Borderless and red

Posted by Søren Renner on January 26, 2010, 09:20 PM | #

Finally! A video which expects the viewer to be able to read quickly!  Dugin in English translation at that.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 26, 2010, 09:35 PM | #

There definitely many unexpected layers to Dugin’s thought.  I doubt JamesUK would approve of fascism though, even if Dugin gives it the thumbs up.

Posted by cladrastis on January 26, 2010, 10:58 PM | #

Borderless fascism, eh?  Then the flag should not carry the hammer and the sickle.  It should proudly display the emblem of our enemies - the hexagram.  No wait, imagine this - a blood red flag with a white circle in the center, and upon this, Metatron’s cube in black.  Or maybe the flower of life?

Yes, the banner of borderless fascism should carry the emblem of our enemies, as Arminius carried the emblem of his.  Perhaps that will make all the difference.

Posted by Søren Renner on January 27, 2010, 11:22 AM | #

http://www.crystalinks.com/metatron.html

Posted by jamesUK on January 27, 2010, 02:07 PM | #

I am soooooooo disappointed. I hope he has changed his views and completely ditched this NB philosophy. Fascism like Communism is faux concept of mass movement to achieve a geo-political objective by powerful third party countries and interests. Although directly opposed to one another in its basic theology one can not exist without the other. If there was no Communism there would be no Fascism and vis-versa.

Fascism has been a disaster especially in regards to Russia. Advocating it in relation to Russia in some sort of development in a political movement is an oxy moron or has Dugin not noticed 20th century history. Not just Nazi Germany, but Japan, Poland and western Ukraine.   

Fascism is ethnic centric nationalism the worst form of government which is self destructive and unrealistic in large multi-ethnic states.     

I hope this alien philosophy is not incorporated into the Eurasianist movement and the Eurasian sphere. 

Any way I am still an Eurasianist at least how I would perceive it at its core a Eurasian alliance between Russia, Eastern Ukraine, Kazakhstan and China and a secondary alliance with Belarus, Armenia and India forming a powerful economic energy sphere.

Posted by Søren Renner on January 27, 2010, 02:16 PM | #

The laurels to you, CC, you called it!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 27, 2010, 02:27 PM | #

“I am still an Eurasianist”  (—JamesUK)

No you’re not and never were, because you disregard race.  You see lines on the map and you disregard the people who live within those lines.  You think they’re all just interchangeable with one another as you amuse yourself playing your Zbigniew Bzrezhinski style “geopolitics” games when you’re not amusing yourself playing checkers or chess.  You might as well play Monopoly for all the resemblance what you do has to the real life of nations. For you, race and race-replacement don’t exist, therefore Russia, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and so on, don’t exist:  lines drawn on a map aren’t countries.  Eurasian lines drawn on a map aren’t Eurasia.  You’re not a Eurasianist, you’re a line-drawer on maps.  What you are is a zero and what you do is zero.

Posted by Horace on January 27, 2010, 04:03 PM | #

The saviour of nations rests in fascism being resurrected. Fascism was buried under the rubble of 1945. Fascism has been a word used and abused to stigmatize enemies of the system,  liberal-multicult-marxist-democracy. Fascism is used liberally, like a gratuitous insult. If one wants to gag his opponents, just hurl the invective Fascist, in the same vein as antisemite; cheap, tawdry, worn out , anachronistic marxist-democratic vocabulary. Those accusing others of fascism, do not even know, or have the faintest clue of what Fascism, was, or is.

Posted by Alarico on January 27, 2010, 04:17 PM | #

Dugin is an enigma, and he is not a genuine nationalist. He drools over a Eurasian concept, a union of dissimilar and fissiparous concepts representing ” nations”, which are racially incompatible with each other. The Eurasian concept is a pipe dream, it is funded and fuelled ideological by the same forces that have strangled Europe and the Occident. There has been enough of ramshackle “unions” to hoist another one in the form of Eurasia. We are dealing with peoples and races, not with geographical demarcations. Dugin is a fake doughnut . The system is not threatened by his cosmovision. If it was indeed, he would have been dealt with by now.  It is very nice to organize marches, parades, waving unfurled flags and hollering to the skies. These are past times, escape valves for the youths in the ” movement”. However beautiful or inspiring these marches might be, the end result is zilch, they change nothing, not they influence anything; they are contributors to the status quo.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 27, 2010, 08:05 PM | #

Horace: Those accusing others of fascism, do not even know, or have the faintest clue of what Fascism, was, or is.

It is an Italian political movement.  A related variety served Germany extraordinarily well and desperately badly in the years between 1933 and 1945.  It relied upon a highly abridged and strictly fictional model of Man, removing from him his weakness and doubt, his individualism and rebelliousness, his compassion, his spirit of enquiry, his humour and subtlety, and all the myriad too, too human things that make us what we are, violently forcing the rest into a narrow and strangely Judaistic collective teleology.

Its ineluctable failure was contained in that.  Nothing that does not begin with and tenaciously hold to itself a model of the complete Man can produce effects in his life that sustain without doing violence to him.

