This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Revanchism & Russophobia - The Dark Undercurrents Of The War In Ukraine
Submitted by Vineyard of The Saker,
The situation in the Ukraine is more or less calm right now, and this might be the time to step back from the flow of daily reports and look at the deeper, underlying currents. The question I want to raise today is one I will readily admit not having an answer to. What I want to ask is this: could it be that one of the key factors motivating the West’s apparently illogical and self-defeating desire to constantly confront Russia is simply revanchism for WWII?
We are, of course, talking about perceptions here so it is hard to establish anything for sure, but I wonder if the Stalin’s victory against Hitler was really perceived as such by the western elites, or if it was perceived as a victory against somebody FDR could also have called “our son of a bitch“. After all, there is plenty of evidence that both the US and the UK were key backers of Hitler’s rise to power (read Starikov about that) and that most (continental) Europeans were rather sympathetic to Herr Hitler. Then, of course and as it often happens, Hitler turned against his masters or, at least, his supporters, and they had to fight against him. But there is strictly nothing new about that. This is also what happened with Saddam, Noriega, Gaddafi, al-Qaeda and so many other “bad guy” who began their careers as the AngloZionists’ “good guys”. Is it that unreasonable to ask whether the western elites were truly happy when the USSR beat Nazi Germany, or if they were rather horrified by what Stalin had done to what was at that time the single most powerful western military – Germany’s?
A few days ago I saw this picture on Colonel Cassad’s blog:
Looking at that photo I thought that for the western elites, to see these men must have been rather frightening, especially considering that they must have known that their entire war effort was, at most, 20% of what it took to defeat Nazi Germany and that those who had shouldered 80%+ were of an ideology diametrically opposed to capitalism.
Is there any evidence of that fear?
I think there is and I already mentioned them in the past:
Plan Totality (1945): earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
Operation Unthinkable (1945) assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.
Operation Dropshot (1949): included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
But the biggest proof is, I think, the fact that none of these plans was executed, even though at the time the Anglosphere was safely hidden behind its monopoly on nuclear weapons (and have Hiroshima and Nagasaki not been destroyed in part to “scare the Russians”?).
And is it not true that the Anglos did engage in secret negotiations with Hitler’s envoys on several occasions? (The notion of uniting forces against the “Soviet threat” was in fact contemplated by both Nazi and Anglo officials, but they did not find a way to make that happen.)
So could it be that Hitler was, really, their “son of a bitch”?
More proof? Okay.
Hitler was most definitely not a Christian. If anything, he and Himmler were pagans with a strong satanic bend to their dark cult of ancestor worship (Ahnenerbe). But what about Hitler’s allies such as Petain, Franco, Pavelic – where they not defenders of what they would call the “Christian West”? Is it not a fact that 70 years after the fall of the Third Reich those who admire Petain, Franco and Pavelic *still* speak of the need to defend the “Christian West”, but this time against the “Islamic threat”?
Furthermore, if the Nazi regime represented an existential threat to European Jewry, a quick survey or articles written by Jewish authors in the US and British press during much of the 20th century clearly shows that most Jews had little to no sympathy not only for pre-Revolutionary Russia, but also for the post-Trotsky USSR and that even though the USSR fully supported the creation of the state of Israel, many if not most US and European Jews felt that the Soviet Union was also a threat to their interests.
I believe that the rabid russophobia (phobia in both the sense of “hate” and “fear”) of the AngloZionist Empire cannot be only explained by pragmatic reasons of great power competition or a struggle of political systems. The constant propaganda about the “Russian threat” is not only a political tool to dumb down the western people by keeping them in a state of constant fear (of Russia or Islam), but it is also the expression of a deep fear really felt by the 1% plutocracy which rules over the western world.
Finally, the fear of Russia is also a fear of the Russian leaders. When they are like Eltsin (a drunken imbecile) or his Foreign Minister Kozyrev (the ultimate “yes” man) western politicians feel appropriately superior. But remember that even mediocre personalities like Krushchev or Brezhnev truly frightened them. So it is no wonder that strong and smart leaders (like Stalin or Putin) would absolutely terrify them and make them feel inadequate. The infantile way in which Obama has tried to show that he was smarter and stronger than Putin is a clear indication of how inferior he really felt face to face. The same, of course, also goes for Kerry and Lavrov.
Everything I have written above fully applies to East European leaders too, only with even more intensity. We are talking about countries which sometimes had a rather glorious past and who during WWII had no other purpose then being the furniture in the room where the two Big Guys slugged it out. Worse, they more or less kept that same passive role during the Cold War and now they have hardly become more relevant. In part, I would argue that this is their own fault, instead of finally making use of their new found freedom to develop some kind of meaningful political identity, all they did was to engage in a brown-nosing competition to see who would become Uncle Sam’s favorite pet (Hungary under Orban being the sole exception to this sad rule).
It is really no wonder that when the Americans overthrew Yanukovich the Europeans felt that now, finally, their “hour had come” and they would show those disrespectful Russians who “is boss” on the Old Continent. And every time the Russians warned the Eurocretins in Brussels that there were issues linked to the Ukraine which required urgent consultations they were told “that is none of your business, there is nothing to discuss”. The problem was, of course, that the West European leader had forgotten that in the real world they were just the administrators of the USA’s “EU colony” and that the US leaders truly did not give a damn about them (as Mrs Nuland so lyrically put it in simple words). As for East European leaders, their irrelevance is simply painful to look at, I almost feel sorry for them and their trampled egos.
I personally think that contrary to the official narrative, there is a strong case to be made that the end of WWII left a lot of people very, very unhappy and that all those who felt wronged or frightened by the Soviet victory in 1945 did join forces in an attempt to correct the wrongs of the outcome of that war. At the very least, the question of the importance of russophobia and revanchism has to be asked.
It just not make sense to explain away the apparently crazy behavior of the western leaders during the entire Ukrainian crisis by saying that they are simply stupid, naive or ill informed. What they are doing may appear stupid, naive or ill informed to us, but that does not mean that there is no deep rationale behind the actions of these “elites”.
Most people in the West want to live in peace and are completely unaware of these undercurrents of the war in the Ukraine. What I describe above is only relevant to various minority groups. The problem is that taken together and when they act in unison, these minorities end of wielding a lot of power and influence. The best way to stop them, is to shed a strong light on them and their real motives.
- 21817 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -




Duhh.....its pretty obvious America wants to help foster a regime in Kiev that is hostile towards Moscow.
I wonder how the reptiles in DC would feel if the Russians did the same in Mexico or Canada? I guess that never comes across their "exceptional" minds at all, does it? This lack of geopolitical empathy or understanding of the other's point of view defines American foreign policy quite well, given the incredible amount of fuckups they have shamelessly made.
Reptiles is too nice a word.
Heres a thought experiment for the pure thinkers: What if Putin is Russia's Obama? Great at elections but not much else. I believe the cereberal ZHers that think outside the bag can come up with a lot of evidence to support this theory. Discuss.
Certainly spent a lot of time 'quelling' in Chechnya and elsewhere, but his foreign policy moves are better-planned than TheCommieOrganizer.
Tribe(tm) on the prowl! Gonna get um some progressivism in the Kremlin...thems thinks...
Seriously. Recount for me his moves and how they are chess against checkers. List them out. The only one that comes to mind is the Syria chemical weapons gambit. What else?
Kidding? He didn't take the bait and roll troops in Ukraine, they wish he did, but he didn't. He sent in aid trucks instead. He has remained calm and shown leadership with a gang of freaks banging at the gates...
