
p.s. To your calculation that Zionists are keeping up with Hitler: Without the Z. no H.(foolish puppet that could only rise because “forces” kept pushing him) would have risen to power.
I could post a video of an american from about 1960 (at the end of his life).
He was a high figure in US politics before WW2 and was personally friends with FDR.
This man stated with full certainty and details, names and contacts that he knew for sure that they literally planned WW2 in order to destroy Germany, Soviet Union (and the British Empire?) plus – before all – to occupy Palestine.
So if that’s true (and it sounds trustworthy) then you don’t even need to ait until the Z. haul over H., because you can sum both numbers up.
But I really did not want to start a public discussion about this.
I agree with you that one must be careful not spread rumors only because they _appear_ to make sense.
I hate it very much that some idiots make it themselves too simple and equate Communism with Zionism every time. These are similar idiots who keep claiming on ZH’s comments section, that “Merkel is a jewish communist”. In reality he hates nothing more than communism, Russia, Soviet Union – even though she indeed grew up in East-Germany and not only speaks Russian, but was member of the “Society of German-Soviet Friendship”.
Well, as said, there are no easy flat truths out there.
Sadly a large number (majority) of people only accepts such simplified (un)”truth”s.
Ok, till next time, comrade Uncle Bob. And sorry for my rant/misunderstanding.
You shouldn’t have gone to the trouble but just looked at the work of somebody who had the correct numbers and knew how to use them.
You have got it exceedingly wrong but I can’t tell from your account whether it is your census of the number of Jews before the slaughter or the numbers after. Sometime in 2016 the Jewish population of the world is going to reach the number before WWII.
Without looking at it, I would guess that the Polish government would not be interested in and would be unable to calculate the total losses but was instead calculating either the number of Polish Jews killed or the number of Jews killed in Poland. That would be something they (a) would be interested in establishing and (b) would have access to data on.
This is actually a program founded and funded by the European Union. It was initiated by the Poles as a program to publicize the crimes of Communism, and amended to a program to publicize the crimes of the Soviet Union under the guise of anti-totalitarianism. It includes a systemic and thorough rewriting of particular historical facts in Wikipedia. I just figured out where this garbage was coming from a couple of weeks ago and have only started digging into it.
The Institute of European Memory and Conscience, which see, is the core. It is quite clear that all the initiating meetings, groups, symposiums that led up to its founding are not about totalitarianism, they say explicitly they are about Soviet Communism.
It is ironic that the people who are driving it would not be alive today if not for the Soviet Union. They come from countries whose populations the ‘generalplan ost,’ which see, had scheduled for 50% to 85% extermination. Poland and Lithuania were at the upper end.
There is no way you can conceal a Nazi rehabilitation project from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and they are all over this “platform.”
First and foremost, to my mind, is the characterization of the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany as an “alliance” (an alliance would be a mutual assistance or mutual defense pact) and as “dividing up Europe,” “authorizing the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland and the Baltics.”
Down the memory hole is a proper characterization of the Baltics, eastern Poland and Bessarabia. These are territories mentioned in the M-R pact as “of special interest” to the Soviet Union.They are all on Russia’s border and were part of Russia twenty years before the signing of the pact. In fact “eastern Poland” was part of one of the founding SSRs of the Soviet Union. It was the western half of what is today Belarus and was formerly the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.
The M-R pact was signed a few days after the unsuccessful close of the Moscow Negotiations in which Stalin offered UK and France to place a million-man army, 10,000 tanks and 5,000 planes on the Germany border if they could arrange transit through Poland. It was eight days before Hitler invaded Poland. (Always do a timeline.) Hitler’s army arrived at the border of Belarus and went right on by. At that point, 17 days after the invasion, the Red Army entered, unopposed, occupied Poland, and had discussion a with the Germans about what the M-R pact intended by “of special interest.” Stalin obviously thought it delineated areas the Germans would not invade.
