I’ve been surprised to learn that Internation Politics were a large factor in the Nuremberg trials. By late in WW2 the Allies were diverging in their views, and all were looking to what would happen in the post-war. The Soviet Union would obviously be the dominant power in Europe, and Germany would be needed as a counter-balance. So rehabilitation of the Nazis became a project worth pursuing.

However, a year later, by the Fall of 1946, the trials had hit a stumbling block. Both the defense and the defendants started voicing ideas that Germany’s offensive against the USSR was virtually a preventive measure. On June 22, 1941, the day the USSR was attacked, Hitler himself justified the start of the war in his radio address to the nation: “The German people have never had any hostile feelings for the peoples of Russia. Yet, for over two dozen years, the Jewish-Bolshevik authorities in Moscow have been trying to set fire to not only Germany, but the whole of Europe.”

In order to dispel the rumors about Nazi Germany’s “preventive” military action against the USSR, the Soviet delegation in Nuremberg came up with a shorthand report of Paulus’ interrogation in Moscow. Yet, the Nazis’ defence referred to all the documents as falsifications, calling the report itself “fabricated”.

https://www.rbth.com/history/335629-paulus-nuremberg-ussr

By bringing General Paulus to the trial for direct testimony, the Soviets were able to quash the “defensive war” BS, for Paulus could and did tell of how the Barbarossa attack was not a spur-of-the-moment defensive lunge, but had been planned back in 1940.

I’ve also learned that the Hess flight to Britain was a big factor in Stalin’s response (he ignored them) to all the reports his Intelligence Services were providing him about the German invasion preparation. He came to believe that a secret deal had been struck between the Brits and the Nazis – the goal of which was to destroy the USSR. Britain used to be extremely competent in this kind of sneaky dealing, and for all I know the Hess project really was something to mess with his mind.

As we know in 2022, turning Nazis into Defenders of Freedom is still an ongoing work in progress. Would Britain and France and the US have turned loose most of the big Nazis? I don’t know, but I can no longer deny it was a possibility.

was Austria-Hungary not an artificial state? was not the German Empire?

the Czechs deserved their own state, and even offered Germans in the mid-19th century to secede barring majority-German populated areas (that were historically Czech territory and where Czechs still lived) for the sake of peace.

people like you never seem to be able to mention how the Germans in Czechoslovakia were oppressed – you’re just like Jews, in this regard. constantly the victims, no matter what. the Czechs fed the Germans during the Great Depression, they allowed Germans their own schools in their own language, their own political parties, their own newspapers in their own language; all of these Rights the Czechs granted the Germans were privileges the Czechs had to fight for under Austria-Hungary sometimes with their lives, and usually with prison time. the only thing the Czechs didn’t grant the Germans was statehood, since, after all, the Germans never gave that to the Czechs and as evident by their behavior “self-autonomy” was something they did not believe in, so they were hypocrites to demand it. ultimately, the demand for the Sudetenland had nothing to do with how the Germans there were treated, as they were treated just fine.

the Germans, like Jews, are incapable of rationalizing internal blame. for example, World War I, constantly everyone else’s fault. nevermind that Austria-Hungary had absolutely no business trying to conquer Serbia, but since they did, they should’ve had the balls to fight off their ally, Russia, 1-on-1. two major powers against each other, a local war – but, of course, since the Czechs, Slovaks, Croatians, and other Slavs in Austria-Hungary wouldn’t fight this stupid, senseless, war on behalf of the Austrian emperor, Austria-Hungary was basically at a loss. well, the German Empire decided to enter the war – and boo hoo oh waa waa evwyone is so meanie weanie to meeeeee why’d they all enter the war tooooo? well, because, when playing the Game of Empire, other empires feel threatened by the rise of the other players. and if the German Empire can come to the aid of the Austrian Empire, why should not the others, who have deals with another like the Russian Empire, not be able to join too?

“it was 2,157 that were brand new with zero mileage ”

Surely, zero mileage in a tank is a disadvantage. Or you do not understand anything.

Stalin on May 5, 1941:

[…] I raise my glass to the era of development and expansion of the Soviet state….
In the course of the next two months we can begin the struggle with Germany.

(Confirmed by the generals Naumov and Yevstifeev).

The more an honest comes to know the more tedious and questionable it all appears…

Did Hitler & Stalin collude in Operation Barbarossa?

Ludendorff warned years before that the leader is being lead (frome Rome)…

https://www.henrymakow.com/was_stalin_complicit_in_hitler.html

https://www.henrymakow.com/2019/12/Michael-Hoffman-Demolishes-Nostalgia-for-Hitler.html?_ga=2.153636926.785210238.1641304699-681739464.1641304699

https://www.henrymakow.com/hitler_and_bormann_were_traito.html

And today?!