The video is troubling, intellectually and emotionally.  All the elements of Russian national self-delusion and self-aggrandisement are there - products, I suppose, of a deep sense of, well, something.  Insecurity, perhaps, or humiliation.  Once beyond the clamour and excitement of movement and the shock of power, a Russian fascist revolution would bring the usual horrors in its train to all those victims of abridgement.

Is that what we want?

Posted by Captainchaos on January 27, 2010, 11:49 PM | #

GW,

When we step in the direction of a the philosophic ‘cure’ we step out into the unknown, into the dark, in the hope that something will be there to hold our weight.  Of course National Socialism was not subtle in its explication of all the warps and warbles of what we are.  But it was effective.  I too feel the pull on my heart of Churchill’s “broad, sunlit uplands.”  Yet instead of going there, as we should have, if indeed that was even possible, we have come to where the road is about to end.  We know this road as we have walked it.  The German people: raped, starved, tortured, killed, burned alive.  On the scale of human travesties it cannot be much worse, and it was not them that did it to themselves, it was done to them, by those they fought against who have ultimately delivered us all to where we are now.  I am to the point that I doubt just how much of an inner essential spark there is to most people that is worthy of the freedom and reverence that is worthy of the respect you seem to implicitly grant them.  It may be unpleasant to say, much less think, but is there not something to the Jewish description of the masses as cattle?  I mean surely pleasant, but none the less dumb and mindlessly grazing and herded animals.  Isn’t it enough that they are our cattle, and we won’t allow our vampiric enemies to wound them, to send them to the slaughter?  But what if, in order to achieve that, we have to herd them consistent with their being, well, cattle.  Whatever the case, I think the clear lesson of the war, a war for which one side fought - like it or not - for what is consistent with the interests of Jewry, and the other not.  Look what has been wrought?  The wages of the sin of betraying our own blood, right or wrong, is death.

Posted by FB on January 28, 2010, 12:58 AM | #

National Bolshevism, unlike National Socialism, isn’t banned in the Bastardstate. That alone speaks volumes. Historically, National Bolsheviks didn’t care about such quaint, reactionary things like race or ethnicity, they preferred to solely obsess about economic matters. That being said, the words above more accurately describe National Socialism than National Bolshevism. Perhaps the author cannot simply say that he favors an Eurasian version of National Socialism and therefore hides his true intentions behind a different lexicography. One sees the same dynamics with National Anarchism. Personally I have no use for National Bolshvism - the real mccoy, not Dugin’s version. I think he’s probably unto something valuable but I haven’t read him beyond a few excerpts here and there.

Posted by jamesUK on January 28, 2010, 01:27 AM | #

@Fred Scrooby

I never disregarded race or changing ethnic composition on the contrary I described how it is used as a geo-political weapon unlike you who just talks about race as the be all and end all of everything and nothing else is of any relevance which is not a serious issue in Europe being that they are 88-89% white.   

I will respond to your statement later don’t have time just know.

@Guessedworker

More worrying is western support for radical extremist groups/factions in Russian like Marxist terrorist organisations or today’s Chechen and international jihadist both of which had/have international revolution through violence, organised crime and a coalition of hostile ethnic minority group of the Russian majority as long as it soot our geo-political agenda and eliminate a powerful or potential powerful rival.

“I don’t care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution.”

[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 28, 2010, 01:54 PM | #

”race […] is not a serious issue in Europe being that they are 88-89% white.”  (—JamesUK)

For how much longer will they be 88%-89% white do you suppose, given current trends, JamesUK?

Look, let’s take your figure.  Should that “11%-12% non-white” figure be left as is, or permitted to grow as the Jews and communists want, or humanely but firmly encouraged to dwindle to zero or at least the near-zero figure obtaining in, say, the year 1947? 

I assume you don’t want it to grow (which it’s doing, but leave that aside for the moment).  What about leaving it as it is then?  Well, if left as is it’s a toehold for Jews, communists, and assorted others out to establish a convenient inboard base of operations for gradually dismantling your society and race, and furthermore it’s a mulatto-generator right in the bosom if your nation-state:  though only a small percentage, it will churn out endless supplies of mulattoes for your grateful (I’m sure) country.  So for those reasons at least, it shouldn’t be allowed to remain as is.  Do you agree.

So you agree, I trust, the “11%-12%” shouldn’t be permitted either to grow or to stagnate.  That leaves one option, zeroing it out by attrition, by push-pull, by what-have-you, just zeroing the damn thing out.  Do you agree with that?

Posted by jamesUK on January 29, 2010, 01:54 PM | #

@Fred Scrooby

Look, let’s take your figure.  Should that “11%-12% non-white” figure be left as is, or permitted to grow as the Jews and communists want, or humanely but firmly encouraged to dwindle to zero or at least the near-zero figure obtaining in, say, the year 1947?

So in you’re fantasy world the native population don’t have children and all non-white groups do?

I also assume you think immigration rate will be constant and first generation birth rates are the same as second or third generation?