Some other commenter put it succinctly in December:
Seems to me that Putin isn't falling into the trap that has been set for him. The collapsing west needs a boogieman and so far Putin has been really calm, cool, and measured in his responses. Watch as the west ratchets up the propaganda as their end approaches.
also his instant referendum in and control of crimea, presenting the west with a fait accompli; the quick and careful establishment of alliances and institutions with other brics, iran, etc.; creation of domestic alternatives to swift, etc.; sale of treasurys for gold; constant upgrading of military capability; and roll out of a far better propaganda tool in rt than anything the u.s. has including the nyt.
all this and an approval rating twice that of his feckless opponent.
Add the Cancellation of the South Stream,elimination of Ukraine as a transit country, completing China-Russia gas contracts and complete turn around of China-Russia relations which had allowed US domination during the old Cold War.
And domestically: http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.com/2014/06/15-years-of-putin-rule-in-one-inf...
Just in case you were wondering as I was....
Rostec, my friend. Remember that name.
I could go on but I don't want to upset you. If you can get to Wikipedia, you can do some reserach on your own. :o)Putin's presentation of data on Malaysia 17 flight was well done, and shut western media up. Putin's economic moves with energy trade deals in Asia have also shut up the West. Putin's presentation on plausible cold fusion shut the west up. Putin's selling of USTs to counter pressure sanctions from west as well as importing produce from Latin America, countered the west quickly.
Sorry Spangler it is not up for consideration it is a rout.
The Turkish pipeline for example was a masterstroke - sheer genius as it finessed several problems and opened up several opportunities.
Offering Sukhois to Argentina was another master stroke that didn't work out, but the Argies were too scared to accept after the Nisman assassination by the MI6/Mossad as the Anglo Zionist countermove, threatening another color revolution... (if you can't see why this was a master stroke, you really are over your head with whats going on)
You must be either really ignorant or a troll (although the latter implies the former).
"What if Putin is Russia's Obama?"
And what if a tin of Beluga caviar is actually a bag of Purina Dog Chow? It isn't, so there's no need to discuss.
Show your work. "Its isnt because it isnt" doesnt work as proof.
That would mean taking you seriously.
He'll prove to you that "It wasn't over" [when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor]
The man knows his stuff!
I know its difficult to challenge what you think you know especially in a groupthink echochamber like ZH but you should give it a try anyway. Most of the time what people know they know is outdated and should be revisited for adjustment.
You're new here, so we'll cut you some slack. Critical thinking and intellectual rigor are obviously not your strong suits (echo chamber indeed) when all you can say over and over again is "prove it".
Crimea, for starters
OK so here is some actual evidence put forth. Putin engineered the Crimea referendum or did it fall in his lap?
planned.
that's why Yanukovich didn't clear the Maidan in December
Putin is not a threat to US people, he saved us a lot of grief in Syria, he has challenged the Rothschild/Rockefeller world and for that he earns some praise. He has had to join with China and India to do so, but personally I do not fear that, in fact when I take unbiased view I see a lot of positive in it.
"Reptiles is too nice a word."
Agree. It's insulting to reptiles, as they merely consume what they need to survive. When not hunting for food or procreating on occasion, they are content to merely hang out of sleep.
Does this sound like what we got? No, what we got can best be described as Demonic Spawn (if you lean towards Biblical literature), or as Aliens from another World (if you prefer modern literature).
(I lean towards the latter... the 'Clingon' model, as Klingons are hellbent on dominating over others. Only difference is, Klingons do their own fighting. Clingons... have others do the fighting for them)
I like saker for the good information he usually has. He is interesting for his "Russian" point of view though I have to disagree on many points with his analysis. If the west really could have wiped out Russian resistance in 1949 and wanted to, what stopped it? I'm not saying that his theory of "our bastard" is wrong or right, just that western leaders intent at the time was more benign. It should also be noted that the USSR did not fight Japan until the last days (literally) nor in Africa, the North and South Atlantic, or Italy. Russia did not send arms to the west. His POV is exceptionally slanted.
The simplest explanation is probably correct. The western leaders have been become more wholy owned since 1949. The owners have always been greedy and more is better. They are running games in the ME and Africa but the real prize is Russia. Russia is an historic opponent with a small population and huge natural resources. Russia dwarfs all the other theaters and offers virtually population to control. Take Russia, expand the empire, and make true global domination all but guaranteed.
They don't really want to kill everyone, though killing a lot doesn't seem to bother them much. This and public leaders (not as bought at the time?) reticence to kill tens of millions likely proved enough to deter such an unjustifiable and unprovoked attack on a civilian population. We have much better technology today that allows mad control of so many more by so many less than in 1949. Let's face it. We are going to need every Russian, European, Asian, and Mideasterner we can get against China cuz that'll be a real war. Russia is the richest weak link in the BRICS, despite having decent leadership.
One could dive into a lot of details. If the Soviets were so superior why did they not undertake a similar campaign of world domination? Well, they did and it didn't work out. Well, at least until the behind-the-scenes-Soviets got full control of the west. I say it is ironic that the very strength that saker seems to drink up in Russian history is the enemy he rails against.
It is much simpler. They are greedy bastards who'll sacrifice any of us for their goals. The chest pounding just seems juvenile.
"If the west really could have wiped out Russian resistance in 1949 and wanted to, what stopped it?"
for starters the detonation of a russian atomic bomb August 29, 1949, the victory of the chinese communists October 1, 1949, and the invasion by the north of south korea June 25. 1950.
the united states had troops in relatively inconsequential french indochina/vietnam from no later than 1950 until April 29, 1975, with little positive effect.
March 8 is the International Women's Day and for the fighters of self-defense forces of Donetsk it's time to show their feminine side.
http://www.kp.ru/daily/26351.7/3233438/
Victoria Nuland’s Lies Make War Inevitable
Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s politics has sunk to the bottom of the cesspool. An Assistant Secretary of State can now appear in testimony before the US Congress and lie endlessly without being held to account. Congress has abjured its responsibility. Nuland’s lies are the kind that lead to war. Unless a meteorite lands on Washington, war is inevitable.
Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, March 07, 2015
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-phantom-russian-hoards-in-ukraine/5435233
On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2015/mar/238147.htm
She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a “freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend.”
She absurdly called Ukraine “central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a ‘Europe whole, free and at peace.’ ”
Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia’s heartland – with menacing US bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.
Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs “peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians.”
“They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms.”
Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych’s police showed remarkable restraint.
Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and other violence.
Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.
Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.
Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a US-installed fascist dictatorship.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/03/07/victoria-nulands-lies-make-wa...
NUDELMAN!!!
bleep bleep to the guy who downvoted Nudelman...that's her Tribe(tm) name
There's not a single conspiracy theory on the planet that doesn't sound good to Paul Craig Roberts.
He's onboard with every last one.
what about the conspiracy to slander the israeli leaders like begin, sharon and netanyahu by attributing remarks to them alleging israeli control of u.s. mideast policy, media or government generally?
Amerikan Patriot the zio once called itself.
Maybe he thinks he deserves fifty names too...
davidpierre,
what's the matter, can't respond to the comment in any kind of useful or intelligent manner, so you're resorting to name-calling?
really, that makes YOU look like the moron.
FWIW, PCR is great, loved every interview of him i've heard, he pulls no punches and tells it like it is. perhaps iofera hasn't yet realized that many, many "conspiracy theories" turn out to be conspiracy facts.
"There's not a single conspiracy theory on the planet"
I love how our society has been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs, to respond with a smirk or ridicule whenever someone throws out the words "Conspiracy Theory", and uses it with 99% effectiveness to silence debate. "Fascinating", as Spock used to say.
Has it occurred to these agents, fools or shills that "conspiring" is just another word for "Colluding on mutual interests", and that this is what EVERYBODY does on a daily basis, and that this applies especially to people with wealth, connections and means? EVERYBODY cooperates, colludes and conspires, mutherfucker**.
So let's have no more hiding behind hollow cliches, and let's start debating about fundamental Values, Goals, Principles, and Assumptions. If you and your bosses dare to.