Stalin also called the Baltic states to Moscow for talks, and negotiated mutual defense pacts with them under which the Soviet Union would build and man fortifications in them. While this was a pact between the shark and the sardines, granted, it is a far cry from an invasion and occupation. As Hitler was planning to obliterate all these areas, there may even have been some part of these populations who saw this as the answer to their prayers.
Embedded in this characterization is the “given” that the USSR did invade Poland and the Baltics, which is not true. The Soviet Union is described as “jointly with Germany” invading Poland. Never happened.
@ Cassandra
Thank you
@ Cassandra
Thank you for your lucid piece on the true facts, mostly hidden from the so called “western” historical perspective littered with the garbage of doubtful victors: the Brits claimed they “fought alone against Germany”, the Americans “went over there to save Europe”, the Italians were nevert Hittler’s buddies and even the French exalt their “resistance” when in fact the Resistance was, brave and patriotic, but small and mostly communist inspired; elsewhere in occupied Europe many sided with the occupier or were opportunistic fence-sitters looking at the wind vane.
There was only one country that stood alone facing fascism, the USSR. The others were all free-loaders who sat at the table to eat the dinner prepared by the Soviet cook.
Shortly after dinner the free-loaders were seen busy sharpen the knives to stab the cook in the back: “Operation Unthinkable” for the invasion of the Soviet Union for which they intended to use a reorganized German Army in addition to British and American troops, plus the nuking of the major Soviet cities.
A lesson for Russia.
FWIW, you might want to have a look at ‘Icebreaker’ by Suvorov. Completely different version of events. IMO plausible.
There are also numerous (paper) books that explain in detail M-R. Supposed Stalin told Hitler at the last moment that he wasn’t ready and let Germany take the blame.
@ t
You are suggesting that all the 3rd Reich was a Stalin’s creation? He was a great man and statesman, no doubt, but crediting him with manipulating Germany is a bit over the top…
Anonymous
Mr/Ms “t” is referring – i think – to the military operation against Poland.It was an agreement between the two sides (Soviet Union and Germany) to attack Poland together at 1 September 1939.The Germans did it at that date,the Soviets did it two weeks after.As we know,the French and the British have declared war to Germany on 3 September.On what really happened,we shall know only after the openings of the Russian Archives.
“It [?] was an agreement between the two sides (Soviet Union and Germany) to attack Poland together at 1 September 1939.”
What is “it”? There is no evidence whatsoever for such an agreement. What we know is what happened. To say what really happened was not what was intended, you really should have evidence. Conjecture by weirdos doesn’t qualify. Nor an anecdote that somebody saw somebody say so who must have known because he knew Stalin’s daughter’s milkman.
Stalin was totally ready to invade Poland. He had just two weeks earlier offered the UK and France to take his army through Poland as soon as they could negotiate Poland’s agreement to the transit through Polish territory.
The ‘reasoning’ I’m reading reminds me of Fugue for Tinhorns (I’ve got the horse right here . . .)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthEYvh6aMM
One thing I try to do posting is model what research and reasoning looks like. Sigh.
I went to the web page The Duran and it is quite difficult to leave a comment.
It requires log in through Face Book and et al. which are all spooked by the American government.
My question for The Duran is, why don’t they enable people leaving a comment as is done at The Saker?
One could ask the same question of Sputnik News.
Why does a Russian news site require a Facebook login for commentary?
That is why nobody comments there.
True, and that’s why I agree with those who say that the Russian “pro-Russian” media is often run by the 5th column.
There really is no other explanation for it.
While China is banning/blocking facebook, twitter, youtube et al alltogether, the so called pro-Russian media even make it a requirement to login there for making a comment.
That’s almost painful to see something as hilarious and ludicrous as that!
@ Verami
Very good question. That’s the reason I comment here. It’s free, easy, no fuss.
It is too bad but the very fact that The Duran requires a Facebook sign-in is, I believe, going to separate the sheep from the lambs or the geese from the ducks or the whatever from the whatever.
To me this is, quite simply, an indication of a lack of seriousness.
Seriously? Facebook? I have to join Facebook in order to commnet on mercouris’s new site?
I don’t think so.