The false prophet leads Russians into digital slavery!

https://uncutnews.ch/der-falsche-prophet-fuehrt-die-russen-in-die-digitale-sklaverei/

https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/05/scamdemic-confirms-russia-is-globalist-toady.html?_ga=2.80706833.785210238.1641304699-681739464.1641304699

Only vote for yourself, only serve in the army you command; never ever elect a priest or politician for anything but to clean your toilett.

The question (#802) was why Hitler changed his tune 1 Sep 1939 (USSR benign ally) to 22 Jun 1941 (USSR threat). Remember? Guess not.

“Clearly you are a true believer that 6 gorillion of your tribe were gassed and cremated while every Germany city over 50000 was being carpet bombed, the German war machine was grinding to a halt for lack of energy and transport, and all of Germany was starving,..”

I’ve not mentioned Jews or the Holocaust, so why do you rebut with that?

Sorry. Not Jewish. German roots back to 576 AD. French roots to 260 AD. Generation by generation (time and place). No Jews. How far back can you go, Scheutze?

Second attempt: Hitler changed his tune 1 Sep 1939 (USSR benign ally) to 22 Jun 1941 (USSR threat). Why

“…so the following comment will be a waste of time on you. But I will write it anyway for the benefit of others”.

How big of you! Droppings of a drooling incontinent! All can be thankful (wait, wait – is mama calling you to dinner? Basements have such poor acoustics).

“In 1945 the the Judeo-Masonic victors (UK, US and USSR) committed a genocide against Germany, Japan, Itally and all their allies. Of course these same forces had committed genocide against Ukraine in the 1930’s

Yes, yes – love those hyphenated crackpot posts! Keep em commin Scheutze!

“Some of us Christians are capable of recognizing what is going on around us in this critical moment in history.”

‘Christians’? My family’s been Christian from 260 AD. Tell us your ‘Christian belief’. Spare no words.

As for “recognizing what is going on”, you and fellow Unz dip-shits are the only ‘going-ons’. Elements discharging bile in descent.

“Hitler and the best of the German race went to their graves fighting these very same forces that we are confronted with today. As far as I can tell you are too unintelligent to recognize what is going on, and are therefore unwittingly participating in your own genocide. How sad and pathetic.”

Hitler was not the ‘best of the German people”. He was a suicidal Austrian drop-out, vagabond, brilliant messianic actor enabled by corrupt WW1 failures like Hindenburg and Ludendorff. That’s all he was. And he dragged Germany into the Abiss.

“I will close by mentioning that I consider your statement “keep cyanide for the frau and your Walther PPK 7.65 oiled, loaded and at hand. Never know when you’ll need it.” to be a direct threat coming from a Hasbara agent like yourself.”

LOL! You’re threatened by the example of your heroic, suicidal Führer and his new Frau (after praising him)? Talk about dip-shits!

Be fair. I didn’t mention poisoning Blondi and shooting her puppies (can’t have them show up in a Soviet show trial).

“I would submit that threats of violence have no place on UR, and that comments like yours should get you banned.”

Threats of violence derived from merely enumerating the legacy of your hero? Are you so desperate? And yet you praise free and open discussion!

Go figure!

You have presented no explanation aside from attacking and belittling me. This is why I simply choose not to debate the matter with you.

I have nothing to explain. I put no value on what you’re presenting. It’s you who is doing a poor job and I’m only pointing it out … in defense of Adolf Hitler. I don’t see anyone here supporting you either; they just avoid it out of embarrassment.

The “claw symbolism” is nonsense. Who authorizes that this is a Masonic gesture to signal to everyone that “I am a Mason!” How could you imagine that Hitler would advertise that he is a Mason when he publicly and in the Party was absolutely opposed to them.

Those two paintings of Hitler — he did not pose for them, in case you think he did. The only artist he sort of posed for was Arno Breker, and that was for a bust. Those were just two of the many, many portraits painted by German artists “of their leader” and entered into art shows or just sent to him as gifts. The whole country sent him gifts on his birthday!

Having been a painter, I know a big question is how to paint the hands — doing what? Probably most artists look at other portraits for ideas and maybe even copy them; in this way they get repeated. And every artist wants to do the hands well, because they’re considered “difficult.” Something you apparently don’t think people will consider — that there are hundreds of photos and paintings of Hitler where he didn’t hold his fingers in that way. How to explain that?

You’re looking for a neat, easy explanation for all historical happenings. Let’s tie it all up in a bow called Jewish Freemasonry, and we’re done. You need to show us a good, clear image of the Freemasonic handshake, and clearly describe what makes it so.