** FYI... 'MFer' is just another word for... "Dad".
When you start to Read Philosophy, you are committing an Act of Sedition.
- Chris Hedges and probably someone before him
No one took Hitler and his "Nazi Party" seriously save Churchill.
And that's a fact.
Stalin most of all.
Even the Russians admit to that.
This looks more like "the Great Northern Wars" of the 1600's to me. This is why you never change borders in the Ostland.
This whole "neo-con" thing is ridiculous. Everyone wants war on this one.
Poland alone has over 1000 of the best APC's in the world. Britain, France, Turkey, Sweden.
That's an absolute MEGA-TON of firepower.
If I were Russian I'd be supporting him 100% too.
Look at the alternative....
turkey and sweden? france? if the kiev government is driving its draft age males out of the country (to russia) trying to get up an invasion of its own eastern section, what chance do the u.s. and britain have of outlasting the separatists? vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc., etc. don't give one confidence.
you, and poland, may differ.
Jews are like Mosquitos that just keep coming back.
You cocksucker. Can't read a post here anymore without reading your lunatic anti-joo ravings.
Classic troll technique. Say something over radicalized and foul to drive away newbies and people on the fence just waking up.
Not all jews are zionists, not all zionists are jews. Let that be your mantra.
Here is a request mofo - Non-zionist Jews stand the fuck up and say something or carry the burder of your club's misdeeds. Your reputation precedes you. And find a politician who isn't beating his chest and weeping hysterically for fear of annihilation while he annihilates women and children (genocide).
so fuck off all of you. You'll end up in the trenches AGAIN otherwise. It's a matter of numbers. Hire the propagandists and sned them to the internet or take the son of a bitch down...it will change NOTHING. The money trail is easy to see and you have been chosen to remind us apparently that evil thrives when good men do nothing (or are assassinated)
Browse the web searching anti-Zionist anti-Empire blogs. You'll find many of the best are written by passionately committed Jews. I grew up a non-Jew in a Jewish immigrant neighborhood where every store had a can on the counter collecting money for Israel and all the excuses for Israel tripped easily from every tongue - yet despite that, a more anti-racist, open-minded, open-hearted people you'd be hard pressed to find. Thus it came as a total shock to me the first time I met the child of a Jewish fascist - a banker as it happened - and glimpsed into the black fascist heart he was cultivating. How could this be?
As I watched the drama of Israel unfold and began to get real news about its victims, as I began to see Palestinians as real people and to appreciate their heroism, I felt personally betrayed and outraged, as did the more thoughtful of the children I grew up with. Repeated cognative dissonance is the phrase that best describes our experience. For them to mature into full-blown anti-Zionists has taken some time, but many have done so!
anti zionist jews and jewish organizations (very partial list)
A
Georges Adda
Ehud Adiv
David Lindo Alexander
Samuel David Alexander
Šandor Alexander
American Council for Judaism
Anti-Zionist League in Iraq
Gilad Atzmon
B
Daniel Bensaïd
Elmer Berger (rabbi)
Max Blumenthal
Daniel Boyarin
Lenni Brenner
Isaac Breuer
Mirko Breyer
Pedro Brieger
Dan Burros
C
Leslie Cagan
Noam Chomsky
Tony Cliff
Hermann Cohen
Henri Curiel
D
Uri Davis
Isaac Deutscher
David Dragunsky
E
Marek Edelman
Marc H. Ellis
Hedy Epstein
F
Louis Fles
Joe Flexer
Folksgrupe
Clara Fraser
Erich Fried
G
Naeim Giladi
Glenn Greenwald
H
Jacob Israël de Haan
Ilan Halevi
Christopher Hitchens
Albert Montefiore Hyamson
I
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Isaac Isaacs
J
Jewish Anti-Zionist League
Jewish Economic Party
Jews Against Zionism (book)
K
Siegfried Kapper
Ronnie Kasrils
Naomi Klein
Joel Kovel
L
Pierre Lambert
Yitzhak Laor
Abraham Leon
Morten Levin
Alfred Lilienthal
Antony Loewenstein
Jennifer Loewenstein
Meyer London
M
Moshé Machover
Ernest Mandel
Mike Marqusee
Moshe Menuhin
Hajo Meyer
Edwin Samuel Montagu
Claude Montefiore
N
Arthur Neslen
Neturei Karta
Michael Neumann
Fred Newman (philosopher)
O
Bertell Ollman
Aki Orr
P
Palestine: A Policy
Jacob Panken
Ilan Pappé
David Philipson
R
Yakov M. Rabkin
Walther Rathenau
Leonte R?utu
Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten
Tanya Reinhart
Sheldon Richman
Maxime Rodinson
Jacqueline Rose
John Rose (UK politician)
Steven Rose
Chanie Rosenberg
Lessing J. Rosenwald
Franz Rosenzweig
S
Armin Schreiner
Abraham Serfaty
Israel Shahak
Adam Shapiro (activist)
Adolf Shayevich
The Shondes
Isaac Steinberg
George Steiner
Vladimir Šterk
T
Shimon Tzabar
W
Michel Warschawski
Philip Weiss
Sherry Wolf (activist)
Just think ~ If ya add Darla, Spanky, Alfalfa, Waldo, & Stymie to the list, & give them a dog mascot, maybe people will know who they are...
Kidding aside, I suppose some consider it fine & noble to [what appears on the surface] take a stand against your bretheren... But let's face it, there's NEVER gonna be a day where Zionism just ends... There's NEVER gonna be a 'Surrender at Appomattox' moment, where the Zionists & ant-Zionists sit down at a table and somebody hands over a sword, & they agree to terms...
Hell ~ even if that were to happen, I have little doubt in my mind that your list <ABOVE> would be very well represented in the first wave of 'carpetbaggers' that sprang forth from that agreement... Their 'Anti-Zionism' stance goes as far as re-arranging the power structure a little so they can do a little picking of the carcass for themselves...
To use a different analogy... The whole thing reeks of 'suburban white boy' wannabe rappers & gangsters &/or all the guilt ridden white liberals who voted for Obama to clear their conscience, but if they ever see a homeless black person at a street corner begging for some change, they're the first ones to roll up the window of their GMC Suburban...
Good work and a partial list, as you clearly stated. But I'd add MIKO PELED aka "The General's Son"
See YT search results for his many public speeches against Zionism and his government's apartheid policies, laws and activities.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+general%27s+son&search=...
@bunnyswanson:
fuck off with your collectivist notions of group guilt. people are individuals, each person is responsible for their OWN actions, only, not anyone else's.
if you don't understand this basic concept of personal responsibility, you don't belong in a free society.
"Here is a request mofo - Non-zionist Jews stand the fuck up and say something or carry the burder of your club's misdeeds."
You mean like these Israeli Jews?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-07/anti-netanyahu-protest-fills-st...
And please don't tell me that that's not enough. The sad truth is, that within the "Jewish" community (which is surprisingly diverse in its worldviews), the critics and opponents of Imperial/Globalist/World Zionism are just as marginalized and neutralized as everyone else, except that it's done in a very discreet manner (to maintain internal/overall cohesion).
Anyone who has done their research, and has spoken with enough Jews or Israelis, will realize sooner or later that there is indeed a double-pyramidal hierarchy within the Jewish community itself. While the bulk of world Jewry occupies the large, lower pyramid, it is a smaller group that occupies the Top Pyramid.
The latter group, at the very top -- which is comprised of Bankers and Oligarchs -- is the one that creates and directs overall policies. Some people call them Luciferians or Illuminati, but I consider these mere 'labels of convenience' that may or may not apply. IMHO, they have so much wealth, that they need a country of their own, to act as the Bugout Camp that's immune from Judicial prosecution, or perhaps truly the place from which they are determined to rule the entire world.
