Mr Putin wrote a comprehensive history on the 2ndWW, which surprisingly first appeared in the The National Interest and released today. This writing leads to a further support for the request that Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – gather together to to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council, with the focus being: ” a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. ”
Controversy is beginning to show .. with Foreign Policy saying he is rewriting history and the Moscow Times describing it as “Putin’s Latest Obsession: A New World War II Narrative”
75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?
They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.
For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.
People often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the ”red zone“ to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19–20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.
This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.
Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.
We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.
That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.
Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicised speculations.
I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”
It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.
“Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs”.
One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.
However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.
The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, a civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.
Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”
Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.”
The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.
Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.
The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defence of Czechoslovakia.”
Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.
That was the essence of the western policy of ‘appeasement,’ which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.
The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign a military convention on the organisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.”
Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of J. Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of the question.” At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.”
In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.
Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defences.
Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way reﬂected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”
Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honour … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”
Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.
But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.
The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.
Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometres deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.
Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.”
I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.” In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.
Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.
It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.
Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites and radical nationalists.
The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.
As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.
The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.
In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.
During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.
The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” And on November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.
And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognised the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” On October 4, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.” Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasised, “The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.“
In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided to him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s senior advisor Horace Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belorussia.
It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly… would be to… drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia…” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.
World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.
Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.
Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.
However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019 directly accused the USSR – along with the Nazi Germany – of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.
I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.
Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.
Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre‑war period.
Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.
Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgement of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.
The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilised and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany’s satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.
The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilisation and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realise, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.
The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people’s plans and hopes.
Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.
The Nazi ‘strategists’ were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: “Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split.”
But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every metre of native land – we see examples of such unity.
The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.
The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.
We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honouring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.
And today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the centre of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honour the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.
Let me cite another document. This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.
On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”
Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And special role here belongs to members of the search movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database ”Pamyat Naroda“ (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.
The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.
We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.
The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.
The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.
Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that “the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism.” By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.
It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.
The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.
This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.
Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.
At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.
The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.
Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.
The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.
The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.
What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.
A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimise risks and keep confrontation under control.
Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.
The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.
The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.
It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.
What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, about joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.
A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.
The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.
There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.
Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.
Every single word President Putin says makes sense. He will be remembered as THE only sane statesman of the early 21st century.
Marko, I read the whole article and it´s stunningly accurate. I totally agree with you, and those who try to twist this as a “rewritten history” simply make me feel sick.
German imperialists wanted war against Russia long before the Treaty of Versailles. This German colonialism and warmongering (still) is driven by centuries-old anti-Slavic racism and economic interests.
“Even further than Moering was a parliamentarian who raised the creation of a “Central European state” to Germany’s “mission.” This “giant state with a population of 70 to 100 million” was supposed to be “armed against the East and the West, against the Slavic and Latin peoples,” the naval dominion of the English, and “the greatest and most powerful people on this earth” (Rfd, vol 4: 2882). [ 6 ]
The anti-Slavic or anti-Russian mission
On July 25, [b]1848[/b], Wilhelm Jordan called the deputies in the Polendebatte of the Paulskirchenversammlung to finally get to a “healthy Volkssegoismus”. “In the East,” the Germans repeatedly succeeded in making “conquests of the sword” and the “ploughshare” over the course of history. The Germans could and should confide in this “right to conquest” (RfdN, Vol. 2: 1145 f.).
Another parliamentarian spoke of the “holy war”, which should in any case be carried out “between the culture of the West and the barbarism of the East” (Wollstein 1977: 303). [ 41 ] Another stated: “If ever war were to come, there would be a war between Germans and Slavs” (RfdN, Vol. 4: 2779). [ 42 ] Heinrich von Gagern wrote in retrospect about the period of the bourgeois revolution:
The war with Russia, for the sake of the Baltic Sea and the East Seeprovinzen, around Poland, about the Danube and the oriental conditions … was the most popular of all Germany (cf. Valentin 1977, vol. 1: 544).
Bakunin reported that “the senseless cry of the Germans against the Slavs” had been heard most loudly in the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848-49. This would not have had anything to do with democracy, but had been “the call of German national egoism.” The Germans had for a long time been accustomed to regard the “Slavs” as their own, and they maintained that they had to “hold them under the stick” in order to discipline them (cf M.W 18: 609). Bakunin remarked:
In this hatred of the Slavs, in this Slavic confrontation, all parties (1848/49) were unanimous; … The loudest cries were the Democrats against the Slavs: in newspapers and pamphlets, in parliaments and popular assemblies, in the clubs, beer kinks and on the street… Such a noise was so incessant a storm that the Slavs, (Bakunin 1973: 137 f.), Which would have killed all of them.
