WW II – Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe

Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”), by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun). Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996. 470 pages. Hardcover. Photographs.

Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels

For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war — but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July — not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world — actually the world’s first superpower — for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable. [Image: By mid-June 1941, enormous Red Army forces were concentrated on the western Soviet border, poised for a devastating attack against Europe. This diagram appeared in the English-language edition of the German wartime illustrated magazine Signal.]

A Global Soviet Union

In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war …

Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.

Disappointment

The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

An Unfinished Monument

The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height — taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 — an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

The Official View

For decades the official version of the 1941-1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.
Doomed from the Start

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939-40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions — temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet — against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

Tank Disparity Compared

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems — tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks — that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 — just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

Airborne Forces Disparity

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

Maps and Phrase Books

In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 — when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another — to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988-89 Journal, pp. 394-396, 402-412.)

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

A Desperate Gamble

Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

Soviet troops hoist the red hammer-and-sickle flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, an act that symbolized the Soviet subjugation of eastern and central Europe. The Battle of Berlin climaxed the titanic struggle of German and Soviet forces that began on June 22, 1941. On the afternoon of April 30, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming the Reichstag building, Hitler committed suicide in his nearby bunker headquarters.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

The Debate Sharpens

In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.)

With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis — which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

Some Criticisms

Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he — and we — have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”


Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July-August 1998), 30-37. Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), a Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957), and recently retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service. Also see (off-site) the National Vanguard’s review of Icebreaker and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.


How Stalin Conspired To Foment WW2 & Infiltrate the U.S. Government

By John Wear
The Soviet Union Conspires to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government

Stalin adopted three Five Year Plans beginning in 1927 designed to make the Soviet Union by far the greatest military power in the world. Stalin also conspired to start a major war in Europe by drawing Great Britain and France into war against Germany and other countries. Stalin’s plan was to eliminate one enemy with the hands of another. If Germany entered into a war with Great Britain and France, other countries would enter into the war and great destruction would follow. The Soviet Union could then invade Europe and easily take over the entire continent.

Stalin first attempted to start a major war in Europe in 1936 during the civil war in Spain. Stalin’s political agents, propagandists, diplomats, and spies in Spain all screamed in outrage that children were dying in Spain while Great Britain and France did nothing. However, Stalin’s agents were not able to spread the war beyond Spain’s borders. By the end of 1938, Stalin stopped all anti-Hitler propaganda to calm Hitler and to encourage him to attack Poland.

Stalin eventually forced war in Europe with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. British and French delegations had arrived in Moscow on Aug. 11, 1939, to discuss joint action against Germany. During the course of the talks, British and French delegates told the Soviets that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain and France would declare war against Germany. This was the information that Stalin needed to know. On Aug. 19, 1939, Stalin stopped the talks with Great Britain and France, and told the German ambassador in Moscow that he wanted to reach an agreement with Germany. Germany and the Soviet Union then signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, which resulted in the destruction and division of Poland.[1]

The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement is remarkable in that Hitler repeatedly stated he hated communism and did not trust the leaders of the Soviet Union. Hitler writes in Mein Kampf:

It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are blood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanity which, favored by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State, degraded and extirpated millions of educated people out of sheer blood-lust, and that now for nearly ten years they have ruled with such a savage tyranny as was never known before. It must not be forgotten that these rulers belong to a people in whom the most bestial cruelty is allied with a capacity for artful mendacity and believes itself today more than ever called to impose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of the world. It must not be forgotten that the international Jew, who is today the absolute master of Russia, does not look upon Germany as an ally but as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia. One does not form an alliance with a partner whose only aim is the destruction of his fellow partner. Above all, one does not enter into alliances with people for whom no treaty is sacred; because they do not move about this earth as men of honor and sincerity but as the representatives of lies and deception, thievery and plunder and robbery. The man who thinks that he can bind himself by treaty with parasites is like the tree that believes it can form a profitable bargain with the ivy that surrounds it.[2]

Hitler also states in Mein Kampf:

Therefore the fact of forming an alliance with Russia would be the signal for a new war. And the result of that would be the end of Germany.”[3]

Hitler repeated his distrust of the Soviet Union in a conversation on March 3, 1938, with British Ambassador Nevile Henderson. Hitler stated in this conversation that any limitations on arms depended on the Soviet Union. Hitler noted that the problem was rendered particularly difficult “by the fact that one could place as much confidence in the faith in treaties of a barbarous creature like the Soviet Union as in the comprehension of mathematical formulae by a savage. Any agreement with the U.S.S.R. was quite worthless….” Hitler added that it was impossible, for example, to have faith in any Soviet agreement not to use poison gas.[4]

These statements by Hitler in Mein Kampf and to Nevile Henderson were prescientStalin had been conspiring to take over all of Europe ever since the 1920s. Stalin and the Soviet Union could not be trusted to uphold any peace agreement. However, Hitler decided to enter into the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because Hitler was desperate to end the atrocities being committed against the ethnic Germans in Poland. Hitler was hoping that the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement would prevent Great Britain and France from declaring war against Germany.[5]

Hitler also signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because the negotiations that had been ongoing between Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union had taken on a threatening character for Germany. Hitler was confronted with the alternative of being encircled by this massive alliance coalition or ending it via diplomatic channels. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact prevented Germany from being encircled by these three powers.[6]

Stalin stayed out of the war in Europe he had conspired to instigate. Stalin kept the war in Europe going by supplying much needed supplies to Germany. However, Hitler’s swift victory over France prevented the massive destruction in Europe Stalin had hoped for. Molotov was sent to Germany in November 1940 to announce the Soviet Union’s new territorial demands in Europe. These new territorial demands effectively ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Hitler was forced to launch a preemptive attack on June 22, 1941, to prevent the Soviet Union from conquering all of Europe.

The Soviet war effort in the European theater of World War II was enormous. Most historians underestimate the incredible power of the Soviet military. As historian Norman Davies states:

…the Soviet war effort was so overwhelming that impartial historians in the future are unlikely to rate the British and American contribution to the European theatre as much more than a supporting role. The proportions were not ‘Fifty-fifty’, as many imply when talking of the final onslaught on Nazi Germany from East and West. Sooner or later people will have to adjust to the fact that the Soviet role was enormous and the Western role was respectable but modest.”[7]

A crucial factor that prevented the Soviet takeover of Europe was the more than 400,000 non-German Europeans who volunteered to fight on the Eastern Front. Combined with 600,000 German troops, the 1,000,000 man Waffen-SS represented the first truly pan-European army to ever exist. The heroism of these non-German volunteers who joined the Waffen-SS prevented the planned Soviet conquest of Europe. In this regard, Waffen-SS Gen. Leon Degrelle states:

If the Waffen-SS had not existed, Europe would have been overrun entirely by the Soviets by 1944. They would have reached Paris long before the Americans. Waffen-SS heroism stopped the Soviet juggernaut at Moscow, Cherkov, Cherkassy and Tarnopol. The Soviets lost more than 12 months. Without SS resistance the Soviets would have been in Normandy before Eisenhower. The people showed deep gratitude to the young men who sacrificed their lives.[8]

The Soviet Union also conspired to have Japan attack the United States. Harry Dexter White, who was later proven to be a Soviet agent, carried out a mission to provoke Japan into war with the United States. When Secretary of State Cordell Hull allowed the peacemakers in Roosevelt’s administration to put together a modus vivendi that had real potential, White drafted a 10-point proposal that the Japanese were certain to reject. White passed a copy of his proposal to Hull, and this final American offer—the so-called “Hull note”—was presented to the Japanese on Nov. 26, 1941.[9]

The Hull note, which was based on two memoranda from White, was a declaration of war as far as the Japanese were concerned. The Hull note destroyed any possible peace settlement with the Japanese, and led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In this regard, historian John Koster writes:

Harry Dexter White, acting under orders from Soviet intelligence, pulled the strings by which Cordell Hull and [State Department expert on Far Eastern Affairs] Stanley Hornbeck handed the Japanese an ultimatum that was tantamount to a declaration of war—when both the Japanese cabinet and the U.S. military were desperately eager for peace.…Harry Dexter White knew exactly what he was doing. The man himself remains a mystery, but the documents speak for themselves. Harry Dexter White gave us Pearl Harbor.[10]

U.S. delegates attending the the Bretton Woods Conference, (l-r, standing): Assistant Secretary of Treasury Harry Dexter White, Fred M. Vinson, Dean Acheson, Edward E. Brown, Marriner S. Eccles, and Michigan Congressman Jesse P. Wolcott. Front row, seated: Senator Robert F. Wagner, Kentucky Congressman Brent Spence, Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., and New Hampshire Senator Charles W. Tobey

The Soviets had also planted numerous other agents in the Roosevelt administration. For example, Harold Glasser, a member of Morgenthau’s Treasury staff, provided intelligence from the War Department and the White House to the Soviets. Glasser’s reports were deemed so important by the NKVD that 74 reports generated from his material went directly to Stalin. One historian writes of the Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government and its effect on Roosevelt:

These spies, plus the hundreds in other U.S. agencies at the time, including the military and the OSS, permeated the administration in Washington, and, ultimately, the White House, surrounding FDR. He was basically in the Soviet’s pocket. He admired Stalin, sought his favor. Right or wrong, he thought the Soviet Union indispensable in the war, crucial to bringing world peace after it, and he wanted the Soviets handled with kid gloves. FDR was star struck. The Russians hardly could have done better if he was a Soviet spy.[11]

The opening of the Soviet archives in 1995 revealed that more than 300 communist members or supporters had infiltrated the American government. Working in Lend-Lease, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the office of the president, the office of the vice president, and even American intelligence operations, these spies constantly tried to shift U.S. policy in a pro-Soviet direction. During World War II several of these Soviet spies were well-positioned to influence American policy. Especially at the Tehran and Yalta meetings toward the end of World War II, the Soviet spies were able to influence Roosevelt to make huge concessions to the Soviet Union.[12]


Purchase Germany’s War

About Germany’s War

Read More:

Did President Roosevelt Betray America & Force An Unjustified Global War?