I bet it won’t happen.

Please review this comment and the images below the MORE:

I think that Seraphim is the type that reminds so much of Poles and Serbs in their quest for National Greatness: It’s like fevered, purblind chauvinism that knows no bounds.

Your last sentence is especially significant: Hitler did foresee what was to come if Bolshevism should triumph: The end of meaningful history. He wrote that in 1924. This time might have come and be now.
Bolshevism and its successor Communism is a retrograde movement. Their progress is based on destruction. Germany was THE obstacle in bringing the right personalities to power worldwide, that’s why the wars against it showed such boundless savagery and were truly total wars. The assault on life as occurring now with the Corona/Pandemic strategy is their latest attempt to bring about World Revolution after shoring up their gains after 1945.

I do not rule out the possibility that [Hitler] was some kind of a Masonic patsy, and I stated so in the thread above, which I ended receiving insults from Carolyn Yeager for.

Darn right.

But one thing is clear, at least to me, and I would suspect to many readers of this comments section. Hitler and the best of the German race went to their graves fighting these very same forces that we are confronted with today.

How can “Hitler the Mason” be fighting the “Masonic forces”? Oh, can it be that “as a patsy” he was so duped that he didn’t even know what he was doing? How twisted can your mental processes get? — just in order to express all the thoughts in your head that you would not otherwise have any audience for. Naturally you thank Ron Unz for the platform and cannot butter him up enough. You and L.K, the same … almost.

Hitler, the German, could have saved over 100 million Russian slaves from being genocided by a power mad Georgian Bolshevik psychopath and his blood sucking cabal of Russian hating Talmudists. Just don’t expect stupid Russian tools to figure this out, let alone recognize it. This is why it is Russia’s karma to remain a noahide slave state for eternity.

Hitler could have obtained resources by means of a Mediterranean/middle-eastern offensive. That’s where the oil was and oil was the biggest issue for the Germans. Food was rationed but the situation was still much better than in the immediate post war period 1945-48 when there was a genuine famine in occupied Germany. I therefore reject your assertion that Hitler was motivated by economic reasons – the USSR was supplying Germany right up until the outbreak of war on 22 June 1941. The main reason was clearly to do with knowledge of Stalin’s desire for a pre-emptive strike. The meeting with Molotov in November 1940 made up Hitler’s mind as he knew that no accommodation would be possible with Stalin that would not entail sacrificing fundamental German interests. Also, how do you know that Stalin was not ready for war in 1941? The Red Army had weaknesses but so did every other army on the planet, including the Wehrmacht! And despite these weaknesses the Red Army was by far the biggest in the world, and backed up by huge numbers of tanks and planes. On paper, the Red Army was perfectly capable of executing an attack on Germany in July/August of 1941. Would it have happened? I think not, because Stalin was naturally cautious and was aware that his forces were not at their optimum potential, but an attack in May/June 1942 was a certainty in my view. Indeed, Stalin expected the Germans to focus on the Mediterranean in 1941 and that would buy time to build up Soviet forces further.

The genocide and mass murder of the Soviet Communists (rolled):

The Civil War period till 1922: 3,284,000
The NEP period till 1928: 5,484,000
The collectivization period till 1935: 16,924,000
The Great Terror period till 1938: 21,269,000
Pre-World War II period till June 1941:26,373,000
World War II period till 1945: 39,426,000
Postwar and Stalin’s twilight till 1953: 55,039,000
Post-Stalin period till 1987: 61,911,000
(R. J. Rummel: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917, Transaction Publisher, 1990.)
It can be seen for instance, that before Hitler got into power at all, the Bolsheviks had murdered or otherwise eliminated about 12,000,000 human beings.

Given that the communist created death toll is standing at 148 million (and counting) at the moment, if the Soviet Union was decommunised in late 1941, a clear 120 million people could have remained alive. And trillions of dollars would have remained in taxpayers pockets in the western world.

“Russia was backward, corrupt, despotic and generally evil country and Russians as a motley crew of drunken rapists hell bent to invade the ‘West’ to satisfy their lust for the blond Gretchens”

Yes, that is a very good description of the Russian Red Rapist Army. I think you missed a few very critical components in that formula.

– They were clothed and fed by freemasons through Lend Lease
– They were drunk on Vodka provided by Lend Lease
– They were mercilessly driven on by Jewish barrier guards and Kommisars
– They had been mercilessly propagandized by Jews and Freemason Bolshevics
– Their families were held hostage by Jews and Freemason Bolshevics

But I think most importantly
– They still haven’t figure this out today, and this is why they are still cannon fodder for the Hebrew

Now to be fair, Germans are in exactly the same boat, but the German predicament can be justified and forgiven because they were the victims of the Russian Red Rapist Army, while the Russians themselves were the perpetrators.