Where are these guys thinking? Or, make that, smoking?
Jesus.
Katherine Not and Never Part of Facebook
I am puzzled by this comment. I visist The Duran daily and have left several comments with no problems via disqus.
Most non-blog sites do require one of the channels. RT uses facebook. Fort Russ uses disqus.
The Duran is well worth another investigation I think. Mod-on-duty
Hi Vineyard Moderator – PS,
is Disqus better in your opinion?
Also, as far as I know from countless other (western) media, sites that employ Disqus for authentication often enough also offer Facebook logins or mix it.
Hi Martin, you wrote “Hi Vineyard Moderator – PS,
“is Disqus better in your opinion?”
I’d have to say I dont see any difference [I’m assuming here you mean “better” than facebook]. I honestly know little about the technicalities. I use the FB entry at RT [on the very rare occasions I post there], and disqus where it is asked for. I never use FB normally, so I dont follow responses, but I like disqus because it keeps a record of my posts, and where they were posted, so I can go back months to find “conversations”. I can reply directly from it, and it lets me know the topics that someone has replied to. I quite like it, I must say. I never use FB anyway, so I have no real experience of it, nor do I want to given it’s history.
Cheers. mod PS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disqus
“””””
Disqus, Inc. (pronounced discuss) is a blog comment hosting service for web sites and online communities that uses a networked platform. The company’s platform includes various features, such as social integration, social networking, user profiles, spam and moderation tools, analytics, email notifications, and mobile commenting. It was founded in 2007 by Daniel Ha and Jason Yan as a Y Combinator startup.
In 2011, Disqus ranked #1 in Quantcast’s U.S. networks with 144 million monthly unique U.S. visits.[3] Disqus has been featured on many major publications, such as CNN, The Daily Telegraph, and IGN, and about 750,000 blogs and web sites.[4]”””””
Financing
In early 2011, Disqus raised $10 million in funding from North Bridge Venture Partners and Union Square Ventures.[5]
Criticism and privacy concerns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disqus#Criticism_and_privacy_concerns
Dear mod PS,
you said:
> I like disqus because it keeps a record of my posts, and where they were posted
Notice something?
I don’t like that because be sure that you are not the only one who accesses this “feature”.
And that’s why I years ago stopped posting in such comments sections.
I should have deleted my Facebook and Twitter accounts, too (several times did so, but unfortunately revived them). I did so because they probably track me and have a long record about me anyway. On the other hand this permitted me to keep the western coders community informed about Donbass.
I stand to my statements and have nothing to hide.
But I seriously consider escaping the West once and for all to Tiraspol.
Cheers,
Martin
So, if the articles at The Duran are re-posted here, we can get the benefit of the Saker’s comment technology and also community’s expertise.
Katherine
Rocco! Compadre! Yes, Facebook is Big Brother. They won’t let you go, either. Close your account? Doesn’t matter. They keep on posting stuff to your page.
Ceaseless Western drivel about World War 2 is an institutionalized propaganda fraud kept going by the ruling Zionazi plutocracy, especially through what passes for the Western ‘intelligentsia’ and the Corporate Media whores. Evidently, the chief purpose of this whole trash indoctrination campaign — allegedly “historical science” — has been to keep the West’s home constituencies forever dumbed-down, self-opinioned, and arrogant.
But for all noisy, mendacious Western revisionist tripe, it’s actually not the past but the future which constitutes the real source of conflict. And be aware too that it’s our very contemporary reality that puts matters into perspective. To fully understand the role assigned by the powers that be to their perpetuated drivel about World War 2 — especially their painting it ever more in brown with each passing year — here are my 2 cents:
As far as capitalism — especially decaying, parasitic Western capitalism — is concerned, German Nazism is appreciably less problematic than is the example set by Soviet socialism. Hitler was, after all, a very Western politician, mostly aping his Anglo-American forerunners with an eye to make his country wealthy at other peoples’ expense. Indeed, land-grabbing, enslavement, torture, genocide, and racist chauvinism are Anglo behavioural traits par excellence.