The point is... the bulk of world Jewry benefits from the 'Trickle Down' effects of their Elite, and the rest of the world benefits from the 'Trickle On' effects. Technically it's more complicated than that (as not all global Zionists are Jews, but are well-positioned and well-rewarded Shabbot Goy, who are often Latter Day, Rapture Evangelicals, or just plain greedy sluts and eager sociopaths), but you get the JPG. Hopefully.
For reasons or technical accuracy and good PR, it is correct and wise to stick to terms like 'Zionists' (a political movement from the late 1800s that uses religious and cultural assets as leverage and flags of convenience). It makes them fair game, and shines the bright light of truth on these human cockroaches.
p.s. As someone here posted yesterday, here is a useful link, which underscore the link between Zio-bankers and the secular-mystical Illuminati (The Enlightened Ones)...
http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-israel-supreme-c...
Further on Bibi...
http://winteractionables.com/?p=18973
and on Bibi's ancestry (his father, Benzion Netanyahu):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netanyahu
Note that Bibi' father (Benzion) changed the family name from Mileikowski to Netanyahu, that Benzion literally means "Son of Zion", and that hise own father Nathan Mileikowsky (Bibi's paternal grandfather) was a writer an Zionist activist.
Here is a link to and Benzion's Zionist Revisionist Activism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
Zionism is in Bibi's blood, you might say. His political party ('LIKUD', Hebrew for "The Consolidation") are rabid Zionists. Most Israeli settlers on 'acquired' Palestinian lands are ardent Zionists, who need Lebensraum, protection and precious water. Water, that's more precious than oil.
"The Truth shall set you free!" I hope.
Another subprime anti-Semite exposed.
Another 4 week TROLL exposed.
too late to stop in reality. even if not, who would be able to shed the kind of light necessary?
This has to be driven by the perceived lack of control of economic factors. makes no sense to take on Russia at their front door unless it is to be used as terminal event for collapse " always been at war with"...
I like Russia
.
its a shame they want Ukraine to share their boot
.
but Israel looks great too
The people of the United States of America like Putin, Russia and China too. Its the pedophile drug trafficing elite, bankers, billionaires and corrupt politicians that give out the military contracts and the military conttractors that don't like Russia. Everybody hates Washington D.C. and Brussels because they are the worst scum the world has ever produced. And, they are dangerous.
the only question is was this article written in the Kremlin or in Lubyanka?
I believe the author is enjoying life in evil America, at least I recall his mention of driving down to Florida and enrolling his daughter at the U. Massachusetts seems to stick in my mind, but that may have been the residence of the other Russian expat cheerleader.
these people would have us believe that the pernicious venality that has taken over Washington DC has magically transformed Putin and the Kremlin into Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Naive stupidity.
He prays to Christ, they pray to Satan...their media twists it around 180...
Yoo Hoo, Mrs Spin Doctor
How many of them were in the Pacific, Bubblah? Why would they be mentioned regarding the War with Germany?
BTW, when are you and squadron posting the banns?
Can a person marry themself?
Again with the ludicrous lies about the Soviet Union providing 80% of the war effort against Hitler.
Okay, let's review one more time...
1) Stalin signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939 that pledged Soviet neutrality in return for a large chunk of territory in Eastern Europe that did not belong to the USSR. This act MADE THE WAR POSSIBLE. So Russia bears a significant share of the blame for the outbreak of the war, as do idiots like Chamberlain and Daladier.
2) Soviet Russia amused itself by stealing Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, half of Poland, part of Rumania, carting off their intelligentsia to labor camps or hastily-dug trenches in the forest, and enslaving their ordinary population. Plus of course they also got entangled in a highly-embarassing war against the lion-hearted Finns, while the allies were left dangling in the breeze. Of course Stalin did not just leave Britain and France to face Germany alone, but provided the Reich with vital raw materials necessary for armaments production and even furnished icebreakers so that German surface raiders could make the Northeast Passage across the Arctic and plunder Allied shipping in the Pacific. In essence, Soviet Russia was effectively on the side of the Axis powers waging war against the western democracies. Once Hitler beat France and was foiled in his attempt to subdue brave Britain,it began to dawn on Stalin that he might be in trouble. His solution was to faithfully fulfill all of his obligations to Hitler even as Hitler stopped paying for the materials he was getting from the USSR.
3) Once Barbarossa kicked off, Stalin became frantic for western aid, even, at one point, suggesting that Britain land 20-25 divisions in Russia to help defend the Motherland against the Nazis.
4) The Allies provided mountains of aid, including more than 50% of the motor vehicles used by the Soviet Army.
5) The Soviet war effort topped off at about 8 million at any one time, but of course they lost enormous numbers of men as both prisoners (4 million) and dead. This naturally cut down on the total at arms at any one time. Final US personnel count: 16 million under arms at the end of the war. plus the armies of the British Empire. Plus the armies of Free France. Plus the armies of various minor allied contingents.
6) The western allies provided 100% of the war effort against the rampaging Japanese while fighting in Europe and on a two-front naval war simultaneously. Russia did not declare war on Japan until the day after Hiroshima.
7) The western allies effectively provided 100% of the muscle for the war at sea, other than minor coastal support operations undertaken by the Soviet Navy in support of its land forces and some small submarine efforts in the Baltic once Germany was already smashed.
8) The western allies provided 100% of the strategic air campaign against the Axis.
9) Russian apologists like to use a count of land forces cannon fodder to support their claim of "doing all the work" necessary to defeat Hitler. But Russian armies rode to battle courtesy of the Dodge boys and Studebaker and GMC. The Luftwaffe was gone from the skies over Russia because of the round-the-clock allied bombing campaign of the German homeland. Allied navies and merchant marines poured out an endless torrent of war material that allowed Russia to concentrate its industrial base on a more limited selection of goods which could then be manufactured en masse.
10) On June 1, 1944 (five days before D-Day) there were 2.4 million Germans in ground forces deployed against the West and 2.8 million in the East. Plus the German Navy mostly deployed against the west. Plus the German Luftwaffe mostly deployed in defense against allied bombers at home. There were also approximately 1 million Soviet citizens serving in the German armed forces and only token contingents of allied citizens likewise employed. So, despite the amount of Soviet cannon fodder sent into the muzzles of MG 42s, the Allied war machine was in fact drawing off more than half of the German war effort.
11) When Germany could contribute 60-70 percent of its war effort against Stalin, it was rolling. As Allied strength in the west grew and siphoned away more and more of Hitler's legions, the American-motorized Soviet Army began to rip up the Wehrmacht, particularly as the share of the German war effort facing it fell below 50%.
Allied force multipliers more than made up for the lack of peasants in the ranks. But, as I have stated every time this subject comes up, the two Allied sides needed each other. Hitler could certainly have finished Russia if left alone to do the job, or he could have held Europe against a conventional assault from the West practically forever-- barring the invention and use of nuclear weapons.
Together, they won the war, but only the Allies and Germany, Italy, and Japan came home to nations freed of evil dictators.
How dare you confuse these people with the facts, don't you know their minds are made up?
Whose facts are you talking about??? There are plenty of facts to make his facts totally nonfactual.
actually everything tarabel posted is pretty much documented. Just because your college professor doesnt believe it doesn't make it false. Putin's Russia is little more than a vast criminal enterprise run by the FSB for the FSB. Explain to us how all those former Russian occupied states all declared their independence out their great love of Russians. Explain to us how during the Russian civil war the Ukrainians were attacked by both the Reds and the Whites for having dared to try to break away from Russian hegemony. Ignorance of the facts doesn't change them.
what is nonfactual? educate us.
Actually, I don't recall ever agreeing with anything Tarabel has posted, but all the information he/she provided seems accurate.