A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity

Sneek Peek inside Germany’s War Chapter 1 – The Chief Culprit: Joseph Stalin & The Soviet Union

Image: Stalin

ENDNOTES

[1] Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 106-108.

[2] Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, translated by James Murphy, London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p. 364.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Henderson, Sir Nevile, Failure of a Mission, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940, p. 115.

[5] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 472.

[6] Walendy, Udo, Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2013, pp. 385-386.

[7] Davies, Norman, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, New York: Viking Penguin, 2007, p. 483.

[8] Degrelle, Leon Gen., Hitler Democrat, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2012, p. 11.

[9] Koster, John, Operation Snow, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2012, pp. 135-137, 169.

[10] Ibid., p. 215.

[11] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, pp. 250-251.

[12] Folsom, Burton W. Jr. and Anita, FDR Goes to War, New York: Threshold Editions, 2011, pp. 242, 245.

Prosecutors Accuse Rothschild-Connected Billionaire of Protecting Child Trafficking Sex Cult

By Matt Agorist

As TFTP has previously reported, billionaire heiress Clare Bronfman was indicted on racketeering charges in federal court in July. The indictment was connected to her involvement as Operations Director for the NXIVM sex cult which ensnared Smallville star Allison Mack as well. Now, prosecutors have come forward saying that this billionaire heir is protecting her fellow cronies with a massive amount of money in the form of a defense trust fund.

A federal judge in Brooklyn said he is planning on bringing all of the members of the alleged cult into court because he’s found “issues” with this defense fund set up by Bronfman.

As the NY Post reports, 

Prosecutors have said Bronfman set up the irrevocable trust to keep her fellow cultists in line as they head to trial by paying for top-notch defense attorneys.

Judge Nicholas Garaufis held an initial hearing on the issue last month, where he ruled that documentation related to everyone contributing to the trust must be turned over.

The judge’s order noted that all defendants in the case must attend a court meeting “to address issues [the court] has identified in its review of the Trust’s indenture and the declaration that Defendants submitted,” according to the report.

For those who don’t recall, Bronfman is the heir to the multi-billion dollar liquor fortune of Edgar Bronfman Sr, the billionaire philanthropist who was formerly head of Seagram.

The Bronfman family has very close ties to the Rothschild banking dynasty as well, with members of both families belonging to many of the same companies, including their joint financial firm, Bronfman & Rothschild.

Additionally, at least three high-ranking members of the organization, including Nancy Salzman and both Bronfman sisters, are members of Bill Clinton’s foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, which requires an annual $15,000 membership fee.

Salzman, her daughter Lauren and NXIVM bookkeeper Kathy Russell were also accused of a racketeering conspiracy in the superseding indictment in the case.

After her court appearance in July, Bronfman walked free after agreeing to wear an ankle monitor and posting $100 million in bail—illustrating just how deep her pockets go.

Although Bronfman is not accused of sex trafficking like the group’s leaders Keith Raniere and Allison Mack, Frank Parlato, a former NXIVM publicist-turned-whistleblower told the New York Post that Bronfman is among the harshest leaders in the organization.

She’s the enforcer—the brutal one. Clare’s running the [operation] now, and she’s the most ruthless of them. I’m issuing an absolute warning now. Clare Bronfman is a true fanatic, and if there’s a Jim Jones situation, everyone will commit suicide but her.” Parlato said last year.

The Daily Mail reported that “Bronfman has hired Susan R. Necheles, one of the top white-collar attorneys in the country, to handle her case.”

As TFTP  reported on April 27, the majority of the funding for NXIVM, over a reported $150 million, came from the trust funds of Seagram heiresses, Sara and Clare Bronfman:

Their involvement with Raniere allegedly began in 2002 and has been very public and controversial, with other members of the Bronfman family distancing themselves from the sisters in the press. 

Although this extremely important detail is being left out of most mainstream reports, one of the main charges in the criminal indictment against Raniere and Mack is sex trafficking of children.

Although Bronfman has not been accused in the alleged child sex trafficking case, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office:

Raniere and Bronfman conspired to commit identity theft arising out of a scheme to obtain the e-mail usernames and passwords of perceived enemies and critics of Raniere in order to monitor their electronic communications.

Raniere and Bronfman participated in an identity theft conspiracy involving the use of credit card and banking information belonging to one of Raniere’s sexual partners after her death in November 2016. Bronfman sent Raniere regular emails documenting expenses charged to the woman’s credit card for Raniere’s “review and approval.” Those expenses included payments to a chiropractor for Raniere’s benefit, as well as thousands of dollars’ worth of clothing and shoe purchases for the mother of Raniere’s child.

Bronfman encouraged and induced the illegal entry into the United States of an alien for Bronfman’s financial gain, engaging in international wire transfers to make it fraudulently appear that the victim had the financial resources to obtain an investor visa.

Raniere and his inner circle, including the defendants Clare Bronfman, Allison Mack, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman and Kathy Russell also known as “Prefect,” and others known and unknown, comprised an organized criminal enterprise (the “Enterprise”).

The principal purpose of the Enterprise was to obtain financial and personal benefits for the members of the Enterprise by promoting the defendant Keith Raniere, also known as “Vanguard,” and by recruiting new members into the Pyramid Organizations.

By promoting Raniere and recruiting others into the Pytu-id Organizations, the members of the Enterprise expected to receive financial opportunities and increased power and status within the Enterprise.

On top of all the current charges faced by this cult leader, Raniere is also accused of having a history of pedophilia, with accusations that stretch back over 20 years, involving girls as young as 12.

In 2012, several women were interviewed by the Albany Times Union about the coercive sexual experiences that they had with Raniere when they were young girls. One of the women in the case was found dead of a gunshot wound before she was able to give the interview. Her death was ruled a suicide.

Clare Bronfman released a statement in December of 2017, regarding the allegations against NXIVM, denying any impropriety:

The past few months have been deeply painful for me, as I have seen my friends, associates, and the organization I care for come under fire. Some have asked me why I remain a member and why I still support NXIVM and Keith Raniere. The answer is simple: I’ve seen so much good come from both our programs and from Keith himself. It would be a tragedy to lose the innovative and transformational ideas and tools that continue to improve the lives of so many.

This defense of the NXIVM cult comes in spite of the countless women who have “escaped” the brutal organization with horrid tales of torture and rape. Bronfman seems overly confident that she and her group will beat the charges and this recent information on her fund may be an indicator that she will.

As TFTP has reported many times, billionaire sex offenders—like Jeffrey Epstein—all too often escape any form of actual punishment for their crimes against countless victims. Let’s hope that this situation plays out differently. TFTP will keep you updated as this case progresses. The alleged cult members are due back in court on April 29.


This article originally appeared on The Free Thought Project.



White Nationalists Need to Dump Donald Trump

It is sickening watching supposed White Nationalists and “anti-Semites” fawning over Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner. The amount of cognitive dissonance (and cognitive infiltration) in our movement is becoming quite clear as more and more jump on the “Trump train.”

Sure, some of what Donald Trump says about illegal immigration is great, but what about his plan to grant amnesty to millions of “good” illegal aliens and his stance on massive legal immigration? And what about his Zionist warmongering, jewish family, and jewish business relationships? Trump supporters want us to only focus on the illegal invasion of Mestizos and disregard all of this man’s other statements over the years.

“Nelson Mandela and myself had a wonderful relationship,” Trump says of the celebrated South African terrorist, adding that Mandela “was a special man and will be missed.”

Let’s go back in time to track Trump’s position on people like us. The following is from a 1999 NY Times article:

”Look, he’s a Hitler lover,” Mr. Trump said, alluding to the recent debate over Mr. Buchanan’s view that in World War II Hitler initially presented no serious threat to the United States.

”I guess he’s an anti-Semite,” Mr. Trump said, raising an accusation Mr. Buchanan has repeatedly denied in his career as White House strategist and talk show polemicist. ”He doesn’t like the blacks, he doesn’t like the gays,” Mr. Trump continued. ”It’s just incredible that anybody could embrace this guy.”