The only reason as to why an overall disapproval of Nazi Germany still persists in the West is the needs of legitimating/prettifying the Zionazi statelet in Palestine.
It seems like the west already had a signed a non aggression pact with Germany before USSAr did it
I just took this from the book “World War II A 50 Anniverary History”
The (Munich) conference ended at 2 a.m., September 30. Munich gave Hitler the Sudetenland. As they adjourned, Chamberlain asked Hitler if they might meet briefly in private. He presented him with a draft of what he hoped Hitler would make a joint declaration. It said in part: “We regard the agreement signed last night, and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. “We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”
Hitler signed it quickly. It was only paper.
In the wake of Munich, the feast began. Poland got 650 square miles of Czechoslovakia and a population of 228,000, more than half of whom were Czechs. Hungary took 7,500 square miles in which lived 500,000 Hungarian Magyars and 272,000 Slovaks. Germany got 11,000 square miles with 2,800,000 Sudeten Germans and 800,000 Czechs, and a pro-German government in Prague. The bluff won Hitler Germany 66 percent of Czechoslovakia’s coal, 80 percent of its lignite and cement and textiles, 86 percent of its chemicals, 70 percent of its iron, steel and electrical power and 40 percent of its timber.
It seem like the Poles, Estonians et al have totaly forgotten that most of them would not be alive today if Hitler had been victorious
@ Uncle Bob 1 [May 10, 2016 · at 7:19 am UTC]
“I consider zionism as a carbon copy ideology to nazism [..]”
^ They’re two sides of the same supremacist coin. In fact, I’d venture that Zionism is actually Nazism (and vise-versa).
The US Hegemony is actually the Forth Reich, or at least a stealth continuation of the Third One.
Unfortunately, I lost all my old bookmarks connecting all these dots when my old computer finally broke, and yes! Idiot me, didn’t think of backing them up :/
The jest of it all – as I remember it – is that these powerful families [we’re all suffering under] adhere to an ancient cult, that for lack of a better term is described, by insiders, as an “old Germanic death cult.”
Why there’s no word for it? Because you have to be part of [that means: being born into…] their inner circle to even know what they call this cult on the first place!
If you mange to navigate through all the tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense (this is very time consuming and can take years) eventually, you do come across valuable whistleblowers. Mostly exited members, known as survivors, btw.
Non from the upper levels though, certainly not from the inner circle either, this is why there are massive gaps in information about who these ‘families’ really are, because everyone below them: are on a strict need-to-know basis.
Never the less; these whistleblowers are the best thing we have to get close to the elites’ world – from THEIR perspective.
And let me tell you; they are the worst of the worst, the word evil doesn’t even begin to describe them.
Alex Jones, for all his faults [and believe me! I don’t even like him] hit the bulls-eye with his infiltration of Bohemian Grove and his interview with late Aaron Russo, who managed to befriend one of the Rockefellers, who in turn, gave him insights of things coming down the pike…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3NA17CCboA
^ Interesting as that may be, they’re not the whistleblowers I’m talking about. These were “cult” people, who managed to escape (sadly, most of them are all missing as of now. Hopefully; they’ve just gone underground, rather than “disappeared” or been reabsorbed back into the “cult”).
But! To tie them up with the beginning of my post: it’s that almost all of them testified that their families (cult members, of course) loved the Nazis and actually held Nazi paraphernalia in their homes. And why is that? Because many of the Nazi “methods” on human experimentation – Mengele – for example, or their various types of torture they‘ve tested on innocent people, are in fact; part and parcel of this “cult” normal Modus Operandi.
[* Note: for more on this, you really need to research: trauma based mind control]
–
To have a taste of what these “elites” get up to, here’s a bunch of pictures from one of their “parties” back in 1972.
But unless you understand the symbolisms they believe-in, and/or realize where they’re coming from… you will just write it all off as a flamboyant/extravagant fancy-dress party :/
http://www.the-open-mind.com/photos-from-a-1972-rothschild-illuminati-party/
-TL2Q