Maybe in a thousand years it might be 85% but you have ZERO evidence NONE of a serious race replacement threat.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 29, 2010, 04:33 PM | #

“Maybe in a thousand years it might be 85% but you have ZERO evidence NONE of a serious race replacement threat.”  (—JamesUK)

You think it’ll take a thousand years for the present “88%-89%” to get down to 85%?  And only “maybe,” at that — even that slow of a drop might not happen in a thousand years on present trends, according to you?  I certainly hope you’re right but I’m not betting the farm on it, JamesUK.

Tell me, how did the U.S. demography go from 88%-89% white at the end of the ‘60s (it took a few years for the 1965 bill to start negrifying the population; that process didn’t start literally the minute the bill was signed) to the present situation where the estimates I’ve seen of the percent whites in this country range from 72% down to 52%?  How did that happen?

Posted by AD on January 29, 2010, 07:50 PM | #

Fred Scrooby,

No you’re not and never were, because you disregard race.  You see lines on the map and you disregard the people who live within those lines.  You think they’re all just interchangeable with one another as you amuse yourself playing your Zbigniew Bzrezhinski style “geopolitics” games when you’re not amusing yourself playing checkers or chess.  You might as well play Monopoly for all the resemblance what you do has to the real life of nations. For you, race and race-replacement don’t exist, therefore Russia, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and so on, don’t exist:  lines drawn on a map aren’t countries.  Eurasian lines drawn on a map aren’t Eurasia.  You’re not a Eurasianist, you’re a line-drawer on maps.  What you are is a zero and what you do is zero.

With one exception: it’s not a complete zero.  “Lines on maps,” yes, but location matters. That’s been part of the human experience every bit as much as race has.  It’s just damn natural to take an interest in one’s own part of the world and parts of the world near it, regardless of the characteristics of the people inhabiting it. 

When James says to you, “...unlike you who just talks about race as the be all and end all of everything and nothing else is of any relevance…” he’s got a point. 

It took you fifty years (or thereabouts) to “get it” about race but you expect people to get in five minutes, and if they don’t they’re the worst people in the world.  (Of course, just what you have “gotten” or what anyone else is supposed to get is open to some debate.)

Posted by jamesUK on January 30, 2010, 01:07 AM | #

@Fred Scrooby

Tell me, how did the U.S. demography go from 88%-89% white at the end of the ‘60s (it took a few years for the 1965 bill to start negrifying the population; that process didn’t start literally the minute the bill was signed) to the present situation where the estimates I’ve seen of the percent whites in this country range from 72% down to 52%?  How did that happen?

Because the US let Trotskyite Marxist Jews who immigrated from the Pale of Settlement after the failed western backed coup attempt of 1905 control the mass media, banking, publishing, entertainment, etc and employ the Trotskyite Marxist strategy of divide and rules along with their other weapons of abortion, women’s rights, using host country as a base for perpetual war, enacting anti-Christian laws (so called Christian/Zionism is biblical heresy),etc. before Stalin and the national Communist exiled and disposed of them.

But that is some of that silly geo-politics.

The white establishment and the majority white population were to chicken shit and stupid to organise stop immigration laws or enforce the ones already in place or field candidates on the immigration issue. 
The mass immigration is from Mexico not from not African states. Blacks have been in the US for centuries and are indigenous to the US.

And how did the blacks get to the US? It was due to the international slave trade.

More silly geo-politics.

Why did Mexicans migrate on mass from Mexico to the US and how did the Mexican economy collapse in the 1970’s/80’s?

Because Henry Kissinger enacted policy of depopulation growth measures where key vital industries were privatized like food production and national banks used to sustain economic grow. Not to mention the fact that the CIA controls the Mexican drug cartels and routes from Columbia through Mexico into the US. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyA3Ifl829s#t=09m25s

Damn geo-politics again.

And why are major EU countries like Britain, Czech Rep and other new EU states as well as the US pushing for Turkey’s entre into the EU?

It is because Turkey is the transit country for EU/US sponsored Nabucco oil and gas pipeline that bypasses Russia’s South Stream and Blue Stream projects that runs directly to the EU bypassing Ukraine. 

And the countries that are at the forefront of supporting Turkey’s entry into the EU especially Czech Rep that supports anything anti-Russia is you’re 99.9% white new EU countries.

But that’s not a factor to you as all to can see is brown maybe because your head is so far up you’re ass or Jim “the hick” Giles you don’t see reality

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 30, 2010, 01:32 AM | #

And how do the Japs avoid brownification when they live or die by international trade, are in international trade up to their necks, have zero oil or gas and must import all of it, are members of all the same big trade organizations we are, have the same cultural exchanges, diplomatic links, are exposed to the same nefarious/fraudulent academic influences, have voters just as stupid as we do and mass media just as prone to push agendas rather than report straight objective facts, etc.  How come they’re still Japs and we’re suddenly all Negroes?  What makes Japan immune to the geopolitics of negrification?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 30, 2010, 01:38 AM | #

What alien ethnic group is trying hard behind the scenes to pry Japan’s borders open, trying directly and almost certainly also through its heavy representation in the U.S. State Department?  (Hint:  this group is NOT trying to pry Israel’s borders open.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 30, 2010, 01:42 AM | #

“The mass immigration is from Mexico not from not African states.”  (—JamesUK)

I use “negrification” as a blanket term to refer to all non-white immigration.