Donald Trump was openly pro-jew, pro-gay, and pro-black in 1999, but have things changed at all in recent years? Not at all! Donald Trump was honored this year with an award at the Algemeiner Jewish 100 Gala in New York City, and during his speech he brought up his jewish family. From a February, 2015 article:

“I want to thank my Jewish daughter. I have a Jewish daughter,” he said at the event, which drew a star-studded crowd of 500 to the Capitale on Bowery. “This wasn’t in the plan but I’m very glad it happened.”

Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, converted to Judaism in 2009 before marrying real estate developer Jared Kushner, whom Donald described on stage as a “spectacular guy.” In presenting the award to her father, Ivanka described him as someone who has firm convictions and “a man who uses his platform and uses his voice to effectuate change.”

“He is fundamentally somebody who believes that it’s his civic duty to speak his mind and often say what’s not popular and what others are afraid to,” she added. “He has used his voice often and loudly in support of Israel and in support of developments within Israel, in support of security for Israel and in support of the idea of Israeli democracy.”

On stage, Trump concluded his acceptance speech by asserting his strong support for the Jewish state. He told the audience, “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.

Trump has a jewish daughter, a jewish son-in-law, and jewish grandchildren. Do you really think he would do anything to reduce the power of the jewish oligarchs ruining America? Do you really want a president that has expressed his desire to go to war with Iran? Do you really want another president who will put Israel first?

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Nobody but Donald Trump will save Israel. You are wasting your time with these politicians and political clowns. Best!

I am getting angrier by the moment. I am sick and tired of people thinking that Trump is somehow better than all of the other cuckservatives. He has criticized Barack Obama for not loving Israel enough, even though Obama has said he has a “jewish soul,” been hailed as the “first jewish president,” and bent over backward for the jewish state at every turn.

From a February, 2015 Blaze article:

“Now yesterday, Susan Rice, the President’s National Security Advisor, said Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States is ‘destructive.’ What do you think of the President’s attitude towards Israel? Is he a friend of Israel?” Hewitt asked.

“No, I think he’s one of the worst things that’s ever happened to Israel,” Trump responded.

Trump endorses Benjamin Netanyahu:

I wonder if Donald Trump will travel over to Israel for the next Gaza massacre to get a good front-row seat.

Israel really is our greatest ally, right goy?

This is what Donald Trump supports.

Trump loves people who are sexually aroused by the murder of goyim children. Trump supports the people who murdered a young American girl standing against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and who now celebrate her death with “Rachel Corrie pancakes.”

It doesn’t matter what kind of lip service Trump gives to protecting the United States, he really cares about: himself, his money, his jewish family, the jewish people, and the jewish state of Israel.

Do you know about Donald Trump’s top adviser? Meet Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s Jewish Wingman:

Cohen, who is Jewish, has been Trump’s most loyal ally for nearly a decade, standing up for the real estate mogul in the media and filing lawsuits when Trump perceives he’s been wronged. A 2011 ABC News profile reported that within The Trump Organization he’s called the boss’s “pit bull.”

If all of this was not damning enough, let’s consider Trump’s relationship with some disgusting individuals. In an episode of his show that was filmed a year before the Bill Cosby sex scandal broke, Trump fired a woman for not reaching out to Cosby. From a January, 2015 article:

Calling Cosby “a gentleman,” Trump ultimately fired her from the show, saying “I really believe, if you’d called that gentleman, he would’ve helped you, even if you hadn’t spoken to him in years because you were an amazing team with one of the most successful shows ever.”

In November Trump—who had a year to edit the scene of himself firing a woman clearly distraught at the prospect of contacting Bill Cosby—told reporters Cosby needed a better PR team.

To say Trump has a history of commenting inopportunely on skeevy sex scandals would be an understatement—in 2002, years before Jeffrey Epstein’s egg-shaped penis became a matter of public record—Trump described Epstein as a “terrific guy.”

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Wow, so Donald Trump knew all about jew Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual preference for young girls, but how connected was Trump to the child sex slaver? So close that he was even in his “little black book.”

From a January, 2015 article:

Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz may have been identified by a butler as potential “material witnesses” to pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes against young girls . . .

There is much more that could be written about this subject, but the evidence compiled in this article should be more than ample for anyone who is honest and thinking critically. We need use these points to confront anyone in the alternative media that continues to perform fellatio on Trump. Let’s hold their feet to the fire. If supposed pro-Whites continue chugging along in the “Trump train,” they should be completely discredited. Supporting this Republicuck front-runner is some serious shilling and should not be considered acceptable.

Merkel & Macron Apply Sticking Plaster on Fracturing Europe

While Macron poured tea for Merkel and shared niceties in Aachen, both their countries are reeling from social unrest over economic grievances and uncontrolled immigration.

Published on

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


When German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a new Franco-German Treaty last week in the historic city of Aachen it had pomp and gravitas as background setting.

But in the foreground, figuratively speaking, the two leaders are beset by jarring political problems in both their respective countries, as well as across the entire European Union and on the international level.

If the location of the 9th century Charlesmagne empire centered on German border city of Aachen was meant to inspire unity, it could equally also inspire doom. All empires are destined to fall. Why should the supranational EU not also succumb to demise?

The Franco-German accord signed by Macron and Merkel appeared to be more a PR gesture than a substantive development.

For a start, there already exists an accord between the two countries. The Elysée Treaty signed in 1963 was signed by Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer and is viewed as an historic postwar reconciliation between the two major European powers which helped paved the way for the modern European Union.

Some observers questioned the need for Macron and Merkel to sign a new treaty. “It was like an old couple renewing their marriage vows,” commented historian Marion Gaillard to France 24.

The treaty last week aims to bring closer cooperation between Germany and France in the fields of foreign policy, defense, security, economic policy, and to reinforce the wider EU project. Importantly, another aim is to strengthen “the ability of Europe to act independently”.

The day after signing, Angela Merkel addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, where she said the new Franco-German pact was a real step towards the creation of a European army.

Striving to give Europe independence in foreign policy and defense is obviously a response to the growing tensions between the United States and the EU, tensions that have rudely emerged since Donald Trump became president.

Trump’s berating of European governments, in particular Germany’s, over trade, foreign policy and NATO military spending has inevitably pushed the two main EU powers – Berlin and Paris – to close ranks and perhaps to try to salvage some respect for their images as not being mere vassals of Washington.

However, the outlook is not auspicious. European governments continue to slavishly follow the line from Washington on adopting hostile sanctions against Russia. Also last week, it was shameful how the EU meekly went along with Washington’s blatant coup attempt in Venezuela. So much for being independent!

Merkel and Macron also had their eyes on mounting pressures from within the European bloc.

The two leaders lamented the rise of “populism and nationalism” as negative forces undermining and fracturing the 28-member EU project. Thus by signing the accord last week, the German and French leaders were aiming to “inspire unity” and “cohesion”.

Again, their effort seems more pomp and PR than anything of substantive progress.

While Macron poured tea for Merkel and shared niceties in Aachen, both their countries are reeling from social unrest over economic grievances and uncontrolled immigration. Both leaders have seriously lost political authority. They are weakened figures in the eyes of their respective public, unlike the 1963 signatories De Gaulle and Adenauer who at the time were revered as statesmen.

France’s Macron is particularly despised by growing numbers of his citizens. The Yellow Vest protests, which have been gripping France for nearly three months, are demanding his resignation, mocking Macron as “president of the very rich”.

Merkel is also a shadow of the former “Iron Chancellor” she once was seen as. In her final term of office, she is due to step down with her reputation sullied by growing economic grievances among Germans and the rise of the anti-immigration and Eurosceptic party, Alternative for Germany. Merkel’s former “open door” policy on immigration has rebounded to damage the electoral strength of her center-right Christian Democrat party.

The signing of the Franco-German accord last week is seen as a hollow attempt by both leaders to give themselves an aura of gravitas in the face of growing criticism and rancor among voters. If anything, the exercise in Aachen will further incite popular contempt.

As for Macron and Merkel “inspiring unity” for the rest of Europe: their pomp and ceremony collides with the reality of visceral anger across the EU over what many citizens see as an aloof, unresponsive European establishment whose neoliberal capitalist policies relentlessly rack up social misery.

Macron deprecates so-called “populism” as a nasty scourge on a presumed pristine Europe. He has even referred to populist politics as a form of “leprosy” corroding the body politic of the EU. His snide comments were seen as an attack on the governing parties of Italy and Hungary.

Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini has become a thorn in Macron’s side. Salvini lambasted the French leader for “all talk and no action”, adding that he hoped French voters will soon get rid of “terrible Macron”.

Italy’s second deputy prime minister Luigi Di Maio also gave a verbal kicking to French pretensions last week. He slammed France for “exploiting Africa” through its economic policies towards former colonies, and in that way, claimed Di Maio, French governments are fueling migration to Europe.

Considering that Italy is one of the founding members of the EU – along with France and Germany – the increasingly bitter rhetoric demonstrates just how fractured the bloc has become.

It must be deeply alarming to Europhiles like Macron and Merkel that so many parties across the EU have endorsed Britain’s decision for Brexit, despite the mess that the Brits have made of that departure.