The hatred of Russia was marked by Bakunin as one of the “strongest nationalities in Germany” (cf n. MEW 18: 613).
The speeches of the Paulskirchenversammlung document how much an alleged “Slavic danger” was regarded as a threat to German culture and German economic power. Six decades later, this danger became a justification for the alleged necessity of the First World War (Lammich 1978: 3, 5).”
In thier strategy papers German governments openly demand:
“expansion to the East”
“outwards it is essential to achieve something whereby we have failed twice before”
“Maintenance of free world trade and the unchecked access to markets and raw materials all over the world”
“Without Germany it is impossible to integrate the East European peoples.”
The “Stalingrad” of the 1240s:
“Hoping to exploit Novgorod’s weakness in the wake of the Mongol and Swedish invasions, the Teutonic Knights attacked the neighboring Novgorod Republic and occupied Pskov, Izborsk, and Koporye in autumn 1240. … The knights’ defeat at the hands of Alexander’s forces prevented the crusaders from retaking Pskov, the linchpin of their eastern crusade. The Novgorodians succeeded in defending Russian territory”
These are strong statements from Putin, bold and forceful. To be Russian, and to hear this polemic will certainly separate the sheep from the goats, and bring more sheep to the fold. For the rest of creation, which is to say Europe, there’s only Gog and Magog, or in other words, just goats. Maybe that is the whole point of it, of Putin’s polarizing the population, since there’s no sense in reasoning with them, so why bother suffering their side of the argument? especially as the writing is on the wall, what path they have chosen.
By any chance, does this ‘Gog and Magog’ of ‘goats’ include the European countries most willing to ditch the USian jackboot and make concessions with Russia?
Fantastic!! And a fair resume of what was really happening from 1933 to 1945. Mr. Putin, yet again is clear and confident. However, it is to be noted a) the French army for a brief period, a few days!!, actually entered/invaded South West Germany, Saarland, and then returned over the border in 1939. b) sorry, do not share any admiration or sympathy for the devious, art-fraud, alcoholic and Empire builder Mr Churchill. Jim Macgregor’s et al., masterpiece – Prolonging the Agony, how the Anglo-American estalishment deliberately extended Ww1, 2017 Isbn 9781634241564. Recounts how the Dardanelles-Gallipoli disaster etc., was to mislead the Czar into believing Constantinople-Istanbul was finally in the offering for Russia. Also we anglo-zionists were ‘wheeling and dealing’ the Russians from 1908 to the Leninist revolution in 1917. Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, Rothschilds & Churchill – the instigators of the Anglo centered NWO which is finally today in its bellicose bombastic exit. As an ex Rhodesian-Kiwi colonial – the City of London, bankers, with their boot licking English pedophilic elite merit no respect or understanding. Please Mr Putin continue serving and defending Russia and the Russian people.
The books of the Docherty-MacGregor tandem compensate for a lack of historical perspective with sensationalist ‘conspiracy theories’. It looks like a ‘limited hangout psy-op (“limited hangout or partial hangout: “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further”). In fact they hide the real ‘conspiracy’ of bringing down Tsarism, splinter Russia, dominate Central Europe and the Balkans, bringing America to Europe, a conspiracy far above the ‘Secret Society’ of Cecil Rhodes, Milner and the ‘Round Table’, the British Establishment itself (soon to become the Anglo-American Establishment). Churchill was not the ‘errand boy’ of the ‘cabal’, he was one of its masterminds.
The books fell hook, line and sinker for the stories of Russian-Serbian responsibilities, Russian ‘dreams’ of Constantinople, Germany hoodwinked by a cabal of a ‘Secret Elite’ to start an entirely avoidable war. The German ‘Elites’ were part of the conspiracy, not victim of it. The Kaiser was half-British, (honorary) Admiral of the British Fleet, Colonel-in-chief of the 1st Royal Dragoons. Although the victors were demanding to be punished for starting an illegal war and for war crimes, he never stood trial and finished his life cozily sheltered in Holland, the British Government never asking for his extradition, while showing an extreme indifference for the massacre of the Tsar’s Family.
But if one wants to pull down the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford (or wherever), there would be few regrets.
A few months back the EU accused both Germany and the Soviet Union (Russia) of starting the Second World War. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed to D-Day of June 6,1944, when Western Allies landed in France, after which they “defeated” Hitler. Russia was not mentioned. What does all this mean ? Quite simply both a revision of history and the continued silence on major aspects of history, historians and the media pretending some things never happened.