Posted by jamesUK on January 30, 2010, 10:49 AM | #

@Fred Scrooby

And how do the Japs avoid brownification when they live or die by international trade, are in international trade up to their necks, have zero oil or gas and must import all of it, are members of all the same big trade organizations we are, have the same cultural exchanges, diplomatic links, are exposed to the same nefarious/fraudulent academic influences, have voters just as stupid as we do and mass media just as prone to push agendas rather than report straight objective facts, etc.  How come they’re still Japs and we’re suddenly all Negroes?  What makes Japan immune to the geopolitics of negrification?

What does that have to do with the African slave trade?

Japan was never involved and depended on African slave labour force as the basis of its economy like in Russia, China, etc they had a tribal clannish serfdom model.

Because the Japanese are smart, hardworking and are not an empire which like the British before it has bankrupted the country just like the US now wasting resources on colonial wars. 

What alien ethnic group is trying hard behind the scenes to pry Japan’s borders open, trying directly and almost certainly also through its heavy representation in the U.S. State Department?  (Hint:  this group is NOT trying to pry Israel’s borders open.)

Because the Japanese and there elected leaders did not and would not allow it and where able to preserve there culture and there economy is primarily based on technology which they don’t need heavy manual labour except the factories to build there products which they have exported to there big neighbour in the East China.

Even if there was a well funded operation to finance and promote open immigration into Japan how much success do you think would achieve? Japan doesn’t even like US military bases in the country. 

GO BACK TO YOU’RE HOLE FRED!

Posted by jamesUK on January 30, 2010, 10:58 AM | #

Correction meant to say:

..which they have exported to there big neighbour in the WEST China.

Just that China is always referrred to as the East.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 30, 2010, 11:33 AM | #

“Even if there was a well funded operation to finance and promote open immigration into Japan how much success do you think would achieve?”  (—JamesUK)

Zero:  Jews don’t look enough like Japs to be able to play the fifth-column role they’ve played here.

Posted by jamesUK on January 30, 2010, 11:30 PM | #

@Fred Scrooby

Zero:  Jews don’t look enough like Japs to be able to play the fifth-column role they’ve played here.

That’s a cop out and you know it. The truth is Americans are to materialistic and self centred to put group interest at heart unless it is organised and lead by Jews. The same can be said of Europeans.

Jews would not need to physically be at the forefront of pro-immigration movements in fact in all Jewish lead movements they have a non-Jewish front man like in the civil rights movement or immigration with McCain that most whites in the US voted for the Republican candidate and for the 2008 presidency.  There a powerful multi-national corporations and banks in Japan lead and owned by Jews do you think they would have any success if they started financing front organisations advocating open immigration? Pretty much zero.

Posted by Al Ross on January 31, 2010, 01:59 AM | #

Your posts are not a total waste of time, jamesUK. Think how smart you make other posters look in contrast.

Posted by jamesUK on January 31, 2010, 03:04 AM | #

@Al Ross

Your posts are not a total waste of time, jamesUK. Think how smart you make other posters look in contrast.

I make fools like you feel inferior with my excellent retorts and sound logic.

Posted by Al Ross on January 31, 2010, 10:36 AM | #

Your immaculate syntax, jamesUK,  should make us all feel inferior. The Scottish education system must be very proud of you.

Posted by jamesUK on January 31, 2010, 11:44 AM | #

@Al Ross

So what is the difference between Japan and the US then?

Are Europeans and Americans disorganised and self centred that they have to be lead like a heard of sheep by there Jewish leadership?

I would like to hear you’re insightful opinion on this matter.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 31, 2010, 02:26 PM | #

Are Europeans and Americans disorganised and self centred that they have to be lead like a heard of sheep by there Jewish leadership?

I would tend to agree with that characterization, the object would then be to change the leadership, as was accomplished in National Socialist Germany.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 31, 2010, 02:51 PM | #

Are Europeans and Americans disorganised and self centred that they have to be lead like a heard of sheep by there Jewish leadership?

I’m not as a rule a Grammar Nazi but really!

Posted by Captainchaos on January 31, 2010, 03:12 PM | #

I’m not as a rule a Grammar Nazi but really!

Give in to your inner Nazi, anything that feels so right can’t be wrong.

Posted by Dasein on January 31, 2010, 03:56 PM | #

jamesUK’s output is lesensunwertes Lesen.

Posted by Jupiter on January 31, 2010, 04:01 PM | #

Captain Chaos

Why the Hitler worshipping? Hitler was a defective little weird Man. This how Fraulien Krupp described him after a visit by Hitler to the Krupp factory. Did you enjoy Hitler’s slaughter of the Slavic people?

The racialism that I and other WHITE NATIONALIST advocate is quite normal. It is as normal as the asian and hispanic nationalism in asian and hispanic nations. In all of my posts on all the other web sites I go olut of my way to expose the nasty double standard. NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS will in the future embrace the normalcy of WHITE NATIONLAISM. It is the only game in town when confronted with the expression of asian,hispanic,muslim and african racial nationalism in America.