What Macron and Merkel, and other pro-EU establishment politicians, don’t seem to understand is that “populism” is simply a democratic revolt against the orthodoxy of running economies to satisfy big banks and big business, while ordinary people are expected to endure poverty, low wages, unemployment, rising living costs, unaffordable housing, and deteriorating public services.

In other words, the likes of Macron and Merkel have created their own challenges, opposition, and failures from pursuing bankrupt capitalist policies.

At the Davos conference of business elites last week, Italian premier Giuseppe Conte castigated EU economic policies for “sowing despair and discontent across Europe”. He added: “We are radical because we want to bring the power back to the people.”

The Franco-German Treaty signed last week is a useless sticking plaster for covering up a fracturing Europe. What is required is to rebuild Europe with an economic, political system that is genuinely democratic in addressing the needs of ordinary people. And to create a Europe that is truly independent from Washington’s warmongering and Cold War obsession towards Russia.


Don’t Expect The EU To Cave On May’s Brexit Deal Until The Very Last Minute

Theresa May now has to convince the EU to reopen negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, something EU officials have insisted will not happen.

Published on


After a series of embarrassing Parliamentary defeats (and still more embarrassing triumphs over a series of no-confidence votes), Theresa May is we imagine reveling in what was a rare win for on Tuesday: MPs backed an amendment that calls for removing the backstop from her Withdrawal agreement and replacing it with a commitment to find something better after the prime minister vowed to ask the EU to reopen negotiations (something she has reportedly been trying to persuade the block to do behind the scenes for weeks now with little apparent success).

Now that she’s won what her cabinet believes is enough support for a modified version of the deal, having finally corralled a majority for something resembling her current deal, the hard work truly begins: Convincing the EU to reopen negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, something officials have publicly insisted will not happen (though there have been whispers that they have been slowly coming around to the idea).

In a speech on Wednesday, European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker blasted the vote as irresponsible and once again insisted that removing the backstop from the agreement is out of the question.

“This is not a game,” he said, according to Bloomberg.

If there’s anything new to take away from the developments of the past two days, it can be found in a Bloomberg report published Wednesday afternoon that effectively confirmed what many have long suspected: That there won’t be any movement on the deal – either from the EU or, likely, the UK, until the last possible minute. According to BBG, EU diplomats have pointed to a last-minute summit set for March 21 and March 22 – just a week before Brexit Day – as the likely time when a deal may finally be struck.

The European Union is prepared to take Brexit down to a last-minute, high-stakes summit rather than cave into U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s demands over the next few weeks, diplomats said.

Although May is getting ready to head back to Brussels to reopen the Brexit deal that she negotiated over the past 18 months, the EU isn’t planning to give her any concessions before she returns for a vote in the British Parliament on Feb. 14, according to the diplomats. Behind closed doors, European officials are sticking to their well-coordinated public line that they won’t rework the deal.

The EU is in no rush to convene an emergency meeting of EU leaders, which would be necessary for any changes to the deal or for a Brexit-day delay. Diplomats point to a scheduled summit on March 21-22 — just seven days before the U.K. is due to leave the bloc — as the moment when the two sides could be forced to act. Some senior figures in the EU believe the U.K. needs to be all but out of options before accepting the deal, diplomats said.

May met with Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn on Wednesday and the two reportedly sparred over Labour’s demands that the UK commit to permanently remain a part of the EU customs union – an idea that’s anathema to Tory Brexiteers. She’s also due for a phone call with Donald Tusk Wednesday night (he has already publicly reiterated that he won’t budge on the backstop).

Ireland’s prime minister and his cabinet remain committed to the idea that Parliament must cave and accept May’s deal as-is, having warned that a return to a hard border in Ireland will not happen (a ‘no-deal’ Brexit would likely lead to a hard border returning), while simultaneously insisting that the backstop is an integral part of May’s deal.

In an interview with RTE Wednesday morning, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said the notion the UK could leave the bloc without a deal amounts to a threat to “jump out the window”, adding that Ireland wouldn’t cave to threats. He also offered a few unkind words for the Brady amendment, saying it was “wishful thinking:” to replace the backstop with a vague call for something better.

“We are being asked to replace the backstop with wishful thinking,” he said, adding there are no obvious ‘magic’ solutions out there to reopen the withdrawal agreement. Instead, he said that the focus might be on the non-binding political declaration, which would be tweaked in an effort to calm U.K. concerns.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar released a statement after speaking with May via phone on Wednesday where he “set out once again the unchanged Irish and EU position on the withdrawal agreement and the backstop.” It added that the latest developments “reinforced the need for a backstop which is legally robust and workable in practice” and said the two leaders “agreed to stay in touch over the coming period,” per the BBC.

If there’s any clarity to be found in the Brexit process, it’s in the markets: The pound has sunk since the Brady amendment was adopted on Tuesday (and two amendments calling for a delay of Brexit Day were rejected) based on the idea that the UK is inching closer to a ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario. Because of this, Goldman Sachs has upped its “no-deal” Brexit probability to 15% from 10%, and cut the chance of Brexit not happening at all to 35% from 40%.

But has anything really changed? A look past the headlines reveals that the basic facts on the ground haven’t. UBS perhaps put it best in a laconic recap of Tuesday’s vote, that still applies after Wednesday’s outraged squawking from EU officials in Brussels.

The interminably tedious EU-UK divorce continues. The UK government must renegotiate with the EU. The EU says it will not renegotiate. The UK parliament does not want a no-deal exit. There is no automatic delay mechanism, but there are votes in two weeks which might impose an automatic delay mechanism.

And it looks like that’s how things are going to stay for another month or so. But even as the reality that nothing will happen until the last possible minute dawns on markets, we doubt that will put a stop to the endless firehouse of Brexit-related headlines.

Holy Land – Palestinian girl fatally shot at Israeli checkpoint

A still from an Israeli police video shows an officer handcuffing Samah Mubarak after she was shot and incapacitated, as a soldier points a rifle at her, at al-Zaayim checkpoint in the occupied West Bank, 30 January. The 16-year-old, who died of her injuries, appears to have received no first aid.

Israeli forces killed a Palestinian girl at al-Zaayim checkpoint in the occupied West Bank east of Jerusalem on Wednesday.

Israeli police claimed that Samah Zuhair Mubarak attempted to stab a security guard at the checkpoint before she was fatally shot.

The Palestinian Authority health ministry gave Mubarak’s age as 16, and media reported she was in the 11th grade.

No Israeli soldiers were injured during the incident, as in many previous cases in which an alleged Palestinian attacker was killed.

An Israeli police spokesperson tweeted a photo of the knife he claimed Mubarak had carried:

Israeli police also released an edited video said to show parts of the incident.

The video shows a person wearing all black and carrying a backpack approaching the checkpoint.

It then shows an altercation from a distance in which a person appears to stumble or lunge forward, and then fall backwards onto the ground as if shot.

The video is edited such that it does not show what happened in the seconds prior to the altercation and shooting.

It also shows a soldier handcuffing the clearly incapacitated Mubarak who is lying on the ground while another soldier points a rifle at her.

Medical aid denied

In many cases of alleged or actual attacks by Palestinians against Israeli soldiers, occupation forces have habitually used unnecessary lethal force – extrajudicial executions – against persons who presented no imminent threat or had ceased to present a danger.

“In some cases, Israeli officials have said Palestinians appeared to have carried out attacks or attempted to do so in order to be shot dead by Israeli security forces, as a form of ‘suicide by cop,’” the Times of Israel stated after Wednesday’s shooting.

Local media reported that Israeli forces prevented first responders from providing first aid to Mubarak after she was shot.

None of the images released by Israeli police or those circulating on social media and seen by The Electronic Intifada appear to show any examination of Mubarak by medical personnel or life-saving efforts taking place.

Medical care is habitually denied or actively prevented for Palestinians shot by Israeli occupation forces.

In reference to such incidents in the past, Amnesty International has stated that it is “a basic duty under international law to provide medical aid to the wounded, and failure to do so – especially intentional failure – violates the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”

This video shows soldiers looking through Mubarak’s school bag after she was shot and finding only school books:

Family shocked

A family member told Palestinian media that following the killing of Mubarak, Israel detained her father Zuhair Mubarak after summoning him for interrogation at Ofer military prison.

“We knew that Samah was going to school, and we were surprised by the news of her death. We do not know any other details about what had happened at the checkpoint.” the family member added.

Mubarak’s family is originally from the Gaza Strip, but lives in the occupied West Bank town of al-Ram, north of Jerusalem, where her father moved at the age of 18.

She is the third Palestinian child to be killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of 2019.

“Samah has a childish personality, she has no extremist thought or ideology, she comes from a religious family, we are all religious, and she would not do what Israel claims,” Samah’s uncle, Fathi al-Khalidi, told the publication Donia al-Watan.

Fatal tear gas canister

Meanwhile in Gaza on Tuesday, 47-year-old Samir Ghazi al-Nabbahin died from injuries he suffered during Great March of Return protests last Friday.

The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said that al-Nabbahin was hit in the face with a tear gas canister fired by Israeli occupation forces.