As I have often said before: Fostering Truth and weeding out Bullshit among one's OWN ranks is far, far more important than pointing out the faults of other groups. For w/o such a policy or relentless truth-seeking and zero-tolerance for BS, no group can grow, or even survive. And that is why enemies of any given group like to infiltrate it with Useful Idiots who are happy to spread their manure of half-truths and pure BS. It is for this very reason why I am sometimes hard on our own members, even if it costs me in popularity votes.
"Vigilance! Constant Vigilance!" Is what's required to keep the Truth alive and shining.
.
Sure, it seems accurate, and for many that's good enough. You may want to hold off on agreeing with him, though.
Since he (and his circa 1979 David Lee Roth avatar) joined ZH in September, his comments have displayed a consistent fear and loathing of both Russia and its President. This transparency has allowed most to see such comments as the cheap propaganda they are.
His current screed, however, is a more carefully constructed project. It is lengthier than usual and uses a variety of both subtle and not so subtle propaganda techniques. It seems a bit above his pay grade.
Without repeating them in their entirety, let's take as quick a look as possible at the points tarabel made.
Well, sort of. Between April and July 1939, initial consultations and the Tripartite negotiations were conducted between Britain, France, and the USSR. These stalled when the USSR couldn't get what it considered a satisfactory political agreement from Britain and France.
Also, during early 1939, Germany had secretly hinted to the Soviets that it could give them an agreement with better terms than Britain or France could offer.
A ridiculous assertion considering the various events which resulted in the war. Incidentally, notice how tarabel has subtly conflated the USSR with Russia and then blamed Russia. This is not the only time he'll do so.
By the time the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, every major European power except the USSR had concluded all kinds of treaties and agreements with Hitler. The Soviets had already concluded that a war with Germany was inevitable; the only question was whether they could count on the promises of Britain and France to promptly intervene if Poland were invaded.
The attack on Poland was only days away, and the Soviets had already seen the value of western promises as shown by the Munich Agreement. They also knew that they were not yet prepared to resist if the German military were to continue its eastward advance beyond Poland.
Churchill called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a cynical and coldly-calculated political move. It was. It was also a pragmatic decision. Berlin offered a non-aggression pact and a line beyond which German troops wouldn't go after having invaded Poland, while the west offered nothing of substance. Consequently, the pact gave the Soviets the time to build up their military and the chance to enter the war with borders which were more strategically advantageous.
Again the USSR/Russia conflation.
The loaded term "amused itself by stealing" is blatantly propagandistic.
Yep, the Bolsheviks were not nice people. The people of these newly occupied areas quickly found themselves subjected to the same oppressive miseries that the Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, et al., had been forced to live under for years. While this reality is undeniable, it is also undeniable that the alternative of life under Nazi occupation could hardly have been less unpleasant.
Yes, it resulted in heavy Soviet losses. It ended with the Finns negotiating peace on Soviet terms.
As did the United States. Ford, GM, IBM, ITT, Standard Oil, and Texaco are just a few of the American companies which profited handsomely from their contributions to Hitler's war effort.
Subdue brave Britain? I wonder where he copied and pasted that from. As cited above, the Soviets had known since at least 1939 that a German attack was inevitable.
The rest of tarabel's assertions in his point #2 may be true, false, or exaggerated. As he has left them unsupported, I tend to discount their value.
Points #3 and #4 are unsupported assertions. Nevertheless, US aid to the Soviet Union was not meaningful before 1942, after the USSR had brought to a halt the Nazi blitzkrieg.
Point #5, attempting to minimize the Soviet contribution of manpower against the Nazis, as shown here, is rather absurd.
The USSR had already been fighting the Japanese in 1938 and 1939. Fought both on the ground and in the air, this conflict involved the largest tank battles since WW1. Over 10,000 Red Army soldiers died, and heavy losses forced the Japanese to sign a cease fire.
Again, the USSR/Russia conflation. Incidentally, the Soviet invasion had been planned before the American nuclear attacks.
So what? Ever look at a map? Why invest in a navy when you've got a Nazi land invasion on your hands? Stalin had signed a neutrality pact with Japan in 1941, as mentioned above, which meant he could avoid a two-front war.
So what? The western allies didn't have a land invasion to contend with. It also means that the USSR bears no responsibility for the Dresden firebombings.
A rehash of point #5. Also, note the repeated USSR/Russia conflation.
The Soviets produced their own tanks and aircraft. American aid never amounted to more than five percent of Soviet wartime production. This was dwarfed by the contributions of American corporations to the construction of the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. At one time, GM and Ford together reportedly accounted for no less than half of Germany’s entire production of tanks.
Points #10 and #11 are simply rewordings of point #5.
Ah, yes, can't forget to end with a flourish of Land of the Free® rah-rah-patriotism. Gotta remind everyone that the Russians are really the evil Soviets and the Americans are the good guys. Just be sure that you never read this about Germany after the war.
so your logic is the US could have just bombed them with Fridgidaires and they would have won?
dude, men win wars not material.
and, in the case of the ussr, women as well. the first russian fighting unit to face the nazi tanks at the battle of stalingrad, the turning point of ww 2, was an all female anti aircraft unit that turned their guns down to the lowest setting and fought until the women were kiiled. additionally numerous women were awarded the highest battle medal as tank crew during this same battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
the military and civilian dead of the u.s., the u.k., france, canada and australia totaled about 1.6 million. the u.s.s.r. between 22 and 28 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
The Female Battalion (RT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucqgTWIg9DI
this is a series 27 episodes
also Soviet female pilots
http://acesofww2.com/soviet/women/
The German's loved their "evil" dictator until the end. And they are the ones who knew him, not the foreigners being brainwashed by Jew-media.
The White sheeple had their chance and they decided to serve their enemies and stab the White brothers. Today the glorious result can be studied in London, Paris, New York or New Orleans. Hitler warned them. They better had listened.
Not quite. There's the awkward and sad truth that the Nazis killed more non-Jews (mostly Catholic, like Hitler) than Jews.
Amazing how the Popes and the Catholic Church keep getting a free pass, to this day.
No, the Nazis were ruthless and organized about eliminating all "undesirables" out of the gene pool, including their own "handicapped" children (with physical or mental defects). It was, fast-paced, organized, active Darwinism, as I'd describe it.
The modern labels and focus on primarily the Shoa/Holocaust is a well-managed Zionist campaign, that has roots in truth and reality, but is being leveraged by the Rottenchild Zionist army for their own globalist agenda. Note that European Jews had little or NO interest in emigrating from their "homeland" to a "Israel", a barren patch of land which they'd have to cultivate and develop. Hell, even the Nazis had plans to move European Jews to either Siberia (once they had it from Russia), or to Madagascar.
The truth (and human nature) is usually more complicated and interesting than most people realize or some want to admit. But I do realize that ambitious politicians, zealot acolytes & followers, PR agents and the simple-minded prefer to stick to simple models: in the case of the former, it's useful and in the case of the latter (the simple-minded), it's all they can or want to handle.
Really good info, thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6omeTAbLhQ (4 minutes)
Real history of Holocaust - Sounds familiar eh?
Corrupting the system is the goal, introducing maschoism, gluttony, deviation from the normal.
Hey buddy, where did you get these facts from? Superman Comics or Whichever primary school info magazine? I would not comment trough your superbly idiotic little article as it is based on a mixture of some facts with some LSD type info
100% right. When I see the negative votes on your post, i just shake my head. There is a lot of dim folks from rural areas posting on here.
The fact that I am willing to question Wetern policies and motives is why I come to ZH, but the unquestioning loyalty of pro-Putin ideology kind of makes me sad.
It is hard to get to the other side of a well oiled propaganda machine, but I do hope as a result of posts like this someone gets motivated enough to question what Their authorities and Their main stream media is telling them.