Hitler worship resulted in the death of millions of European people. It so easy to destroy a post-1965 non-white and neocon zionist Jew in a debate by exposing the double statndard. WW2 had nothing to do with the defense of the German people.

Hitler got what he deserved.

WHITE NATIONALIST are opposed to the race-replacement of NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS and neocon proIsraeli foreign policy that requires NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN TEENAGERS to be canon-fodder for the state of Israel.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 31, 2010, 04:40 PM | #

Jup, why the need to characterize my position as ‘Hitler-worship’?

Hitler was a defective little weird Man.

That’s right, but it is worse than even you might imagine, due to his singular testicle he was incapable of growing facial hair so the famous mustache was a glue-on, he could only become physically aroused when and if a woman shat on his face, and when exceptionally frustrated he was known to chew the carpet.  Btw, Jup, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you, not taking less than $50,000/acre though, so if you haven’t got the green, then don’t bother.

Did you enjoy Hitler’s slaughter of the Slavic people?

Do you enjoy the thought of Anglo-American and Slavic people slaughtering Germans?  I could hardly have enjoyed the “slaughter” of Slavic people during WWII as I was not yet born, and therefore not present to have enjoyed it.  But don’t let that be any impediment to answering my question though.

Hitler worship resulted in the death of millions of European people.

Stalin was not planning to invade Western Europe and decapitate the gene-pools of said.

Posted by jamesUK on January 31, 2010, 08:26 PM | #

@Captainchaos

Do you enjoy the thought of Anglo-American and Slavic people slaughtering Germans?  I could hardly have enjoyed the “slaughter” of Slavic people during WWII as I was not yet born, and therefore not present to have enjoyed it.  But don’t let that be any impediment to answering my question though.

Funny I thought it was Germany that invaded the USSR and moved Eastwards towards Russia and was it not German intelligence that financed and supported Trotsky and Lenin and help create the borders of the new states that emerged from the collapse of the Russian empire.

Stalin was not planning to invade Western Europe and decapitate the gene-pools of said.

No he was not he made every effort to avoid war with Germany when allied countries refused to form an anti-fascist coalition and non-aggression packs especially Poland.

USSR eventually signed a non-aggression pact with a negotiated sphere of influence with German in the event that war broke out between Germany and Poland and the Polish government collapsed and there was no one the USSR could negotiate with hence why the USSR entered Eastern Poland 2 weeks after the initial Germany invasion not at the same time. 

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/gfon39pactpnews07.html

Poland instigated WW2 which itself had a non-aggression treaty with Germany by signing a mutual defence treaty with Britain and France in case Germany invaded Poland this encourage Poland to ethnically cleanse German regions of Poland given to them under Versailles like the Broomberg massacres.   

Stalin had neither the means or the capacity to launch war on Europe this at a time 2 years earlier there was a Trotskyite plot within ranks of the Soviet government at the highest level to overthrow the Soviet government.

Posted by Al Ross on January 31, 2010, 08:28 PM | #

A measure of historical perspective may be useful when comparing Japan’s traditional ability to organize itself with that of the West. The impressive opening quote by Professor Perry Anderson is sufficient to render this link clickworthy.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/0/0/4/pages1000049/p100049-34.php

Posted by Al Ross on January 31, 2010, 08:35 PM | #

Sadly, the above link is unclickable. Later, if time permits, a short summary will be posted.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 31, 2010, 09:34 PM | #

Funny I thought it was Germany that invaded the USSR

It was indeed, as a preemptive strike against the very nation that planned to invade it.

and moved Eastwards towards

Well it, kinda would be required to move in the direction of the country one intended to invade in order to, you know, invade it.  So as you make your stumbling, shuffling steps towards eloquence I would in future not include in your sentence something that is obvious, in effect redundant and therefore superfluous.

and was it not German intelligence that financed and supported Trotsky and Lenin and help create the borders of the new states that emerged from the collapse of the Russian empire.

Yeah, so what?

No he was not he made every effort to avoid war with Germany when allied countries refused to form an anti-fascist coalition and non-aggression packs especially Poland.

USSR eventually signed a non-aggression pact with a negotiated sphere of influence with German in the event that war broke out between Germany and Poland and the Polish government collapsed and there was no one the USSR could negotiate with hence why the USSR entered Eastern Poland 2 weeks after the initial Germany invasion not at the same time.

LOL!  And it is a singular testament to the peaceable intentions of the Soviet Union in that they liquidated the native elite of every country they swallowed up per the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.

Poland instigated WW2 which itself had a non-aggression treaty with Germany by signing a mutual defence treaty with Britain and France in case Germany invaded Poland this encourage Poland to ethnically cleanse German regions of Poland given to them under Versailles like the Broomberg massacres.

I’m not inclined to argue against the culpability of the Poles with you.  They did participate in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia after all.

Stalin had neither the means or the capacity to launch war on Europe

Funny, the Soviets had tanks of superior number and quality at the time of Barbarossa.  But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, now.