What was the difference between Napoleon and Hitler ? Not much of a difference. Both were banker financed, being proxy fighters for the bankers. The largest armies both accumulated were ones used against Russia, with historians going out of the way to conceal the fact who financed them.
In 1812 Napoleon invades Russia. His Grand Army, according to some historians had 450.000 men, while according to others, it had 500.000 men. These are official numbers. Unofficial numbers give the Grand Army a total of 860.000 men, the number being reduced so that people would not ask the obvious question as to who payed for all of this. The Rothschild’s perhaps, Napoleon being their proxy fighter ?
On June 22, 1941 Hitler invades the Soviet Union (Russia) with three million men. To this day historians are silent as to to who payed for this invasion. The US is ‘neutral’ during the actual invasion. However, it joins the Second World War in December of 1941 when it became apparent that Hitler would be defeated before the gates of Moscow, as he was. No, it was not the winter which defeated the German Army, but the fact that Stalin brought more than one million men from Manchuria to Moscow. It was then that the US joins the war, as everybody knew what happened to Napoleon. In 1812 he enters Moscow and in 1814 the Russians enter Paris. This had to be prevented.
The elites in the West are going out of their way to belittle Russia’s contribution to the war, with the EU accusing both Germany and the Soviet Union of starting the war. What we have here are perfidious, Bismarckian tactics. The intent is to conceal the fact that after the First World War Western bankers financed Hitler, while Wall Street invested in German industry. Henry Ford, for example, built truck factories which provided the German Army with transport. Since Napoleon failed in his invasion and break up of Russia, this honor was given to Hitler, who also failed. After the Second World War NATO took over from Hitler.
What in fact was D-Day of June 6,1944 ? Officially it was an invasion of France, the intent being the liberation of Europe from Nazi Germany. This assertion is only half true. Yes, it was the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi Germany. However, it was also, at the same time, a new invasion of Europe, this time by the Anglo-Americans. The intent was to prevent Russia entering Paris, like they did in 1814. The intent, also, was to prevent Germany making an economic and political alliance with Russia, something Bismarck advocated in the 19th century. US troops are still in Europe, ostensibly to ‘protect’ Europe from Russia. The real aim, of course, is to use both US troops and NATO for a potential invasion of Russia, once the country was destabilized. After that NATO troops, the bulk being American, would march into Russia in order to introduce ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and to place Russian nuclear missiles under NATO ‘protection’. After that the country would, in the name of ‘democracy’, be broken up, so that Western banks and corporations could plunder it. As the late political economist Lyndon LaRouche stated, the only thing which can save the US dollar is the break up of Russia and the plunder of Siberia and the North Caspian region. Alas for Western bankers and corporate presidents, things are not going well in that respect. What was planned for Russia is apparently developing in the US, with the EU not too far behind. Over here where I live, we have a saying, which goes like this:”He who plans a grave for someone ends up falling into this very same grave”. This would would appear to be the case.
Finally, we have the question of Hitler’s fate. Officially he committed suicide. Or did he ? Historians are silent on the fact that Hitlers bunker in Berlin had four escape tunnels (in fact it had five, if we count the air conditioning tunnel). Did anybody use these tunnels to escape ? Hitler perhaps ? There is little doubt that Hitlers staff in the bunker used the tunnels. And Hitler ? How did he escape ? By flying over Allied held territory either to Spain, or directly to Argentina, using the JU-390 six engine bomber, which had the range. One day we shall, perhaps, know. I don’t think Western bankers would be too happy if it was divulged that Hitler escaped, bearing in mind it was they who created him.
One of the videos I submitted on one of the Moveable Feast Cafes (the video with Sergey Kurginyan) had a comment claiming that (Protestant) Anglo-Saxons were ‘allies’ of (Orthodox) Russia against Napoleon and Hitler (from mostly-Catholic countries) simply because they fought against the same common enemy. Apparently said commentator fails to mention everything you said, if his/her thesis (that majority-Catholic continental Europe is some sort of ‘center of evil’ and must be destroyed, or something like that) weren’t problematic enough.
I did hear of Britain fighting with Napoleonic France at one point, which adds weight to said notion of Anglo-Saxons and Russia being ‘allies’. To the best of your knowledge, was Britain’s fight with Napoleon done to favor Russia, or did Britain have a separate agenda that ignored, if not spited, Russia?
