Posts
The Remarkable
Coincidences of John C. Tefft
3/5/2015
By
J.Hawk
The
graphic above is going viral on the Russian side of the internet, and
it reads as follows:
“Since
the current US ambassador arrived in Russia, they killed Nemtsov,
while he was in Georgia they killed Zhvaniya, and in
Ukraine—Gongadze. Coincidence?”
Each
of the three was a prominent opposition figure, and in each case his
death had led to political upheaval. To quote Ian Fleming, “once is
a happenstance, twice--a coincidence, three times--enemy action.”
Revanchism
and
russophobia: the dark
undercurrents of the war in
the Ukraine
3/5/2015
4
March, 2015
The
situation in the Ukraine is more or less calm right now, and this
might be the time to step back from the flow of daily reports and
look at the deeper, underlying currents. The question I want to
raise today is one I will readily admit not having an answer to.
What I want to ask is this: could it be that one of the key
factors motivating the West’s apparently illogical and
self-defeating desire to constantly confront Russia is simply
revanchism for WWII?
We
are, of course, talking about perceptions here so it is hard to
establish anything for sure, but I wonder if the Stalin’s victory
against Hitler was really perceived as such by the western
elites, or if it was perceived as a victory against somebody FDR
could also have called “our
son of a bitch“.
After all, there is plenty of evidence that both the US and the
UK were key backers of Hitler’s rise to power (read Starikov about
that) and that most (continental) Europeans were rather sympathetic
to Herr Hitler. Then, of course and as it often happens, Hitler
turned against his masters or, at least, his supporters, and they had
to fight against him. But there is strictly nothing new about
that. This is also what happened with Saddam, Noriega, Gaddafi,
al-Qaeda and so many other “bad guy” who began their careers as
the AngloZionists’ “good guys”. Is it that unreasonable
to ask whether the western elites were truly happy when the USSR beat
Nazi Germany, or if they were rather horrified by what Stalin had
done to what was at that time the single most powerful western
military – Germany’s?
A
few days ago I saw this picture on Colonel Cassad’s blog:
Stalin
and his commanders
Looking
at that photo I thought that for the western elites, to see these men
must have been rather frightening, especially considering that they
must have known that their entire war effort was, at most, 20% of
what it took to defeat Nazi Germany and that those who had shouldered
80%+ were of an ideology diametrically opposed to capitalism.
Is
there any evidence of that fear?
I
think there is and I already mentioned them in the past:
Plan
Totality (1945): earmarked
20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki,
Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad,
Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov,
Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
Operation
Unthinkable (1945) assumed
a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the
area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.This represented
almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men)
available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that
time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been
undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces
and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.
Operation
Dropshot (1949): included
mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000
high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe
out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single
stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted
to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
But
the biggest proof is, I think, the fact that none of these plans was
executed, even though at the time the Anglosphere was safely hidden
behind its monopoly on nuclear weapons (and have Hiroshima and
Nagasaki not been destroyed in part to “scare the Russians”?).
And
is it not true that the Anglos did engage in secret negotiations
with Hitler’s envoys on several occasions? (The notion
of uniting forces against the “Soviet threat” was in fact
contemplated by both Nazi and Anglo officials, but they did not find
a way to make that happen.)
So
could it be that Hitler was, really, their “son of a bitch”?
More
proof? Okay.
Hitler
was most definitely not a Christian. If anything, he and
Himmler were pagans with a strong satanic bend to their dark cult
of ancestor worship (Ahnenerbe).
But what about Hitler’s allies such as Petain, Franco,
Pavelic – where they not defenders of what they would call the
“Christian West”? Is it not a fact that 70 years after the
fall of the Third Reich those who admire Petain, Franco and Pavelic
*still* speak of the need to defend the “Christian West”, but
this time against the “Islamic threat”?
Furthermore,
if the Nazi regime represented an existential threat to European
Jewry, a quick survey or articles written by Jewish authors in the US
and British press during much of the 20th century clearly shows that
most Jews had little to no sympathy not only for pre-Revolutionary
Russia, but also for the post-Trotsky USSR and that even though the
USSR fully supported the creation of the state of Israel, many if not
most US and European Jews felt that the Soviet Union was also a
threat to their interests.
I
believe that the rabid russophobia (phobia in both the sense of
“hate” and “fear”) of the AngloZionist Empire cannot be only
explained by pragmatic reasons of great power competition or a
struggle of political systems. The constant propaganda about
the “Russian threat” is not only a political tool to dumb down
the western people by keeping them in a state of constant fear (of
Russia or Islam), but it is also the expression of a deep
fear really felt by the 1% plutocracy which rules
over the western world.
Russia
wants war
Finally,
the fear of Russia is also a fear of the Russian leaders. When
they are like Eltsin (a drunken imbecile) or his Foreign Minister
Kozyrev (the ultimate “yes” man) western politicians feel
appropriately superior. But remember that even mediocre
personalities like Krushchev or Brezhnev truly frightened them. So
it is no wonder that strong and smart leaders (like Stalin or Putin)
would absolutely terrify them and make them feel inadequate. The
infantile way in which Obama has tried to show that he was smarter
and stronger than Putin is a clear indication of how inferior he
really felt face to face. The same, of course, also goes for
Kerry and Lavrov.
Everything
I have written above fully applies to East European leaders too, only
with even more intensity. We are talking about countries which
sometimes had a rather glorious past and who during WWII had no other
purpose then being the furniture in the room where the two Big Guys
slugged it out. Worse, they more or less kept that same passive
role during the Cold War and now they have hardly become more
relevant. In part, I would argue that this is their own fault,
instead of finally making use of their new found freedom to develop
some kind of meaningful political identity, all they did was to
engage in a brown-nosing competition to see who would become Uncle
Sam’s favorite pet (Hungary under Orban being the sole exception to
this sad rule).
It
is really no wonder that when the Americans overthrew Yanukovich the
Europeans felt that now, finally, their “hour had come” and they
would show those disrespectful Russians who “is boss” on the Old
Continent. And every time the Russians warned the Eurocretins
in Brussels that there were issues linked to the Ukraine which
required urgent consultations they were told “that is none of your
business, there is nothing to discuss”. The problem was, of
course, that the West European leader had forgotten that in the real
world they were just the administrators of the USA’s “EU colony”
and that the US leaders truly did not give a damn about them (as Mrs
Nuland so lyrically put it in simple words). As for East
European leaders, their irrelevance is simply painful to look at, I
almost feel sorry for them and their trampled egos.
I
personally think that contrary to the official narrative, there is a
strong case to be made that the end of WWII left a lot of people
very, very unhappy and that all those who felt
wronged or frightened by the Soviet victory in 1945 did join
forces in an attempt to correct the wrongs of the outcome of that
war. At the very least, the question of the importance of
russophobia and revanchism has to be asked.
It
just not make sense to explain away the apparently crazy behavior of
the western leaders during the entire Ukrainian crisis by saying that
they are simply stupid, naive or ill informed. What they are
doing may appear stupid, naive or ill informed to us, but that
does not mean that there is no deep rationale behind the actions of
these “elites”.
Most
people in the West want to live in peace and are completely unaware
of these undercurrents of the war in the Ukraine. What I
describe above is only relevant to various minority groups. The
problem is that taken together and when they act in unison, these
minorities end of wielding a lot of power and influence. The
best way to stop them, is to shed a strong light on them and their
real motives.
The
Saker
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.