2 years earlier there was a Trotskyite plot within ranks of the Soviet government at the highest level to overthrow the Soviet government.

Again, so what?

Posted by jamesUK on February 01, 2010, 12:13 AM | #

@Captainchaos

It was indeed, as a preemptive strike against the very nation that planned to invade it.

There is zero proof of that and Suvorov’s book Icebreaker which I take it you are referring to has been debunked by people who have studied German and Soviet evidence during WW2.

At a time when the war in eastern Europe is being blamed on a fallen regime, Glantz’s book sets the record straight on the Soviet Union’s readiness, as well as its willingness, to fight. Boasting an extensive bibliography of Soviet and German sources, Stumbling Colossus is a convincing study that overshadows recent revisionist history and one that no student of World War II can ignore.

“The most thorough and intensive examination of the state of the Red Army in 1941 yet to appear. Glantz’s evidence is unchallengeable, his sources unimpeachable, his conclusion incontestable: the Red Army’s unpreparedness for war in 1941 was truly appalling.”—John Erickson, author of The Road to Stalingrad

“Effectively refutes the charge—recently rehabilitated by Viktor Suvorov in Icebreaker—that Stalin was secretly planning an offensive war against Hitler during 1941.With his previous book When Titans Clashed and this latest contribution, David Glantz has established firmly his reputation as the preeminent historian of the Soviet Army.”—Mark von Hagen, author of Soldiers in the Proletarian Dictatorship

“An outstanding contribution and a must for any student of the history of the Red Army and the Soviet Union’s role in the Second World War.”—Malcolm Mackintosh, author of Juggernaut: A History of Soviet Armed Forces

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glastu.html

The origin of Suvorov’s thesis may lie in the fact that Marshal Zhukov did suggest a pre-emptive strike on Germany early in 1941. Zhukov recalled this plan later but claimed either that the plan was rejected by Stalin or didn’t reach the leader at all. This doesn’t sound too convincing, though, as military historian Mikhail Meltyukhov has pointed out. First, it is hard to believe Zhukov’s claim that he had given the top secret document to a secretary so that the latter could deliver it to Stalin. Second, the claim by Suvorov rejectors that the document doesn’t have signatures really proves nothing. It is known that during those years official military documents were almost exclusively passed without proper formatting.[4]

Another major Icebreaker’s issue in a lack of documentary evidences.[5] Cynthia A. Roberts notes that the book contains “virtually no documentary sources”, and therefore “has been viewed in the West as an anti-Soviet tract”. [6]

Summarising the western scholars’ opinion on Icebreaker Hugh Ragsdale concludes that the book is “generally considered discredited” by now,[7] whereas Jonathan Haslam notes that Suorov’s claims “would be comical were it not taken so seriously”.[8] According to the latter, “there is a significant segment of opinion in Germany that wishes to rehabilitate the Nazi past, and the end of the Soviet regime created an atmosphere favorable to the publication of the book.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)

LOL!  And it is a singular testament to the peaceable intentions of the Soviet Union in that they liquidated the native elite of every country they swallowed up per the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.

The same states and the leadership that joined a pro-Nazi coalition to invade the USSR. 

The Katyn incident depends on documents suddenly discovered towards the end of Gorbechevs rule so there is serious questions to its validity. 

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss_katyn041806r.html

In fact the New York Times article from June 29, 1945 states that Walter Schellenberg, head of Hitler’s SS intelligence service, told Allied interrogators that the Nazis had fabricated the whole issue, and that this account was independently corroborated by a Norwegian prisoner.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/nytonkatyn062945.pdf

According to the study by Reinhard Doerries, a specialist in the Schellenberg interviews (Hitler’s last chief of foreign intelligence: Allied interrogations of Walter Schellenberg. London: F.Cass, 2003) records of this interrogation of Schellenberg have disappeared from the National Archives

Funny, the Soviets had tanks of superior number and quality at the time of Barbarossa.  But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, now.

See references to the first response I posted. You also seem to forget that Japan had occupied China and fought Soviet forces in 1938. 

Again, so what?

It indicates that there was a German-Trotskyite plot prior to WW2. Was this a prelude to Operation Barbarossa?

Posted by Captainchaos on February 01, 2010, 06:43 PM | #

There is zero proof of that and Suvorov’s book Icebreaker which I take it you are referring to has been debunked by people who have studied German and Soviet evidence during WW2.

A series of falsifiable statements from a review of Suvorov’s Icebreaker, which, if true, are quite damning:

Throughout history, every army has had a basic mission, one that requires corresponding preparations. An army whose mission is basically defensive is accordingly trained and equipped for defensive war. It heavily fortifies the country’s frontier areas, and employs its units in echeloned depth. It builds defensive emplacements and obstacles, lays extensive minefields, and digs tank traps and ditches. Military vehicles, aircraft, weapons and equipment suitable for defending the country are designed, produced and supplied. Officers and troops are trained in defense tactics and counter-offensive operations.

