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 executing, 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