Britain surely had a different agenda at all time. We can apply in reverse, the famous quip of Churchill about Russia (in fact about Russia’s actions in the wake of the invasion of Poland): “I cannot forecast to you the action of Britain. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Britain national interest”. That is British Empire’s interest. Britain was always a staunch partisan of the principle of the ‘balance of powers’, hence its perceived ‘perfidy’ in shifting alliances. It allied itself with Russia when Napoleon dominated Europe, but it started immediately to sabotage the ‘Holy Alliance’ of the Vienna Congress when Russia got the upper hand in Europe (even going to war- Crimea) only to re-ally with Russia when Germany became a threat. It pushed Japan to attack Russia in the Far-East, only to re-ally with Russia when Japan became a threat for the Empire in Asia.And it was always its policy to prevent a Russian-German alliance which would have dominated not only Europe.
Now, Churchill was in fact referring to the actions of Germany in the Balkans and the Straits: “It cannot be in accordance with the interest of the safety of Russia that Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea, or that it should overrun the Balkan States and subjugate the Slavonic peoples of south eastern Europe. That would be contrary to the historic life-interests of Russia” .
As history abundantly proved us, the question of the Straits was a matter of national interest for both Russia and the British Empire. Both in WW1 and 2, the interests of Russia and Britain in keeping Germany out of the Balkans coincided.
So, the assertion of Putin that “The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I” must be corrected. The root causes of WW1-2 are the Western ‘Crusades’ combined with the Islamic jihad against Byzance and its successor states, Russia and the Orthodox realms of the Balkans.
“In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white”.
Well, Germany was “bled white” – the white of dead bones.
But in 1945 the Soviet armed forces were redder than ever. Informed Westerners who saw them had no enthusiasm at all for fighting them, whatever the politicians safe at home might have desired.
Mr. Putin recommends the use of official archives. Xoroshow -Great!! But apparently after Ww1 the German, Austrian and even Russian archives were plundered/stolen by US agents under the guidance of future President Hoover, who was in Ww1 responsible for the so called ‘relief’ of German occupied Belgium!! Yet another SCAM, according to Mac Gregor-‘Prolonging the Agony WW1’ book. The authors categorically state that by 1919 most European countries involved in the conflict were suffering so much from hunger, chaos and poverty that the US offer of food aid was willingly accepted. Result ¦ Today – tons of German & European archives from Ww1 are still securely stored in the basement at Princeton University, Calif. USA. Also some Russian archives.. 102 years later these documents are Still NOT RETURNED
. Surely if this is true, is this not sufficient evidence of Anglo-Zionist instigation of WW1. Furthermore, English parliamentary archives for May-July 1914, critical period prior to outbreak of WW1, are still under lock and key. Not for public viewing. Please confirm or refute/deny these allegations by Mac Gregor et al., and your own theories on this. So yet again Perfidious Albion/Evil England & her banksters repeat the same scenario for WW2.!! . Yuck!! we Anglo-zionists are true scumbags.. Bon weekend!
My mistake, thanks! Hoover Institute & Think tank, Stanford Unif. Calif, USA. Named after former President Hoover who during WW1 responsible relief efforts Belgium etc.,
” President Hoover who during WW1 responsible relief efforts”
and in the emerging Soviet Union in 1922, leading Mr. Suslov to observe that the “United States” and “Soviet Union” had been at war at least from 1922 to highlight the practice of “aid” as a form of warfare, subsequently practiced as lend-lease, the Marshall Plan etc.
How did they get their hands on Russian archives? Did they go to Russia?
soviet storm has english subtitles
In the history I miss the “follow the money.” Those facts may not be in Russian archives but are available in Germany. Few examples: The Wehrmacht used plenty of Ford and GM (Opel) cars and trucks The synthetic rubber was made in a plant Huels AG using electric arc furnaces developed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and on and on. Moreover, Germany was broke after WW1 and by paying reparations buying weapons in size at the same time was not possible.
Who lent the money?
Another question is who financed Hitler on the way to power?
The first german business owned by Fritz Thyssen ranks in twentiest place finnancing Hitlers party. The main contributions came from outside Germany, details may be embarrassing for companies that still exist.
The answer to your question is that Western bankers financed Hitler. In 1931 the Bank of International Settlements was opened in Basel, close to the German border. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. He was obviously set up.The stated Bank in Basel was the one which financed him. What, unfortunately, is hilarious is the fact that historians always pretend that Germany financed Germany during the Second World War, which is absurd, as it’s not even theoretically possible, bearing in mind the astronomical costs of the war. The current German Army has trouble procuring spare parts for its tanks, planes and submarines, the same being expensive. Then how on earth did Germany finance World War Two ? It could not have, the money being bestowed to it. Germany was given the task of defeating and breaking up Russia. It failed. NATO took over from Germany. It too will fail.