On 14 January, another Palestinian in Gaza, 13-year-old Abd al-Raouf Ismail Salha, died from injuries sustained when he was shot in the head by an Israeli tear gas canister days earlier.

Al-Nabbahin was buried on Wednesday amid scenes of anguish:

At least five more Palestinians were injured by Israeli gunfire on Tuesday as they participated in a weekly march in the north of Gaza against Israel’s maritime blockade of the territory.

Tamara Nassar contributed research.


Thu Nov 26, 2015 02:00AM [Updated: Thu Nov 26, 2015 02:04AM ]

US

Israel’s request that Washington should recognize its illegal settlements is itself illegal, says a New York-based author and lecturer.

“The settlements, all of them, are illegal under international law,” Norman Gary Finkelstein told Press TV on Wednesday, while commenting on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated calls for the international recognition of major Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank in exchange for steps to ease tensions with the Palestinians.

Bibi wants the US to “legalize a situation, which is clearly illegal,” the analyst noted, slamming the Israeli premier’s offer to “allow for certain kinds of economic development in the occupied Palestinian territory” instead.

“He has no right to do that either… he has only one right; he has the right to pack up his bag and leave.”

The United States strongly rejected Israel’s request, calling construction of settlements an obstacle to a two-state solution.

The new dispute over Israeli settlements emerged between Washington and Tel Aviv on Tuesday, as US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel and the West Bank for the first time in more than a year.

The presence and continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine has created a major obstacle for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East.

More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds.

The UN and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured by Israel in the 1967 war and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids construction on occupied lands.

Comments:
Ra2015.11.28 05:38
Dismantling ‘Israel’ is absolutely necessary for World peace. Let alone Palestine.
Peter West2015.11.27 18:58
300,000 of them are American Citizens, believe it or not.
1BigCREE1Redtail2015.11.27 07:15
ALL of Palestine is under ILLEGAL OCCUPATION ever since May, 1948. The invaders i.e. “israelis” have no right or say in anything over Palestine period. They need to leave ALL of it and issue a GLOBAL APOLOGY plus FULL COMPENSATION for the past seventy years of damages, stolen land and resources belonging to the Palestinians.
Adam2015.11.27 04:34
The US does wonders
Reza2015.11.26 22:25
USA rejects Israeli settlement buildings on Arab lands? at the same time rewards Israel to carry on building new settlements,where is the logic in that!
Gunney582015.11.26 21:05
All “illegal” settlers should be given no choice but one – LEAVE and leave NOW
Jo.Green2015.11.26 17:39
With Other words ….. This parasite should get a headshot,then Palestine will be ziocancer free,the ME and the whole world safer.
Graham Griffiths2015.11.26 16:33
Finkelstein’s knowledge is always outstanding. It’s good that he reminds us that the settlements are illegal under the International Court of Human Justice, and he gives the year and bill number.
Mesud Peco> Graham Griffiths2015.11.27 09:52
Those are the facts that we, people of the free world knows from 1967. , that’s only you, Americans, who must be educated in international matters
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Wed Nov 25, 2015 08:09AM [Updated: Wed Nov 25, 2015 08:38AM ]
US State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner
US State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner

The United States has strongly rejected Israel’s request that Washington should recognize its illegal settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories, calling the settlements an obstacle to a two-state solution.  

The new dispute over Israeli settlements emerged between Washington and Tel Aviv on Tuesday, as US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel and the West Bank for the first time in more than a year.

During Kerry’s visit to Jerusalem al-Quds, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly demanded international recognition of major Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank in exchange for steps to ease tensions with the Palestinians.

However, the US State Department quickly rejected any suggestion that Washington would change its longstanding opposition to settlements or recognize them as legitimate.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner categorically rejected that possibility. “It’s a big no,” he told reporters.

“We’re not changing the decades-old US policy regarding settlements,” he said, noting that every US administration since 1967 has opposed them because they are an obstacle to a two-state solution.

“The US government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them, and by extension, does not pursue policies that would legitimize them,” Toner said.

Kerry’s visit comes at a time of heightened tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

There were no signs that Kerry made any progress in easing those tensions during his meetings with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The fresh wave of unrest was triggered in September by Israel’s imposition of restrictions on the entry of Palestinian worshipers into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in East al-Quds.

More than 90 Palestinians have been killed at the hands of Israelis since the beginning of October.

Israel says the violence is the result of incitement by Palestinian political and religious leaders.

The Palestinians say the outburst of tensions is the result of nearly 70 years of Israeli occupation and a lack of hope for gaining independence and frustration over repeated failures in peace efforts.

Comments:
Louise OBrien2015.11.28 08:18
The Americans know that their support of Israel and its support of the theft of Arab land is putting it at loggerheads with the Saudis, its allies in terrorism in the Middle East. Little do the Saudis know or probably care that the US agenda is for Israel to own a lot of Arab land and be a dominant power in the Middle East.
n2015.11.27 03:45
But the Americans pay for there construction
———————————————————-

Vandals throw Torah scrolls on floor in Jerusalem synagogue attack

Netanyahu says he is shocked by desecration in Kiryat Yovel neighborhood; interior minister slams vandalism as an ‘outrageous anti-Semitic pogrom’

ed note–and there it is, that word again–

‘Torah.’

Not ‘Talmud, but

Torah.

Now, some undoubtedly wonder why we spend so much time in underscoring this theme, and he’s why–

The entire Judaic power structure is like the proverbial house of cards that has been constructed with a million different lies, falsehoods, inaccuracies, etc, and it is this very paradigm–of overwhelming and inebriating the Gentile mind with falsehoods of various size, scope, species, and severity so as to incapacitate it from accurately understanding the nature of the ‘JQ’–that accounts for what has now become a plague in and of itself as represented by Jewish power.

One of these falsehoods (unfortunately as popular in certain Gentile ‘neighborhoods’ as is the ‘Judaism ain’t Zionism’ nonsense) is the notion that modern day Judaism and its adherents do not follow the Torah but rather the Talmud, a paradigm whereby the former is presented and accepted as ‘holy’, holistic, and beneficent to mankind and as the ‘word of God’, while the latter is characterized as the substance-opposite of the Torah that has produced all the ills of the world today, or at least those ills where organized Jewish interests are intimately involved.

As pointed out here regularly however, both notions are baseless and as bereft of fact as saying that a whale is a fish just because there are certain superficialities that would lead the less studious types to conclude thus.

In the first sense, and as partially evidenced by what appears in the following news story, indeed the Torah is as much part of modern day Judaism as peanuts are part of peanut butter. Every Sin-a-gogue in the world contains Torah scrolls, and on every sabbath (Saturday) a certain ‘parsha’ (part) of those scrolls is read. At the end of the 52 week cycle and beginning on the Jewish New Year of Yom Kippur, the cycle of Torah reading begins anew with the book of Genesis.

It has been this way for thousands of years and all anyone need do in accurately (and honestly) coming to terms with these facts is to bother themselves with a mere few minutes’ research in fereting out truth from fiction.

So the obvious question that begs be asked in all of this is just WHY people embrace such notions, and the answer to that is equally easy to understand–Just as the Jews utilize falsehoods in building their power structure, they also know just what kinds of falsehoods make good bait for those Gentile fish which they intend to catch and eat. Christians of various stripes put the Torah into an equal (or sometimes even higher) caste as they do the New Testament. They have been taught that warlords such as Moses, pimps such as Abraham, thieves and fraudsters such as Jacob and 1st-degree murderers such as David were ‘pre-figurements’ of Jesus, despite the fact that ‘Jesus, son of Mary’ was as opposite their characters as Elliot Ness was to Al Capone.

Worse yet are those ‘Christians’–and particularly of the ‘Identity’ variety, as well as their color-opposite counterparts, the ‘Black Hebrew Israelites’–who view themselves in the most ego-pandering method imaginable as the literal, DNA-descendants of those same aforementioned warlords, pimps, thieves, fraudsters, and 1st-degree murderers.

As it is with any house of cards, all that need take place is to begin flicking a few of them in order to make the entire flimsy structure collapse, and yet, despite all the evil, turmoil, and the fact that Armageddon itself approaches like an apocalyptic storm that threatens to destroy all life on earth, for the most part it will be found that Gentiles–for reasons rooted in their own personal emotional attachments–simply will not part with those delusions which please them the most, despite the fact that it is these very delusions which are the most deadly to their own continued existence.

Times of Israel

Vandals broke into a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Kiryat Yovel overnight Monday and damaged the prayer house, throwing Torah scrolls and other Jewish artifacts onto the floor.

Torah scrolls thrown on the floor in Jerusalem synagogue attack, January 29, 2019 (Facebook)

“We arrived this morning for prayer and we saw the synagogue completely upside-down,” worshiper Yisrael Levy told the Ynet news site. “The burglars tried to break into the ark and when they did not succeed, they cut into it and threw all the Torah scrolls on the floor,” he said, referring to the ornate cabinet where the scrolls are kept.

Levy, who serves as a lay leader for the Siach Yisrael French-speaking community, said there was no friction between worshipers and people outside the community, adding that there are no security cameras located nearby.