I am glad to see someone takes their time to educate dear people of ZH.
Thank you tarabel!
Many have been misled by hubristic US propaganda.
The US participation in the war against NAZI Germany was neither major nor crucial.
The USSR matched or exceeded US production in tanks, artillery, and (ground) attack aircraft. The tanks of the USSR were far superior to the US-made ones. US weaponry was of little value and use on the Eastern front. Russia also had superior artillery and infantry weaponry.
Germany already faced total defeat (at Stalingrad and Kursk), well before any meaningful US "participation".
Germany was already obliged to station (mostly 2nd rate) troops in the West to repel the British and for occupation purposes. The additional troops that were assigned to also repel the US would have made no difference on the Eastern front against the USSR.
Without USA participation in Europe, the war would have been "different" mostly without the militarily negligible terror bombing of German cities, but the outcome of total defeat would have been the same for Germany.
Without USSR participation, Germany would not have been defeated.
the production statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
Obviously, the "what ifs" of history cannot be proven.
But any claims that the US 'made the crucial difference' in defeating Germany are unsupported by the evidence.
Russia suffered more overall losses than the ALlies.
People also forget the Allies were stretched out against Imperial Japan, so the Allied effort in Europe was smaller than the Russian effort.
And, Russia did not have the naval component of the Allies, so that was a major contribution.
‘Maidan and Beyond: The Media Blackout in Ukraine' - Dr. Johanna Granville’s Presentation
http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=293731
Who desires war? Who glories in war? Cui bono with war?
Will you die for the glory of Obama or McCain or Graham? Who should die for the glory of Obama, McCain or Graham?
There is no inconsequential war. There is no free war lunch party. Is your death worth their gain? The good war is like your good death, not worth it.
If it comes to war, I would be more happy if I knew Vlad had wiped out the individuals you named before a nuke took me out.
The only reason the US troops were sent to fight WW2 was to stop Stalin from advancing all the way to the West and taking over Western Europe. Doing so the US government also managed to secure some of the best German scientists and their research that was later used in the creation of atomic weapons.
Overall, I totally agree with the saker’s article.
Another one who has fallen to the lie, that the European culture had it's roots in Christianity. Jesus. Never heard about the ancient high culture of the Greeks and Romans? THAT'S EUROPE'S CULTURE. That's what Hitler's Germany and its Alliies defended.
Who downvoted this?
Audiatur et altera pars? Roman law anyone? That's ancient Europe not Christianity.
The earth a globe not flat and travelling around the sun? The Greeks knew it. Even had calculated it's size. But the primitive religion from the Asian desert wiped out that knowledge for centuries!
Christianity did not build the Cathedrals or created European art! The proove is very simple: where is this art in Christian Africa or South America? This was all created by the European blood.
Christianity brought the witchhunts, the destruction of century old knowledge about herbs, the understanding that humans are part of nature like every other living being and that animals feel the same pain or joy like humans. Destroyed by a primitive religion from the desert, that we humans were destined to rule over the world and subjugate nature instead to strive to live in harmony with it.
To have a chance in Europe to spread, Christianity had to camouflage itself. Even the most important Christian holidays are fake. For example placed on the ancient European holidays of winter and summer solstice. Eastern, the old Celtic and Germanic celebration of the revival of nature after winter, the celebration of the beauty of nature.
Every European with a rest of a European spirit alive should be able to feel deeply in his heart the truth of the following:
If you want to see god, do not go into a dark and cold church, go into the wood and open your eyes and breath deeply, watch the bees on a meadow in spring or lay at night on the ground and watch the stars. Then you will FEEL, how unimportant humans are and how arrogant and primitive it is to claim they were the crown of anything, but instead are one tiny part in the eternal order.
How primitive is it in comparison, to believe that humans should subjugate the world? Or that god's words could be found in a book, written by people who didn't even know that the earth was traveling around the sun?
The facts are clear that the foundation of Europe's culture is in the ancient world and one must be completely uneducated not to know that.
I don't say that Christianity does not also had positive aspects. But the ones who claim the roots of Europe were in Christianity, are directly or indirectly claiming European culture also was Jewish, and there could nothing be further from the truth.
at the end of WWII the US government was terrified of the Soviets because of the strength of their Godless military.
i remember during the 1980s in Afghanistan when we were supplying the "Mujahdin" with material to beat those "Godless Soviets" (no shit, my dad was building B1 Bombers and junior was sending his lunch money and dad's old BDUs to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.
Who is the Godless country now that has banished Jesus Christ?
My money is on Russia winning the next one.
The constant propaganda about the “Russian threat” is not only a political tool to dumb down the western people by keeping them in a state of constant fear (of Russia or Islam), but it is also the expression of a deep fear really felt by the 1% plutocracy which rules over the western world.
Well yes, The sway in all the fear propaganda etc from the MSM daily, IS the fears and desires of the 1% who own the 5 media companies.
Watch/listen/read the MSM and you will see it is ALWAYs conveyed from THEIR(1%) perspective.
So 'THEY" is us(you and me)
and 'WE' is them(1%ers)
We've all had this happen to us at least once in Russia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jWmyGKfwdI
Three cheers for Russia Today telling it like Vladimir insists it be told.
Hip-hip hooray!
Hip-hip hooray!!
Hip-hip hooray!!!
Time for your thorazine, Bob.
You may need to assist him. His straight jacket makes it hard to find a vein.
Who's got Vlad's suicide watch tonight?
Amerikunt parrot squawking again.
^^^^^Just a question. Why do you keep changing accounts?^^^
I believe you all alone, troll...
The USA has a major problem now, and is the thing that scares Germany and should scare all of Europe, and that is the Russian nuclear inventory is very mobile and diverse, not just 1950s fixed silo sites.
You just can't go bomb the hell out of Russia without getting obliterated yourself, as you are pretty much defenseless. A single nuclear armed Russian sub carries enough firepower to wipeout the USA by itself, and these things are deployed everywhere.
Then you have China with numerous subs and nuclear arms development.
MAD is a certainty if meglomaniac Western oligarchs dream of attacking Russia through proxies.
they think they have the "edge" via first strike/bunkers. russia will take their best punch and emerge on top. not rocket science.
Spot on. My best Russian professor said often "Russians will use a hammer to kill a fly."
They build their systems with overkill and simplicity.
My brother was here yesterday from PA. He saw a huge convoy on the way down.
"LC, remember during Nam and WW2 when about all you had were deuce and a halfs? Not one of those damn vehicles was the same type. (We are depending too much on Tech.)"
Be careful what you wish for, Neocons. You get into it this time with Russia and Vlad will be redecorating Angela's office in three days. Maybe a week, tops.
If it starts, NATO will quickly panic and go nuke. The Russians will shoot down the nukes then deliver a counter-attack after first suppressing non-hardened electronic systems. My best bet would be 10% of the nukes hit Russia while 75% of theirs will hit CONUS and Western Europe.
http://youtu.be/6JLnnq4rv1U
save it, i melt anyone, i shoot apples not a target, you shoot like blind people fuck, simpleton
off topic
This is beyond ridiculous. Must be a slow day huh.
Is always slow day, until it isn't...
This article started out good, but wow did it eat dirt on the way down. And who is Eltsin?
Yeltsin
No, you sewer slurper. You posit the dumbest of things written, then pretend you're topical and have got something of value to add, but "readily admit not having an answer to".
What a hopeless fucked-up total retard you are.
If the west, in 1955, wanted to, it could have delivered easily 3,000 nukes into Russia in under a week. It had way more bombs, maybe ten times the number of Russia, perhaps more. It could easily make a massed attack and overwhelm Russia completely within hours. The US had heavy intercontinental bombers in very large numbers that whole period.
Russia had neither similar bomb numbers, nor even one credible intercontinental bomber with the range and payload required. Not ONE!