Germany was given the task to defeat and break up Russia in WW1 also. Then the Americans would come and occupy it creating a NATO avant la lettre, so to speak. Germans were clever enough to stop fighting and coming to an understanding with Russia (the Treaty of Rapallo) which led even to secret military collaboration. Series of German officers have been trained in Russia. Germany helped the building of Russian industry (especially armament). A closer Russian-German rapprochement, which was the nightmare of the British Empire, was a clear and present danger and Germany was re-assigned the task to defeat Russia, Nazis’ program being the same as that of Wilhelmine Germany, only to be crushed by the Anglo-Americans who this time would carry on the unfinished business of WW1, the occupation of Europe.
A danger to who else besides the British Empire?
That task will never change, only now for the continental part of Europe, NATO. The biblical project cannot enter it’s next stage as long there is any other sovereign entity mighty enough to challenge it, because the next stage is a roll back of industry and technology for the masses, they will be held under a ‘new’ islamic type Theocracy controlled by the ‘gods’ of Judah who alone posses and control modern Hi-Tech, basically to secure their reign. Ah, and yes the golden billion or half billion is no joke at all ! These people think far, far ahead, in fact they knew already way back in the 16th century with the Pre-Rafaelites which will be carbon copied in an updated form. The real war has not even yet really begun…
I think that Mr Putin wrote this with a few objectives. Of course there is still a lot that can be debate about the 2 World Wars. And he acknowledges that.
But I also think his focus is on a new summit that Russia has been proposing. He says this clearly:
“The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.”
“There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.
That is what I think is the most important of this writing .. Of course, he seems to be worried, as is all of us. But he is willing to take the current circumstances and re-build or re-work into high humanist ideals
I wonder if there is going to be such a summit and what the outcome will be? To my mind, Putin wants to at least attempt to rebuild what is broken now.
” Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.”
Sorry, gross oversight on my part. Point a) Sept. 1939 French army enters Germany then retreats.
Of course, Mr Putin explains Abbeville chit-chat Sept. 12 1939 when Ango-French get cold feet & withdraw troops..
b) Gunther’s comment on today’s German companies could be embarrassed. Rest assured if the Anglo public in UK, USA & colonies/dominions had been fully aware in 1918-1919 of the blatant/complete and non-stop lying by Anglo politicians, newspapers and military experts, surely governments would have fallen. eg., 1915 Dardanelles-Gallipoli disaster and slaughter for the ANZACs – (Australia-NZ joint troops) was yet another false, misleading military fiasco from Mr. Churchill. Goebbels took his lessons from Anglo-Zionists 1908-1919 – just repeat the liars endlessly. Your German Ww1 archives still in California.. but now you have plus 80 US bases. Another Anglo ‘win-win’ situation!! Bis spaeter 😊😁..
Putin takes the lead, again.
He sets the record straight and chastises the new false histories promulgated by the Russophobes in the EU and US.
All the facts are laid bare. Unchallengeable because the Russian archives are being made public in a comprehensive project to firmly re-establish the Truth of who defeated Nazism.
His exposition meticulously leads to a new opportunity for the five great nations on the UNSC to reconnect to lead the world back to stability in military affairs, economic challenges and human development for all people.
A great statesman writes a vital document and waits for the “partners” to join him in responsible actions.
VVP has no peer.
My friend and comrade Larchmonter,
Every word you wrote drips with truth. As SehSha plummets in to ever deeper chaos and turmoil, VVP is showing the way with nary a word about the mess in eu and SehSha, he is simply speaking of the way to a better and more safe world. It does not depend on him or we ordinary people as to whether those involved in this chaotic coup will listen, but if truth be told they better damned sight listen and listen well.
I will not be active on Saker for the next few days, we are storming getting ready for the Victory Day Parade on 24 June. Most folks have no idea the amount of preparation for such an event, an event that honors our veterans, with us or gone after all these years, but in this little berg we of Red Army Sevastopol have spent and will spend thousands of hours getting our several dozen period vehicles ready for the event and everyone in Red Army spends countless hours getting their uniforms ready.