An army whose mission is aggressive war acts very differently. Officers and troops are trained for offensive operations. They are supplied with weapons and equipment designed for attack, and the frontier area is prepared accordingly. Troops and their materiel are massed close to the frontier, obstacles are removed, and minefields are cleared. Maps of the areas to be invaded are issued to officers, and the troops are briefed on terrain problems, how to deal with the population to be conquered, and so forth.

Carefully examining the equipping, training and deployment of Soviet forces, as well as the numbers and strengths of Soviet weaponry, vehicles, supplies and aircraft, Suvorov establishes in great detail that the Red Army was organized and deployed in the summer of 1941 for attack, not defense.

[...]

Germany entered war in 1939 with 3,195 tanks. As Suvorov points out, this was fewer than a single Soviet factory in Kharkov, operating on a “peacetime” basis, was turning out every six months.

By 1941 everyone recognized the tank as the primary weapon of an army of attack in a European land war. During this period, Suvorov shows, the Soviets were producing large quantities of the well armed “Mark BT” tank, predecessor of the famed T34 model. “BT” were the initials for the Russian words “high speed tank.” The first of this series had a top speed of 100 kilometers per hour, impressive even by today’s standards. But as Suvorov goes on to note, this weapon had a peculiarity:

Having said so many positive things about the numbers and quality of Soviet tanks, one must note one minor drawback. It was impossible to use these tanks on Soviet territory ...Mark BT tanks could only be used in an aggressive war, only in the rear of the enemy and only in a swift offensive operation, in which masses of tanks suddenly burst into enemy territory ...

[...]

Similarly designed for offensive war are paratroops. This most aggressive form of infantry is employed primarily as an invasion force. Germany formed its first airborne assault units in 1936, and by 1939 had 4,000 paratroops. And the USSR? Suvorov explains:

By the beginning of the war [1939], the Soviet Union had more than one million trained paratroopers—200 times more than all other countries in the world put together, including Germany…. It is quite impossible to use paratroopers in such massive numbers in a defensive war…. No country in history, or indeed all countries in the world put together, including the Soviet Union, has ever had so many paratroopers and air assault landing sub-units as Stalin had in 1941.

As part of the planned invasion, in early 1940 orders were given for large-scale construction of airborne assault gliders, which were produced in mass quantity from the spring of 1941 onward. The Soviets also designed and built the remarkable KT “winged tank.” After landing, its wings and tailpiece were discarded, making the KT instantly ready for combat. The author also describes a variety of other offense-oriented units and weapons, and their deployment in June 1941 in areas and jumping-off points right on the frontiers with Germany and Romania. All these weapons of offensive war became instantly useless following the Barbarossa attack, when the Soviets suddenly required defensive weapons.

Suvorov tells of a secret meeting in December 1940 attended by Stalin and other Politburo members at which General Pavel Rychagov, deputy defense minister and commander of the Soviet air force, discussed the details of “special operations in the initial period of war.” He spoke of the necessity of keeping the air force’s preparations secret in order to “catch the whole of the enemy air force on the ground.” Suvorov comments:

It is quite obvious that it is not possible to “catch the whole of the enemy air force on the ground” in time of war. It is only possible to do so in peacetime, when the enemy does not suspect the danger.

Stalin created so many airborne troops that they could only be used in one situation: after a surprise attack by the Soviet air force on the airfields of the enemy. It would be simply impossible to use hundreds of thousands of airborne troops and thousands of transport aircraft and gliders in any other situation.

Suvorov also reports on the dismantling in June 1941 of the Soviet frontier defense systems, and the deployment there of masses of troops and armor poised for westward attack.

[...]

During the period just prior to the planned Soviet invasion, the USSR’s western military districts were ordered to deploy all 114 divisions, then stationed in the interior, to positions on the frontier. Thus, remarks Suvorov, June 13, 1941, “marks the beginning of the greatest displacement of troops in the history of civilization.”

The same states and the leadership that joined a pro-Nazi coalition to invade the USSR.

So you admit that the Soviets did indeed liquidate the native elite of the states they conquered per the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.  That is good, but it will hang you later.  Funny thing, just how is it to the advantage of Germany to sign a pact acquiescing in the Soviet conquest of their alleged “coalition” partners pre-Barbarossa?  Unless that “coalition” is a figment of your crankish imagination.

The Katyn incident depends on documents suddenly discovered towards the end of Gorbechevs rule so there is serious questions to its validity. 

So, if I read you aright, the en masse liquidation of the native elites of conquered nations by the Soviets was something you yourself admit was done routinely…just not this time.  But the documents “suddenly” appeared, that is, hot of the forger’s press, to lighten nary a shade the already coal black record of the Soviet Union.  I take it Occam’s Razor means nothing to you, nothing at all!

It indicates that there was a German-Trotskyite plot prior to WW2. Was this a prelude to Operation Barbarossa?

So, because, the Kaiser allowed Lenin to proceed to Russia as a roll of the dice in an attempt at regime destabilization of an enemy nation with whom his country was presently at war, then, that is singular proof that, decades later, a different German regime was involved in a murky and presumably greatly more complex conspiracy, the proof of which is, not one scrap of evidence given my you but your abiding paranoia?  I think there is such a thing as to be self discrediting.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 01, 2010, 06:56 PM | #

to lighten nary a shade the already coal black record of the Soviet Union.