The US could have dropped 3,000 A-bombs on Russia in a week, wiped Russia out completely, every city, every industrial area, every transport hub, every port, every airfield, every political site, every army base, every energy center. It could have creamed Russia on a level that Hitler could never have even dreamed of.
And they didn't do anything! They kept the peace. They didn't want to do what Hitler would have done to the lot of you, in a heart beat.
They even had a JEWISH WWII General in the Oval office, Eisenhower, and an efficient killing oriented commander of SAC, in Gen Lemay, who was itching and demanding to eliminate Russia while it was still weak, "or else we will have to deal with them when they're at nuclear parity". (paraphrased) He considered letting Russia reach nuclear parity completely insane.
And looking at the unmitigated wa- stirring crap that issues out of people like you in 2015, I can't help but think that Lemay had a pretty good point there.
But still the Jew in the White House refused to attack Russia, and did nothing. They decided they were not going to wipe out Russia, they were going to try for deterrence, to make Russia see that it would never win, and would never get away with a nuclear war with the west.
The whole diplomatic policy from Truman at end of WWII, forwards, was "speak quietly but carry a very large stick", which they did. They simply waited for the next 45 years for Russia to collapse or make peace and put the cold war aside.
And somehow your twisted sick pea-brain comes up with this ludicrous bilious crap that the west was and is afraid of Russia ... and needs to ... ???
WTF?
You're a shit-stirring war-mongering twisted little fuckwit Saker.
You should have been aborted down a toilet at a much earlier date, but you're definitely getting way too much oxygen these days. Shit stains like you are at least as malignant as Nuland, etal.
Scum
Ukraine Arms Deal ... er Peace Deal
PS: Hey, weekend Tyler, slow news day? Think you do anyone favors re-posting stupid propaganda sewer juice like that? Got brain?
@ ELEMENT -- Seems to me that you have confirmed YOU are the twisted sick pea-brain fool !
-- and an utterly sick WANKER besides.
Most of us can read outside of the main Media & there is NO DOUBT that the Fu$%#ng US neocons are trying to stir up a WAR with Russia. They THINK Russia is weaker now than they will be in another 10 years or so & that NOW is the time or never.
You'd better HOPE you idiot that its never. Russia is NOT on America's doorstep --it's the other way!
You sick twisted (probably being paid by CIA or similar) A$$HOLE !
The article WAS fair & Balanced & asked questions that need answering.
Oh yeah, 100% pure dickhead.
Real cogent cerebral farts mate, point out anything I said in retort for that idiot's shit-stirring garbage that was not true? Not historically factual?
You've got a big pile of nothing to whine about there bitch. I addressed that dickheads brainless suppositions, and pointed out what a total crock of ridiculous shit it is, pretending to be examination and analysis, and how the opposite of his idiot claims, are what's consistent with the known relevant events and facts since WWII in that regard.
Go go slurp the sewer water over at Saker's steaming shit heap, you'll absolutely love it bonehead.
Zion much?
You may or may not agree with Saker's analysis, but there isn't a single shit-stirring war-mongering sentence in his text.
Your retort, OTOH, reeks with psychopathy (not to mention vulgarism).
A Russian analyst says something (quite benign) that is not exactly to your liking and you respond by regreting that Lemay didn't nuke them all when he had the chance (never mind now whether he realy could have done it or not). It is exactly people like you that Saker is talking about:
The best way to stop them, is to shed a strong light on them and their real motives.
No, you perverse misrepresenting twisted arsewipe;
I said that in light of the crap coming out of Russia these days, that Lemay had a point, i.e.
Which is entirely different to what you misrepresented me as saying, isn't it, arsewipe.
If the Jew (who had proudly openly claimed to be Jewish) President in the White House, at the time, had listened to Lemay and acted on his advice, then the US would in fact rule the world today, minus its' two biggest strategic competitors today.
Ike didn't do it. Nor did any other US President. The Russians didn't catch up the US in nuclear parity until about 1975.
Instead Ike kept Lemay around in the off-chance the US might need him in War because he was the best aerial mass-murderer the world had ever seen, a real talent with superior dedication to killing with bombs. The best, of the best, of the worst.
But US policy was consistent the whole way since WWII to 1992, of deterring Russian attacks, either Russian conventional forces attacks in Europe, or via a strategic surprise attack on the US.
That is what occurred. It was the US that held the whip hand for the first 15 years of the cold war. They knew perfectly well that the Russians would reach parity, but still they did not attack Russia.
The US guarded against Russia aggression, and made perfectly and consistently clear that if they ever got aggressive, they were dead.
But you, corsair, are a twisted little Putin fanboy, a revisionist, in love with the Soviet mystique and present tactic of aggressive armed Russian empire-building via fifth column colonial proxies, and absurd 'justifications' spread in pure propaganda bullshit fountains. And one of those propaganda bullshit fountains is the Saker blog.
You are a like minded fellow-traveler with that SCUM.
There you go trying to muddy the water again with a pile of meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
You said that Lemay wanted to anihilate Russia with a nuclear strike. That's millions of people we are talking about, not some freaking chessboard. AND you said: Lemay had a pretty good point there. Wiggle as much as you want, but that is a psychopath talking.
And over what? A harmless analysis that boasts about Russian contribution to Allied victory in WW2 and a speculation that western elites might be revanshistic.
You are yet to point to a single war-mongering sentence in that article.
PSYCHOPATH
potty mouth goat
bored
element
Okay, so you don't like the praise for Stalin. But you really want to change the title from "Revanchism and Russophobia" to 'Regret and Russophobia'.
That Eisenhower in 1955 didn't push the lid off of his coffin and the undead Adolf Hitler emerged, with fresh blood dripping from his canines.
How many peeps would 3000 nukes taken out?
Enough to make Hitler's and his 6 million look like a piker.
Your argument is that we could have done something to make Hitler look like an altar boy, but, hey, we didn't.
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4259/internet-trolls-can-be-prosecute...
His military prowess is laughable . He is a stooge just like australia's abott is for murican military PR . He can't see what usa and eu did in ukraine . Ignore his Bull dust . When others try to correct him he ignores and resort to name calling ( look at his 2nd post ) . Redefining his narcisstic disorder . Believing you are safe is more important than actually being safe... in America .
That's correct, the West didn't attack. It had no intent of attacking Russia, unless it had to, in a nuclear attack, or an ongoing invasive war, coming from Russia.
The aim was deterrence and the clear evidence for that is the US had the perfect opportunity to eliminate its major strategic opponent and threat, that had declared in detail and repeatedly a self-declared intent to create a world communist revolution, armed struggle, and political take over. So the US had a justification to act to eliminate that plainly expressed threat, and still didn't simply just wipe them out and eliminate their capacity.
The supposition that the US was and is 'fearful', so now wants to attack and goad, is completely ridiculous nonsense, being put about by a fool at the The Saker blog who is constantly spewing war-mongering bile and hate, and endless false accusations on to the internet, yelling "fight fight fight!", into the international domain in general, and on to the internet 'school ground' of fools, in particular.
Entirely with forethought and malice to misrepresent the situation, in any and every way it can possibly concoct and misconstrue to smear and denigrate to create paranoia and intent to violence.
That Saker prick is contemptible slime, an insane perverse shit-stirring provocateur trying to conjure and elicit escalating conflict on false pretenses, with endless contrived misrepresentations simply to create harm for others. It is a malign propagandist, no different to Goebbels, serving similar ends, and deserves no less outcome.
SCUM
This world can definitely do without it and the interests of Humanity as a whole would be very well served by that scum being called and dealt with appropriately.
Strange.
You seemed a lot more enthusiastic about an attack on Russia in '55 on my first reading of your reply, then you did just now on the second reading.