Perhaps after the event I can get with the mods and provide a picture and video spread of the event. Sadly, in eu and US the war is pretty much forgotten. Not in Sevastopol and probably never, we are to this day digging up the dead from both sides. Ours are put to final rest with full military honors. As for the Germans and Romanians, I’ll speak of them after the event, but for the moment I will simply say they, too, are treated with the utmost respect and reverence.
Auslander, мой друг,
I know how you live in true respect to the special history of your local berg. And you and your wife always participants in such memorial events, with photos documenting the great outpouring from the locales.
We look forward to this year’s images and your report.
To our most trusted liaison to Krim and Mother, we send our best wishes.
Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials
were also used in the preparation
of this article.
In this regard, I can state with all responsibility
that there are no archive
documents that would
confirm the assumption that the USSR intended
to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly
confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.
To get what looks like a good and quite non-partisan insight as to the manipulators and villains in the background, we refer you to “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” By Antony C. Sutton.
To get what in our opinion is an ultimate insight into the movement known as “Nazism” and its leader Adolf,
we refer you to “The Lightning and the Sun” by one pseudonym Savitri Devi,—to understand fully the very non-human and anti-human and actually suicidal for human species thrust of “Nazism”. Most people think of “Godless evolution” as the teaching against religions, but a frenzy gripped 19th century western Europeans about the “de-evolution”—that humans were degenerating and something needed to be done to wipe out the “degenerates” throughout the world, and create just a very select few very warlike and “noble” types who of course would eventually kill each other off,—and then leave the planet to the “noble animals”.
—There you go.
I remember the propaganda in the US during Cold War v1 and see the US doing the same in this new (or continued) Cold War v2.
Putin sets the record straight.
Happy Anniversary to Russia! I owe a personal favour to that great country. Not for myself (baptised Greek Christian Orthodox) but for my Polish Jewish wife. From my wife’s war memories:
“May 8th 1945 was my 12th birthday. I was on my own in Krakow when I heard the news on the radio. This was the news I had been dreaming of throughout the unimaginable horror of the war, of the ghetto, of my years in hiding. I could not stay in my room, I needed to get out. For the first time since the opening days of September 1939, when I – a terrified child of eight – had hidden with my parents in a shelter in Lwow as German bombs exploded above us, I was safe. I was free. I had survived. I was going to live. I could not stay indoors, I raced to the Planty Gardens, the ring of parks that circled Krakow’s old city walls. It was a warm spring day, the sun was bright, the flowers beginning to bloom. It was, and remains, one of the happiest days of my life as the Germans retreated and the Russians took over.
It is 75 years since that May day in 1945, I am now 87 and I owe my life to the Red Army and the Polish Communist Partisans who saved the pitiful remnants of Polish Jewry. I remember the Russian soldiers were very kind to a mother with her child, and gave up their places for us on army lorries.”
Thank you for that story.
Now imagine Trump, or any western leader for that matter for that matter, trying to prepare and deliver something like this – LOL! This encapsulates the ever-widening gulf between Russia and the US-led west perfectly. One side is ruled by adults, learned from history, and is acting appropriately; while the other, still now more than ever, foolishly believes it “creates its own realities.” Unfortunately, that hasn’t been working out so well of late. Must have been all those drugs they took back in the 60’s and 70’s.
Fairly good , Hon. Mr Putin,
But while you seemed to have a sense of appeasement for Jews and the and their ‘Holocaust ‘ (as if they were the only ones to die in Nazi work camps, which actually they were but a small number of the casualties in said camps) , (and killed by Germans throwing them in furnace’s- a total Western-Jewish fabrication! Oh very !) You have somehow , and I , as a Muslim find it actually shocking, hurtful and very disappointing that you Sir, have never once, not once mention Soviet Muslims, who died by the Millions defending the Motherland and helping to rid the world of the menace of Racism.
Who did the Soviet High Command bring to the front by train from the far East Soviet (Muslim) Republics ? About one million troops, who were desicive in effectively routing German Army Center, with Gen. Guderian and co. right at the gates of Moscow.
There are beautiful accounts of Russian Muslim Chechens, who are master’s of warfare, a warrior race, who were at Stalingrad putting the fear of God in the troops of the 6th – 4th Panzer. These Chechens and other Soviet Muslims played a crucial role in most all the serious battles all the way to Berlin.
And they are not once mentioned. Why ? Putin doesn’t want to ‘ put it out there ‘ and go outside today’s anti-Islamic protocols and upset the West and Jews ?
He could have gained so much respect from the world’s 1.6 Billion Muslims if he did.
He who gets world- wide mainstream Islamic hearts and minds ( not talking about crazed Jihadists) wins the great game for the 21st Century and beyond.