That is a alleged lightening of the Soviet Union’s reputation would hypothetically come in the form of falsely confessing to a crime which most had already considered them guilty of to curry favor with Western powers when their reputation of already pitch black.  An absurd motivation.  And if that was not the motivation for allegedly falsely confessing, then what was their motivation?  Let me guess, it was the “Trotskite” Jews that had them by the balls, once again.  But, doesn’t it seem more likely that Jews would attempt to pin the crime on their hated enemies the Germans before the Soviet Union?  Just sayin’.

Posted by jamesUK on February 03, 2010, 12:14 AM | #

A series of falsifiable statements from a review of Suvorov’s Icebreaker, which, if true, are quite damning:

But they are not true.

Glantz has pretty thoroughly debunked Suvorov, notably in his book Stumbling Colossus:

Drawing on evidence never before seen in the West, including combat records of early engagements, David Glantz claims that in 1941 the Red Army was poorly trained, inadequately equipped, ineptly organized, and consequently incapable of engaging in large-scale military campaigns—and both Hitler and Stalin knew it. He provides a complete and convincing study of why the Soviets almost lost the war that summer, dispelling many of the myths about the Red Army that have persisted since the war and soundly refuting Viktor Suvorov’s controversial thesis that Stalin was planning a preemptive strike against Germany.

From Wikipedia

Suvorov’s view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.

A noteworthy rebuttal of Suvorov’s thesis is contained in Colonel David Glantz’s work Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War. Glantz views Suvorov’s argument as “incredible” on a variety of fronts: first, Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. Glantz points to this as a serious methodological flaw. Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov’s thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[1] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz’s conclusion is that “Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic.”

Commenting on the existing plans for Soviet preemptive strike Robin Edmonds argues that “the Red Army planning staff would not have been doing its job if it had not devoted some time between 1939 and 1941 to the possibility, at some future date, of a pre-emptive strike against Wehrmacht”[2]. David Brandenberger notes that recently published pre-1941 German analysis of Soviet military readiness also do not support the major Icebreaker’s thesis demonstrating that Soviet preparations were assessed to be “defensive” by German intelligence.”[3]

Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 8, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the evidence as presented by Glantz and others. There were no stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted. Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile. Air Force aircraft were parked in neat, tightly-packed rows along their airfields rather than dispersed. Over 50% of all Soviet tanks required major maintenance on June 22, 1941. If an invasion were being planned, these maintenance tasks would have been completed. Most Soviet armor units were in the process of re-organizing into new Tank Corps; the German invasion caught these units in the midst of this reorganization. Such a large-scale reorganization is inconsistent with an impending invasion.

The origin of Suvorov’s thesis may lie in the fact that Marshal Zhukov did suggest a pre-emptive strike on Germany early in 1941. Zhukov recalled this plan later but claimed either that the plan was rejected by Stalin or didn’t reach the leader at all. This doesn’t sound too convincing, though, as military historian Mikhail Meltyukhov has pointed out. First, it is hard to believe Zhukov’s claim that he had given the top secret document to a secretary so that the latter could deliver it to Stalin. Second, the claim by Suvorov rejectors that the document doesn’t have signatures really proves nothing. It is known that during those years official military documents were almost exclusively passed without proper formatting.[4]

Another major Icebreaker’s issue in a lack of documentary evidences.[5] Cynthia A. Roberts notes that the book contains “virtually no documentary sources”, and therefore “has been viewed in the West as an anti-Soviet tract”. [6]

Summarising the western scholars’ opinion on Icebreaker Hugh Ragsdale concludes that the book is “generally considered discredited” by now,[7] whereas Jonathan Haslam notes that Suorov’s claims “would be comical were it not taken so seriously”.[8] According to the latter, “there is a significant segment of opinion in Germany that wishes to rehabilitate the Nazi past, and the end of the Soviet regime created an atmosphere favorable to the publication of the book.”

So, if I read you aright, the en masse liquidation of the native elites of conquered nations by the Soviets was something you yourself admit was done routinely…just not this time.  But the documents “suddenly” appeared, that is, hot of the forger’s press, to lighten nary a shade the already coal black record of the Soviet Union.  I take it Occam’s Razor means nothing to you, nothing at all!

The allied states whose leadership sent forces and helped invade the USSR and towards the end of the war and afterwards Britain and US supported and trained Nazi aligned nationalists groups to carry out guerrilla warfare against the USSR. 

USSR wanted a buffer state between Germany and USSR and support any government. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t kill leadership at Katyn. 

So, because, the Kaiser allowed Lenin to proceed to Russia as a roll of the dice in an attempt at regime destabilization of an enemy nation with whom his country was presently at war, then, that is singular proof that, decades later, a different German regime was involved in a murky and presumably greatly more complex conspiracy, the proof of which is, not one scrap of evidence given my you but your abiding paranoia?  I think there is such a thing as to be self discrediting.

Apart for the fact he wrote in Miens Kampf about expanding Germany’s territory and colonising Russia.