Police said in a statement that a forensic team was immediately sent to the scene and an investigation into the incident has been opened. They later announced the formation of special task force to investigate the attack.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement saying he was “shocked” by the attack, adding that he hoped the perpetrators would soon be caught and brought to justice.

Interior minister and head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party Aryeh Deri said the attack was an “outrageous anti-Semitic pogrom at a synagogue here in the Land of Israel.”

He added, “There is no Jewish heart that is not afraid of such scenes.”

President Reuven Rivlin tweeted from his personal account that the images from the synagogue were “hard and painful.”

Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion condemned the attack as “a grave event reminiscent of dark periods of the Jewish people,” and said he was confident police would find the perpetrators.

Dan Illouz, who sits on the Jerusalem municipal council, wrote in a Facebook post that the attack was particularly sad as many members of the Siach Yisrael community had left France to escape persecution. He said that the city must come together and “fight the hatred of those who try to divide us with more love and better relations among the different sectors in the city.”

The chairman of the National Union party, Bezalel Smotrich, also commented on the attack, saying: “These are difficult scenes that are reminiscent of dark days in the history of our people.”

The incident comes just days after vandals burned Jewish prayer books and graffitied the phrase “Hail Satan” in an attack on a Netanya synagogue. A pentagram was also discovered sprayed onto a wall.

Police are investigating Saturday’s incident at the Orthodox place of worship on McDonald Street, popular among English-speaking residents of the coastal city.

British Deep State Of Canada Caught Steering Venezuelan Coup

Featured World

British Deep State Of Canada Caught Steering Venezuelan Coup

…by Matthew J.L Ehret,  for VT Canada

Since Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself president on January 23, it has become obvious to all intelligent onlookers that this “people-power color revolution” is not directed by Trump at all but rather by what has been exposed as the trans-national “Deep State”.

When we look behind the layers of false narratives obscuring the true motives behind this operation, we should not be surprised to find the ugly picture of an insecure empire trying desperately to break apart the new coalition of Russia-China-American partnership now in danger of overthrowing the script for global dictatorship that has been building up for decades.

While anti-Trump neocon Elliot Abrams has been assigned to manage the ongoing coup from the American side of things, an overlooked force driving this scheme is not to be found in America itself, but rather Britain, or more specifically, British-run operations in Canada. Two of the most active players in this operation who we will showcase below are Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and her Oxford cohort Ben Rowswell. Rowswell is not only the former Ambassador to Venezuela but current President of the Canadian International Council (aka: the Round Table Movement of Canada[1]).

The Role of Chrystia Freeland

After completely crippling Russian relations with Canada for over six years, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, a close friend of George Soros, has been at the forefront of every attempt to preserve the structures of the failing British Empire, including playing a guiding role behind the regime change “direct democracy” movement now tearing apart Venezuela.

In a January 24 Global News article entitled Canada played key role in secret talks against Venezuela’s Maduro, an unnamed Canadian Government official described Freeland’s role in the coup:“Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido the night before Maduro’s swearing-in ceremony to offer her government’s support should he confront the socialist leader”.

The quote refers of the Lima Group, a coalition of 14 Latin American nations (11 of whom endorsed the Venezuelan color revolution on January 4) which was founded in August 2017. While some wonder why Canada is a member of this coalition of Latin American nations, the fact is that Canada is not only a member, but the founder[2].

The group was set up entirely to legitimize the regime change movement of Venezuela. Not only did Freeland speak with Guaido two weeks before he declared himself president, giving him the green light to begin the operations stating that Canada would support all actions he takes against Victor Maduro, but she will be presiding over Lima Group’s next anti-Maduro meeting in Ottawa on February 4.

In a Globe and Mail editorial of January 27, Ben Rowswell described Canada’s surprising role as leading member of the Lima Group in the following terms “That our country stands so prominently among these comes as a surprise to many Canadians. It is the product of 18 months of effort over which the Trudeau government has carved out a uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion.” Rowswell then laid out the three principles of the “uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion” as a combination of:

1) The premise that sovereignty stems from the people, 2) That direct action to overthrow a government must come from the people, and 3) International support is vital for a “democratic” regime change.

While Freeland’s guiding hand behind the 2017 creation of the Lima Group satisfied “principle 3” (and “principle 1” is a somewhat meaningless truism when it comes from an ideological social engineer), “principle 2” remained the most difficult during the years of failed western coups against socialist governments in Venezuela.

Unifying the highly scattered and disorganized forces needed to unseat a president has always been the biggest challenge for the Deep State. In the case of Ukraine and Syria the use of Nazis and ISIS terrorists were vital recipes for success, but the absence of similar forces in Venezuela posed a major problem which Ben Rowswell himself was assigned to manage in 2014.

A few words about Rowswell

Prior to becoming Ambassador to Venezuela (2014-2017), Oxford-trained Rowswell worked for the U.S. National Democratic Institute (a branch of the National Endowment of Democracy) in Iraq, served as Deputy Head of Mission in Afghanistan (2009-2010) and in 2011 was visiting scholar at Stanford University’s New Center on Democracy, which was then headed by regime-change expert Michael McFaul (who spent his failed tenure as Obama’s Ambassador to Russia where his sole job was to promote a “white revolution” from the American embassy). McFaul and Rowswell are outspoken disciples of “internet-tech driven direct democracy” modes of unseating “bad” governments.

Rowswell himself described his greatest achievement as Canadian Ambassador to Venezuela as having united opposition forces and having advancing “direct democracy” through social media tech and embassy events.

“We became one of the most vocal embassies in speaking out on human rights issues and encouraging Venezuelans to speak out” said Rowswell in an Ottawa Citizen interview in September 2017. When he left his post on July 27, 2017 he tweeted “I don’t think they (anti-Maduro forces) have anything to worry about because Minister Freeland has Venezuela way at the top of her priority list”.

Obviously, Rowswell never learned that Ambassadors exist to enhance relationships between countries, not to promote the overthrow of the nation hosting them. Wishing to spread his perverse notion of the purpose of “ambassadors”, Rowswell stated in a 2017 interview that “there are many people that could be effective Canadian ambassadors abroad. But not many people that had enough exposure to technology and human rights activism in the field that could combine those two and could create some dramatic new outcomes in global affairs.”

The British Empire on the Verge of Collapse

The question remains: Why such emphasis on Venezuela at this moment in history?

Much can be said about issues of corruption, regime change policies, deep state intrigue and colour revolutions, but all this is mere trivia which does little more than satisfy a useless lust for information.

The reality is that we are living in history, and history is no longer being shaped by the British script which ushered in the post-nation state “New World Order” praised by the likes of Sirs George H.W. Bush or Henry Kissinger decades ago. This new force of history is being shaped by the higher nationalist
aspirations led by Russia and China who, along with other nations, have created a bond of survival centered on mutual growth, long term infrastructure investment and scientific research.

New institutions needed to fund and provide stable credit for projects like the Belt and Road Initiative have been created since 2013, institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Silk Road Fund, the BRICS Bank and more.

The behavior of these credit mechanisms stand in direct opposition to the short-term monetarist rules plaguing the western financial system. Ironically, these new mechanisms bear a great similarity to the traditional American system of political economy represented by Lincoln’s Greenbacks which tie the value of money to the REAL economy rather than Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”.

A major focus of Belt and Road Investments from Chinese and Russians alike has been Latin America and the Caribbean, and since the 2016 victory of American nationalist forces in led by Donald Trump, a serious potential for a U.S.-China-Russia alliance of sovereign nation states has arisen for the first time since World War II This reality keeps British oligarchs (and their slavish lackies) up at night feeling more and more like they are living through the horrifying self-destruction of Edgar Allan Poe’s Roderick Usher[3].

Already, forces representing the genuine self-interests of the United States have begun overturning Obama’s 2011 banning of cooperation on Space science with China as we have seen with NASA’s collaboration with the Chang’e 4 landing on the far side of the moon and former NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s call for a new age of space research and exploration with Russia and China. Donald Trump’s impassioned call for a Moon-Mars mission by the end of his second term is well known, as is his recognition that the Belt and Road Initiative is the way to the future.

This is the new paradigm as outlined by the Schiller Institute for decades. Seething with infantile rage, the British Empire has little left in its arsenal except to try with all of their might to burn the earth rather than lose their power. Fortunately for humanity, the arsonists have lost many of their matches.

[1] The Round Table Movement launched with funds from the Rhodes Trust was created in 1902 to advance the doctrine of a new British Empire advocated by Cecil Rhodes. Simultaneously created was a scholarship fund to indoctrinate generations of technocrats in the halls of Oxford.

The Round Table Movement in Canada changed its name to the Canadian Institute for International Affairs in 1928 and then renamed itself again in 2006 as the Canadian International Council. The American branch of the Round Table Movement was created in 1921 under the name “Council on Foreign Relations”.

[2] A January 27 Globe and Mail editorial by CIC President Rowswell boasted that Canada founded the Lima group.