:o)
I am at a bit of a loss here with this miscommunication. Element to my knowledge has never shown an enthusiastic desire for war with Russia or anyone else. I have read his posts on this thread and I can't see where this is misunderstood.
"The US could have dropped 3,000 A-bombs on Russia."
This sentence says COULD HAVE not should have. Maybe people are just skimming and making snap judgements. Too much Twitter and not enough Tolstoy.
Miffed
That's because you are not quoting the pertinent part of his diatribe. Here, let me assist you:
"They even had ....... an efficient killing oriented commander of SAC, in Gen Lemay, who was itching and demanding to eliminate Russia while it was still weak.
I can't help but think that Lemay had a pretty good point there."
And there's your SHOULD HAVE. I wonder what Tolstoy would have said.
And later " best of the best, of the worst" in reference to Lemay.
I realize we are quoting someone who should be responding himself but I have " known" Element for a very long time and I have never in all my interactions with him seen any psycopathic tendencies. But,then again, I must remember Tolstoy was famous for his paradoxical characters (as he was at times himself) though highly moral in his life as well as being a pacifist.
The written word can be misconstrued due to lack of visual nuance in social interactions ( the necessity of the sarc tag for example). Myself, I must reserve Judgement on this but will always consider your point in future with an open mind. Thanks.
Miffed
I imagine 3000 nuclear bombs on the motherland would have made him angry.
You're right.
When I skimmed through it the first time, it seemed very Curtis LeMayish.
The second reading was much more reasonable. Like it had been edited by someone like... I don't know, Adlai Stevenson.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Isn't that what some people who play the market say? I always assumed those three words all meant the same thing. No Action.
They couldn't because no shit son, everyone knows what nukes can do and the aftermath would have rendered all that land mass unuseable and toxic not to talk off the effects downwind and on the planet. So in th end common sense prevails, plus the American mentatlity is not suicidal, I don't think they woul have been able to stomach even one or two major american cities vapourized in turn even if America would have been the clear winners. Americans are more self preserving than they would let on. 2 cents..
I suggest you visit Hiroshima and have a cup of coffee in a cafe at ground zero, and consider your position.
When did Ike join the Tribe?
Ike openly claimed to be Jewish. Argue with him about it.
retard sook .
Eisenhower was not a jew, what crap you spew.
Saker contends:
"Hitler was most definitely not a Christian. If anything, he and Himmler were pagans with a strong satanic bend to their dark cult of ancestor worship (Ahnenerbe)."
----------
But see Richard Carrier, at http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php
"We often hear accusations that "Adolf Hitler was an atheist and look what he did!" The idea that Hitler believed in God, that he even claimed Christ as his own, is so shocking to people that they will go to any lengths to deny it. But the notion that Hitler was an atheist has already been soundly refuted.1 He was unmistakably a god-fearing Christian."
I read his book. He is a misinformed christian. Small c. He did believe in a creator. But he did not know the bible.
You should definitely read more.
My recommendation is to begin by researching Thule Society and their worshipped creator Die Schwarze Sonne (it's rays are a part of every Schutzstaffel uniform).
+100!!
Adolf Hitler was heavily educated in the occult. I have researched this over a period of 40 years.
He thought a vast impersonal Higher Power or 'Providence' ruled the universe.
Yup. Heavily under the influence of the Thule Society
Hey, look at these guys.
They go up verticle and then they turn horizontal and you shoot 2 of em out of an SUV smaller than an Escalade.
I assume they're going Mach something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbzZC1vDfo8
Anyone with the barest familiarity with Russion history in the 20th century knows that there are excellent reasons to fear them. In his eagerness to whitewash the Soviet regime, the author overlooks the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in which Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide Poland between them. Nations with a tendency to choose mass-murdering paranoid psycopaths as their "Dear Leader" are yes, duh, not to be trusted.
Dude haven't you noticed that this website is just bunch of old soviet/russian propaganda about evil west and russia dindu nuffing?
I see exactly opposite. This is one of the few sites where the West is not praised for spreading "freedom and democracy"at gun point while forcing itself onto others. There is no alleged claim at ZH to Western superiority for "free speech" while they fire, audit or persecute anyone who expresses non PC ideas. There is no claim at ZH for the alleged "exceptionalness" of the West that allows it to wage war wherever it wished under the pretext of "world police" while denying its true hegemonic motives. There is no claims of superior "human rights" while dishonest slander about Russia and Russians run rampant.
I think this is where it gets confusing for many - I don't think you can compare today's Russia to yesterday's USSR. Different quality of leadership and management.
People love to compare Putin to Stalin but the truth is that the Bank-robbing, Georgian POS was about 1,000X scarier then Putin. His management team was also not one to tolerate any trouble makers - can you imagine anyone even thinking about a 'color revolution' in Stalin's Soviet Union? The only color revolution in Stalin's time was a hole in the black earth that you dug yourself.
Compared to Stalin, Putin is a very reasonable, even docile person. Even that sack of shit Saakashvili (who is a US professor at Tufts now and thinks Ukraine is doing a bang up job with its new leadership) Saakashvili took great advantage of Mr. Putin's generousity (though payback is a mother fucker).
There is a very good biography about Stalin as a young man - he believed in direct kinetic energy. I think he would have not had the patience to deal with NATO and the EU today. He would have already fucked them up and you'd probably see tanks in Berlin (again) by now.
For all of you Russia haters - man, I used to be a Russia hater...the product of an education paid for by Lockheed Martin and LTV...I would suggest St. Petersburg and a visit to the Hermitage.
Russians did not choose Stalin
Soviet was never a Russian construct
From 1917 thru Stalin was never Russians in control
Stalin was not a Russian, he was a Georgian criminal from youth
Do not conflate Soviet USSR with Russian Federation
Your knowledge is bare....blame the victim
Bunch of nonsense. The "AngloZionists" manufactured the USSR too, made it mighty with transfers of technology and funds too and Communism and Capitalism were/are really one and only. Saker knows nothing...there is no undercurrent whatsoever its all about Power and how Putin's Russia is an obstacle.
A pissed off Russian woman can seriously fuck you up with just a butter knife - what she could do with a 20mm AA gun...I shudder to think.
the greatest fear of the west is competition
russia with BRICS is presenting an alternative order of the world
So Putin runs a criminal empire in the East :-)
Exactly what is the difference to the criminal empire run in the West?
Our criminal empire is bigger and better because we manipulate everything from Libor to gold prices with bail outs for the too big to fail, QE at ridiuclous levels by the global reserve currency and all the other extras.
I FAIL TO SEE WHO IS WORSE HERE EAST OR WEST?
If anything, the USA fined the perps for the manipulations where was Russia's cut on this? Comes to mind where was the cut of every othert nation in the world that will have been affected by these manipulations.
SEEINGS AS NO PERP WAS ACTUALLY SHOT FOR THESE CRIMES PUTIN IS BETTER ... he would have removed them.
But oh no, the west is even better utilisng the QE rape train taking it in turns to rape populations financially.
You couldn't make this shit up on who is worse you really couldn't.
Blah blah blah
West is broke
Merca is collapsing
Sheeple are pissed off
Revolution is in the air
Ponzi Crapper is about to blow blood-spattered Saudi Mercan IOU toilet paper out of global trade system.
WAR against Russia is the only thing that the Anglozionazis can hope to use to keep the local barbarians from burning the Mercan slum to the ground in a re-enactment of Merca's gift to the rest of humanity.
Get on with it already. The septic wound MUST be lanced. This we all know.
Onward to Hooverville, the sewer in the mire that we in a cloud of hubris somehow imagined was a shining city on a hill.
So Eisenhower was a Jew? LOL
Zerohedge really has to draw the line somewhere with some of these crackpot pieces. I'm sympathetic to Putin so enjoy most of the debates here but this article is just nutcase garbage