China seems to understand this. Btw, the whole nonsense about the Ughur Muslim ‘ concentration camps ‘ is pure, unadulterated propaganda.
The Turkish, U.S. , Mi6 ,Saudi ,and Israeli intelligence services brainwashed many Chinese Uighur youth in radical , unsubstantiated , really non Muslim salafism and trained them and sent them on their way back to China, where they conducted many, many brutal, indiscriminate terror attack. When the Chinese investigated, they realized they had a big, big problem on their hands. So large sweeping crackdowns took place and these radicals Jihadists were put up into reeducation facilities so they could learn the real peaceful meaning of Islam. Afterwards, they marry them off, and they get a house.
Same thing happened to Russia in the 90’s when the same intelligence agencies mentioned before brainwashed Russian Chechens, who raised he’ll in Russia. Now , with the new President of the Chechen Republic of Russia Federation, who is a close friend of Mr Putin, things are wonderfull in Chechnya.
After Maidan ( perpetrated by guess who? Are wonderfull and always busy Jews), crimes, many crimes where being unleashed on the breakaway Donbass Republics, The Russian Mod sent in the battle hardened Chechens to organize and help out the brutalized and beaten down Peoples Militias.
Soon after their arrival, the Chechens faces off with the units attacking Donestk from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. When the Battle of Donestk Airport was over, the Ukrainian Army lost some of their most prestigious units, lots of dead troops, and a total rout of armored columns.
The, at the Battle of Debaletsevo, entire column, many miles long, was shredded by the accurate artillery, mortar fire and flanking of the very mobile, fast moving Chechens.
That was the end of the Ukrainian Armies attacks, and efforts to take back, harass the good people of the Donbass.
Even today, there are Russian Chechen Spetznaz in Syria.
Mr. Putin, sir, if you sincerely think the talk-shop known as the U.N. is fair, effective and impartial, why is it that when Saddam or Gaddafi violate just one U.N. Resolution, a coalition is built up, all members of the UNSC approve for military force to be used, then bombs, destruction rains down on densely populated cities killing, destroying whole countries, civilian death, and wholesale untold unnecessary human suffering ?
Mr. Putin, you never mentioned once, that Israel is in direct, blatant violation of 70 U.N. Resolutions, some dating back to 1948. Why is that ? For how long do the Arab, or broader Muslim people going to go on with no voice?
I’m sorry to be the one to inform you, but the U.N. is a tool of Zionist and international Jews who control the U.S. and own the dollar.
Humanity waits for the Chinese to bring the world peace, prosperity, harmony and United World Peace! A Win – Win, as Xi says. Join him. Forget trying to appease and work with the treacherous West. You will only be disappointed.
Putin and Xi are complicit in the never ending (class) war against most of humanity:
Excellent piece. When Russia has strong, perspicacious leaders such as Stalin and Putin, the West’s ”leaders” and, especially, its bootlickers in other places are seen for the mental and moral midgets that they are.
Russia is in her full right to unceremoniously nuke the Euro-trash. As regards the Pindos, they are self-destructing already, so Russia can focus on the EU and its ’European values’.
Well, if the US self-destructs, then wouldn’t this open the window for Europe to seek concessions with Russia? I mean, not to sound like a broken record, but why else would Nord Stream II even exist?
Yes, Nord Stream II testifies to the fact that Russia does have business connections inside the EU. It remains to be seen if the EU institutions and their Anglo-Zionist overlords can be kept at bay when it comes to subversion and outright sabotage.
An excellent essay by Mr. Putin. As someone mentioned earlier, I cannot imagine Trump, Macron or Johnson writing something like this. Putin’s historical accuracy is supported by documentation that is unfortunately ignored by Western media. My only issue is that Putin did not mention the unnecessarily brutal actions taken by the Soviets when then entered Poland and the Baltics in 1939 (he has mentioned this in the past). There are a lot of historical hard feelings in post Warsaw Pact countries towards Russia because those countries were forced to be Soviet vassals. I still don’t see why Putin doesn’t say that modern day Russia is not responsible for the bad behaviour of he USSR any more than modern day Germany is not responsible for the bad behaviour of the Nazis. He has acknowledged this in the past (in 2010 when Russia wasn’t being vilified as much as it is today) and by ignoring it now only gives ammunition to those who want to take away from the historical accuracy of his essay.
Putin is correct not parroting the West’s ”talking points”. Let the Western parody of the ”intelligentsia” and its faithful believers continue with their Stalin/Hitler hyperbole as the West goes down the toilet.