[3] Poe’s story The Fall of the House of Usher (1839) should be read in full and understood as a psychological study of the oligarchical personality type represented by the pitiful aristocrat Roderick Usher. The story ends: “From that chamber, and from that mansion, I fled aghast. The storm was still abroad in all its wrath as I found myself crossing the old causeway. Suddenly there shot along the path a wild light, and I turned to see whence a gleam so unusual could have issued; for the vast house and its shadows were alone behind me. The radiance was that of the full, setting, and blood-red moon which now shone vividly through that once barely-discernible fissure of which I have before spoken as extending from the roof of the building, in a zig-zag direction, to the base. While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened –there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind –the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight –my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder –there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters –and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the “HOUSE OF USHER.”


Monika Schaefer – Ms. Chrystia Freeland and Her “Nazi Collaborator” Grandfather #461


WarZone

Venezuela Crisis: U.S. Has Painted Itself Into Corner

https://southfront.org/wp-content/plugins/fwduvp/content/video.php?path=https%3A%2F%2Fsouthfront.org%2Fvenezuela-crisis-us-has-painted-itself-into-corner%2F&pid=1553

…from SouthFront

Introduction

Venezuela has the dubious fortune of being located on the continent of South America, which the United States has treated under the so-called “Monroe Doctrine” as its exclusive zone of political, economic, and military influence. In practical terms it meant that whenever a Latin American government pursued a policy at odds with Washington’s preferences, it would be subjected to measures ranging from economic sanctions to outright military invasion.

Latin America became one of the many battlefields of the Cold War when several countries sought to leave the US shadow and align themselves with USSR. The US retaliation was harsh, and included the support for the brutal military coup in Chile, training of “death squads” in Honduras and El Salvador, support for the so-called Contras in Nicaragua, not to mention the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once the Cold War was over, however, a relative peace settled over the region, with Cuba remaining the only hold-out against US power. Even the coming to power of soft Marxist “pink wave” governments in Venezuela and Bolivia did not seem to overly ruffle Washington’s feathers. But the current escalation of the US campaign against Venezuela suggests a revival of US activism in the region.

“Energy Dominance”

One might as well cut to the chase and state the obvious: Venezuela is not only a member of OPEC, it is also a country with the world’s largest known oil reserves dwarfing those even of Saudi Arabia. It is no coincidence that pretty much every country that has been on the US “hit list” in the last decade or so—Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela—is a major producer of hydrocarbons. Given that the global economy is utterly dependent on steady provision of hydrocarbons, US political control over these countries means a stranglehold over major industrial competitors to the United States, namely the EU and China. It also creates US jobs, once US oil companies establish control over the country’s oil fields. At the very least, should the effort to place the country under indirect US control fail, plunging it into chaos removes a competitor to struggling domestic US oil producers.

Monroe Doctrine Returns

The timing of the US escalation closely follows the visit by Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers to Venezuela during which the possibility of creating a Russian military base in the country was discussed by some media outlets. Given that Russia has by now established through the Syrian example that once Russian troops arrive in a country they are unlikely to leave no matter how great the US pressure, Washington may have decided to step up the pressure in the hopes of not only Russia but it’s other major competitor, China, from establishing themselves more firmly in the country. Russia’s Rosneft already has considerable presence in the Venezuela, assisting it with the development of its oil potential, and China has also made a number of investments in the country, though its economic footprint remains modest. Moreover, the US aggression against Venezuela sends a signal to the nearby Nicaragua, also a country facing increasing US political pressure, against pursuing a project of building a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with China’s support.

Thus far US actions consisted of economic sanctions and apparent coordination of coup attempts to be carried out by elements within Venezuela’s military and security forces. It is still difficult to make out what the Trump Administration’s recognition of Juan Guaido, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, as the country’s “interim president” was supposed to represent. Even by the standards of Trump’s current foreign policy team of Pompeo and Bolton, “recognition” of a claimant to supreme executive office who does not actually occupy said office is unprecedented. Not even in the case of Syria, where the US has been far more directly involved in attempting to overthrown its legitimate government, was any opposition leader “recognized” as the official representative of the country itself. Therefore one may conclude Guaido’s “recognition” was supposed to follow the military coup which Guaido probably promised and Washington clearly expected. It is also difficult to say whether Guaido overestimated the degree of his support within the military or outright lied to his American sponsors. Either way, the US intelligence community has once again failed at providing an accurate assessment of the situation within a country, as Venezuela’s military rallied around President Maduro.

Bay of Pigs 2

United States has thus painted itself into a corner. Guaido’s recognition, which was moreover coordinated with the bulk of Latin America’s countries and with the European Union (which likewise points to a wider though failed conspiracy to overthrow Venezuela’s government) cannot very well be walked back. Maduro’s continued presidency has now become a challenge to US power at least as great as Assad’s. One can therefore expect stepped up US efforts to overthrow Venezuela’s government, though it remains to be seen how far the US is willing to go. An outright US military invasion appears unlikely at the moment. The most recent such effort has been in Panama during the George H.W. Bush administration, a far smaller and easier to control country. There is no evidence of US intelligence services training Venezuelan expats in the manner of the “Bay of Pigs” invasion force or the Nicaraguan contras. However, Venezuela is bordered by two countries ruled by far-right politicians closely allied to the United States, Brazil and Colombia. In the wake of the failed US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and with the US military retooling itself for great power confrontations, the US modus operandi in the past several years has been to use proxy armies. These may take the form of non-state actors funded and armed by US intelligence agencies or of friendly states, as in the case of Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen. One could readily imagine the Yemen model used against Venezuela, but this time with a “Brazil-led” coalition doing Washington’s dirty work.

Bargaining Chip?

Last but not least, one must consider the possibility of Venezuela being treated as a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation with Russia and/or China in the delineation of the great powers’ spheres of influence. This would mark a de-facto return to the policy of compensations wherein the balance of power is preserved by major powers ceding parts of their empires to others in exchange for gains elsewhere. Thus, for example, Washington could approach Moscow and  offer a “Venezuela for Syria” or even “Venezuela for Ukraine” bargain. While not out of the realm of possibility, it remains a difficult course of action to imagine for two reasons. The first is that there is little awareness of the limits of US power in Washington itself. The expectation is still of powering through any opposition. The second is that even if the offer were made, it would probably not be accepted in Moscow. Apart from the cost to Russia’s international image, the US at this point has very low credibility and trustworthiness.

———————————————————

On Hollerco$t remembrance day, Poland blots out any mention of its own complicity

Times of Israel

The Polish government marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Sunday, but completely ignored the complicity of Poles who actively participated in crimes against Jews during World War II.

Rather, Warsaw seemed to stress Polish suffering and Polish efforts to rescue Jews, leading an Israeli Holocaust historian to charge that Poland is trying to make the Nazi genocide look like a “Polish rescue project.”

Historians debate how many Poles aided the Nazi death machine during World War II, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

But Poland has never admitted to complicity on any large scale and last year Warsaw passed a law prohibiting people from blaming the Polish nation for Holocaust atrocities.

Indeed, a new study on Holocaust remembrance in Europe argues that the Poles are among the “worst offenders” when it comes to efforts to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators and war criminals and “minimizing their own guilt in the attempted extermination of Jews.”

According to the study, conducted by researchers from Yale and Grinnell colleges and published last week, the right-wing government in Warsaw has “engaged in competitive victimization, emphasising the experience of Polish victims over that of Jewish victims.

“The government spends considerable effort on rewriting history rather than acknowledging and learning from it,” the study found.

On Sunday, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who is due in Israel next month, said the truth about the Holocaust “cannot be relativized in any manner.” In his speech, he did not mention Polish complicity, but rather appeared to stress that the German people, rather than the state’s leadership, bear responsibility for the Holocaust.

“The Holocaust was not carried out by Nazis, but by Hitler’s Germany,” he said at a memorial ceremony held in the building of the central “sauna” in the former Auschwitz II-Birkenau death camp.

Hitler Germany was consumed with fascist ideology, which was the source of “all the evil,” Morawiecki said, according to a readout posted on his website.

In a statement issued Sunday, Poland’s Foreign Ministry noted that six million Jews were killed in the areas occupied by Hitler’s Germany, while emphasizing Polish suffering at the hands of the Nazis, and Polish efforts to save Jews.

“The first transport arrived at Auschwitz on 14 June 1940. It was made up of Polish political prisoners. The decision to transfer them to Auschwitz was dictated by mass arrests of Poles and the resultant overcrowding of prisons in German-occupied Poland,” the statement read.

“The Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was where 1–1.5m people were murdered, a million of them Jewish,” the statement said. “Many were citizens of the Republic of Poland.”

While the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust “will always be a shame for humankind,” it went on, “our faith in humanity is restored by the stories of men and women, Poles among them, who saved Jews from the Holocaust.

“Guided by their sense of shared human solidarity, the Polish Government-in-Exile and thousands of our fellow citizens were involved in helping Jews during the Second World War.”

The Foreign Ministry’s statement stressed that the punishment for doing so in German-occupied Poland was the death penalty, and that Poles account for the largest group of gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center recognizes 6,863 Poles as Righteous Among the Nations, the highest number of any nation.

“Operating under the auspices of the Polish Government-in-Exile, the Council to Aid Jews ‘Żegota’ was the only state organization in occupied Europe established specifically to save Jews,” the Polish Foreign Ministry statement noted.

Polish diplomats helped save “several hundred Jews” from various European countries, it went on.

The statement does not mention the actions of Poles who actively participated in the murder of Jews, even though historians argue that the number of Polish anti-Jewish acts vastly outweigh — in number and significance — those of Poles who helped Jews.

Poland’s Ambassador to Israel, Marek Magierowski‏, on Sunday also issued a statement marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that appeared to imply that only Germans were involved in killing Jews.

“Surely, we in Poland remember very well what happened in that period of time, we remember the Jewish victims of World War II, murdered by Nazi Germans, but we also know that we hold enormous responsibility to preserve the material legacy of the greatest genocide in the history of mankind,” he said.

The statement, which Magierowski‏ tweeted in Hebrew, English and Polish, did not mention anti-Jewish atrocities committed by Poles.

Havi Dreifuss, who heads the Institute for the History of Polish Jewry and Israel-Poland Relations at Tel Aviv University, said she was saddened but not surprised by these comments.

“Reading those statements, one could think the Holocaust was not an unprecedented genocide of Jews, but an impressive Polish rescue project,” she told The Times of Israel on Monday.

“These are just additional expressions of the historical distortion the current Polish government creates in relation to the memory of the Holocaust in Poland.”

Unlike the claims made Sunday, “hundreds of thousands of Poles took part in the Jewish tragedy — by handing Jews to the Polish Blue Police or to the Germans, and by murdering them in immense cruelty,” said Dreifuss, whose research focuses on the relationship between Jews and Poles during the Holocaust.

Those Poles who did risk their lives to rescue Jews feared reprisals from their compatriots, “and usually concealed their courageous acts during – and many times even after – the Holocaust.”

On June 27, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Morawiecki agreed to end the spat between the two countries over a controversial Polish law that criminalized any accusation of the Polish nation of being “responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich.”

Part of their agreement was the issuance of a joint statement that declared that the term “Polish death camps” was “blatantly erroneous” and that the wartime Polish government-in-exile “attempted to stop this Nazi activity by trying to raise awareness among the Western allies to the systematic murder of the Polish Jews.”

Controversially, the joint declaration condemned “every single case of cruelty against Jews perpetrated by Poles during…World War II” but noted “heroic acts of numerous Poles, especially the Righteous Among the Nations, who risked their lives to save Jewish people.”

In exchange for Israel agreeing to issue the statement, the Polish government canceled the section of the controversial Polish law that stipulated criminal sanctions for people accusing the Polish nation of complicity in Nazi crimes.

The agreement, which Netanyahu initially hailed as safeguarding “the historic truth about the Holocaust,” was harshly criticized by Israeli academics and politicians.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center issued a statement saying the joint declaration “contains highly problematic wording that contradicts existing and accepted historical knowledge in this field.”

Historians at the state-funded Holocaust research center said assertions in the statement “contains grave errors and deceptions,” and supports the disproved narrative that the Polish Government-in-Exile was committed to saving Europe’s Jews.

“At least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Polish Jews perished during the war due to actions of their Polish neighbors. Accordingly, Poles’ involvement in persecuting Jews was in no way marginal,” Yad Vashem researchers said in a statement.

Yad Vashem acknowledged the important work of Żegota (the Council for Aid to Jews), saying it helped “thousands of Jews, including hundreds of children,” survive the war. However, its members “were susceptible to extortion and had to hide their actions from Polish society, which turned a jaundiced eye on helping Jews,” the scholars added.

Netanyahu later acknowledged the criticism and vowed to take it into consideration on July 8, but has not addressed the issue publicly since.

“This doesn’t interest him at all; what he cares about are defense, economic and diplomatic relations with Poland. The rest doesn’t interest him,” leading Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer told The Times of Israel on Monday.

Also on Monday, the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem announced that the Polish prime minister was due in Israel next month for a conference.

“The two governments want to increase cooperation,” Bauer said, “and the Holocaust interferes [with that goal], so they’re putting it aside.”

Polish president ‘flabbergasted’ by ‘violent’ Israeli reaction to Holocaust bill

‘We absolutely can’t back down,’ Andrzej Duda says, as Israel’s envoy to Warsaw meets with his top aide regarding legislation

Ed note–doubtless all the usual suspects within ‘duh muuvmnt’ will react in their typical knee-jerk fashion to what the Polish government is proposing here and will thus level terminal criticism at them for not outright denying that the Hollerco$t ever took place at all.

This is the nature of politics. It is as much an impossibility to root out the cancer of Judaic intrigue that has been festering and has been left free to metastasize for decades overnight. Like turning a ship the size of the Titanic in a 180 degree arc, it takes time and has to be done slowly and carefully lest the ship capsize or suffer structural damage due to the stress of its radically-shifting inertia.

This is a good start in that at least it begins the discussion known as ‘revisionism’. Today it is the Polish government outlawing its citizens from participating in the mass suicide known as Hollerco$t guilt as demanded by Judea, Inc, and tomorrow it is additional steps taken that begin the process of thawing the public mind and preparing it for other measures as well.

Please notice however the over-the-top hypocrisy on the part of Israel and Jewish interests who are castigating this latest move by Poland as a ‘violation of the Poles right to ‘free speech’, when it is these same hypocritical Judaic forces responsible for getting legislation passed all over the world making it illegal for persons to exercise their right to free speech when it comes to denying or even QUESTIONING the ‘holy of holies’ known as the Hollerco$t.

It cannot be emphasized enough–Fish swim, birds fly, and Jews lie.

Times of Israel

Poland’s Andrzej Duda said Monday he was “flabbergasted” by Israel’s “violent and very unfavorable reaction” to a bill that criminalizes blaming Poles for atrocities during the Holocaust.

“We absolutely can’t back down. We have the right to defend the historical truth,” he told public broadcaster TVP.

In a fiery speech earlier in the day, he insisted there was “no systematic participation of the Polish nation or the Polish state (in exile) in the Holocaust, but the Polish resistance and Polish state (in exile) fought the Holocaust in an organized and systemic way.”

However, he did acknowledge that “there were wicked people (Poles) who sold their neighbors for money, but it was not the Polish nation, it was not an organized action… There were also cases of Poles giving up their lives to save their Jewish neighbors.”

Duda’s remarks came as Israel’s ambassador in Warsaw, Anna Azari, met with Duda’s cabinet chief, as part of the efforts to resolve the row over the legislation, although Warsaw has signaled it will not change the bill.

During the meeting, Azari reiterated Israel’s concern that the legislation violates freedom of speech and would limit the discourse surrounding the Holocaust in Poland and its victims, the Foreign Ministry said.

Krzysztof Szczerski told Azari that Poland sees the bill as necessary to prevent Poles and Poland being blamed for Nazi crimes, according to the ministry.

Szczerski characterized the talk as “difficult and frank,” and said he was critical of the reaction in Israel to the legislation approved by the lower house of Poland’s parliament Friday.

It also said a joint team would meet on the matter. The Prime Minister’s Office said on Sunday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Polish counterpart, Mateusz Morawiecki, held talks and “agreed to immediately open a dialogue between staffs of the two countries, in order to try and reach an understanding over the legislation.”

Netanyahu has pilloried the legislation, which prescribes prison time for referring to “Polish death camps,” and criminalizes the mention of Polish complicity in Nazi crimes, as “distortion of the truth, the rewriting of history and the denial of the Holocaust.”

But two hours after the Prime Minister’s Office issued its statement, Polish government spokesperson Joanna Kopcińska tweeted: “Prime Minister @MorawieckiM talked today with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the current Polish-Israeli relations and historical conditions. It was agreed that there will be a dialogue between the teams of both countries. However the conversation will not concern sovereign decisions of the Polish parliament.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry downplayed her tweet, saying her view does not represent the Polish government.

However, her statement and Duda’s comments seem to indicate that Israel will not have any influence on reworking the law, which Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have demanded be fixed.

The bill, passed by the lower house of the Polish parliament on Friday, still needs approval from Poland’s Senate and president. Still, it marks a dramatic step by the nationalist government to enforce its official stance that all Poles were heroes during the war. Historians say many Poles collaborated with the Nazis and committed heinous crimes.

The Israeli delegation to the bilateral talks will be headed by Foreign Ministry director Yuval Rotem, the ministry said Monday. Israel does not currently have a dedicated foreign minister, with Netanyahu taking on the role in addition to other duties.

On Sunday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry summoned Poland’s deputy ambassador to express Israel’s opposition to the bill, and said it expects the draft to be amended before final approval.

Polish officials claim the law aims not to “whitewash,” but “to safeguard” history.

The legislation has still sparked outrage in Israel, with some lawmakers accusing the Polish government of outright Holocaust denial, as the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Saturday.

“Everybody knows that many, many thousands of Poles killed or betrayed their Jewish neighbors to the Germans, causing them to be murdered,” said Efraim Zuroff, a prominent historian on the Holocaust and the Eastern Europe director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “The Polish state was not complicit in the Holocaust, but many Poles were.”