Hey c’mon. We are living now in 2020’s and moving likely to very unstable world of all kind of conflicts. The weight of USA, Russia and Europe is becoming lighter and lighter and the real powerhouse is there in East Asia. Put India and Africa to that big picture + western Cultural Marxism and you will understand why so called west is marginalized.
Where do you get the idea that Russia is losing ground as much as the USA and Europe? Besides, not everyone considers Russia to be ‘Western’, let alone ‘European’.
Re US financing of Nazi Germany. Ford and other factories were often spared from the bombing. I first became aware of this as follows. My mother’s best friend during the war became a war bride. I met them on a visit in the sixties. He told me he was sitting on the back of a tank as they drove past a large factory in Germany it was unscathed while the worker’s houses had been flattened. He said he was so angry he emptied his sub machine gun into its windows as they drove past.
I think the west is moving towards Marxism as a desperate and last resort and this can be very dangerous and must be resisted:
‘Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.’
It is disguised enclosure:
George Orwell wrote in 1944:
Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so.
An inspiring speech, which underlines again that VVP is the adult in the room.
The message that is intertwined, is that we should not make the mistake to forget lessons from the past. We do that too often (Mr. Pompeo or someone of your staff, are you reading here?).
Nobody is a full winner or full loser. The ‘winner’ writes the history, as the saying goes, but who’s a winner when kicked out of Vietnam?
After this impressive text of this speech, I might add a thing.
From a comment of BF in this thread:
“The real aim, of course, is to use both US troops and NATO for a potential invasion of Russia, once the country was destabilized. After that NATO troops, the bulk being American, would march into Russia in order to introduce ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and to place Russian nuclear missiles under NATO ‘protection’. After that the country would, in the name of ‘democracy’, be broken up, so that Western banks and corporations could plunder it. ”
Isn’t this exactly what happened in the tumultuous nineties, when the Soviet Union broke up? What happened next?
I dare historians to describe this. In particular the British historian Mark Mazower. Describe the period from let say the assignment of Michael Gorbatschow to the famous speech of Vladimir Putin on the Security Conference in 2007 in München, to grab some lines.
Imho important history was written then, that echoes to the day of today. Some people in some places still don’t understand it, due to wiring misfitting in their ‘matiere gris’.
Let a connection to the Motherland be more important than a fast buck.
“The ‘winner’ writes the history, as the saying goes”
and the “loser” remembers a “different history” sometimes with significant assay of myth, hence why transcendence not winning/losing is the sustainable strategy.
“Describe the period from let say the assignment of Michael Gorbatschow to the famous speech of Vladimir Putin on the Security Conference in 2007 in München, to grab some lines.”
Choosing calculus/time framing to analyse start, causations and trajectories of lateral systems conditions output.
Perhaps I can suggest extending your time frame back to the Politburo meeting discussing detente in 1970 (I can’t remember the exact date or whether the protocol was adjusted) and extending your time frame from 2007 to include Crimea 2014 to date, to gain additional illumination.
There is an filmed interview given by Mr. Putin to Russian television re Crimea contained in a documentary translated in English as Crimea comes home or something similar, in which Mr. Putin makes reference to asking the “old guys” to help solve the apparent impasse with a remaining Ukrainian garrison in Crimea, and in reference to the polite green men and other forces asking another “Are you sure they are ours?”
Corona virus lockdown has now reduced affording opportunities to travel through other portals.
Happy Bagration day when it comes.
Two Big Differences Between Stalin and Hitler
June 19, 2020Stalker Zone
The main purpose of this discussion is not the search for truth, but the propaganda tasks of today: the maximal compromising of the Soviet Union and its leadership, putting sole responsibility on it for the outbreak of war and, as a result, revising the results of World War II as a whole. One of the techniques of this propaganda work is equating the Hitler with Stalin leaderships…
Other Losses by James Bacque
In just a couple of years about a million prisoners died in the American camps for German prisoners of war …
Why is Wikipedia Censoring Me? James Bacque
As long as AngloZioNazi Liberalism reigns supreme, we will be constantly exposed to the ever more foul, stinking garbage that I label as Stalin/Hitler hyperbole. It’s an utterly dishonest, void, and ahistorical ideology the spreading of which is rewarded by money, fame, and prestigious ”awards”.
AngloZioNazi Liberal propaganda has long since lost its explanatory power. It testifies to the full intellectual bankruptcy of the West that it can’t even switch tack, replacing the WW2 hogwash with something more recent.