I will close with this fascinating article explaining how Russians today are still victims of these same Judeo-Masonic forces that have committed waves of genocide against them, their victims the Germans, and all of Europe for over a century.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/11/16/myth-vs-reality-in-covid-russia/

I would submit that the hand shake between Putin and Schwab is a Masonic grip. Russians are still stooges for the same forces that they have been since 1917. Ditto the US and UK. For 12 years from 1933-45 Germany was free from this same Satanic control.

Clearly you are a true believer that 6 gorillion of your tribe were gassed and cremated while every Germany city over 50000 was being carpet bombed, the German war machine was grinding to a halt for lack of energy and transport, and all of Germany was starving, so the following comment will be a waste of time on you. But I will write it anyway for the benefit of others.

In 1945 the the Judeo-Masonic victors (UK, US and USSR) committed a genocide against Germany, Japan, Itally and all their allies. Of course these same forces had committed genocide against Ukraine in the 1930’s, Russia in the 1920’s and all of Europe in the First World War for Israel. And these same forces committed genocide across Asia starting in the 1950’s. In actuality, this has been an ongoing campaign of genocide primarily against all the Christian peoples of Europe, but also against all of humanity, and this genocide has not stopped even today.

Some of us Christians are capable of recognizing what is going on around us in this critical moment in history. A small clique of Freemasons and other secret society members at the very top of the pyramid are orchestrating a global genocidal depopulation agenda, and some Rabbi’s are in on it as well. The rest of the planet is too stupid and dumbed down to figure it out. Most of Judea falls into this category, and that would clearly include you.

Whether one appreciates German culture, or despises it, is not really the issue here. Whether one appreciates European culture or despises it neither. The entire global fake narrative surrounding the clot-shot has finally exposed the agenda so that the naked beast is there for all those with eyes capable of seeing to recognize. Of course if one has ears and has listened to Klaus Schwab and all the Rabbi’s, this agenda has been clear for years, just not blatantly obvious.

This is why I wrote “[what] the fake pandemic of Covid-19 represents in 2021 is a vindication of all of Hitlers actions.“. This statement holds true whether one loves, hates, or is ambivalent about Hitler, and I have never professed any great “love” for him. I consider him to be a fallible, and tragic, figure who made many mistakes. I do not rule out the possibility that he was some kind of a Masonic patsy, and I stated so in the thread above, which I ended receiving insults from Carolyn Yeager for.

But one thing is clear, at least to me, and I would suspect to many readers of this comments section. Hitler and the best of the German race went to their graves fighting these very same forces that we are confronted with today. As far as I can tell you are too unintelligent to recognize what is going on, and are therefore unwittingly participating in your own genocide. How sad and pathetic.

I will close by mentioning that I consider your statement “keep cyanide for the frau and your Walther PPK 7.65 oiled, loaded and at hand. Never know when you’ll need it.” to be a direct threat coming from a Hasbara agent like yourself.

I really appreciate Ron Unz allowing his platform to be used for free and open discussion, and I believe that everyone should be able to express their opinions without censorship as long as it does not detract from the conversation at hand. However, I would submit that threats of violence have no place on UR, and that comments like yours should get you banned.

Seraphim:
I wanted to propose as well that we end our exchange on this thread, as we have quite opposite viewpoints and a bridge over the river separating them is not in sight.

I don’t count myself as belonging to the West, and I don’t harbor the negative ideas about Russians you list.
You are saying that you were addressing a larger audience with the intent to draw their attention. That you might be a preacher has occurred to me before.

“Communists lie, and people who believe their lies are nothing more than useful idiots. Just read a few of Seraphim’s comments if you need some more proof. Of course the NSDAP were already aware of this in 1939”

Really? Hold a séance and ask the Führer (don’t mention half his head is missing) why he said this 1 Sep 1939:

“I am happy particularly to be able to tell you of one event. You know that Russia and Germany are governed by two different doctrines. There was only one question that had to be cleared up. Germany has no intention of exporting its doctrine. Given the fact that Soviet Russia has no intention of exporting its doctrine to Germany, I no longer see any reason why we should still oppose one another. On both sides we are clear on that. Any struggle between our people would only be of advantage to others. We have, therefore, resolved to conclude a pact which rules out for ever any use of violence between us. It imposes the obligation on us to consult together in certain European questions. It makes possible for us economic co-operation, and above all it assures that the powers of both these powerful States are not wasted against one another. Every attempt of the West to bring about any change in this will fail.”</i>

“At the same time I should like here to declare that this political decision means a tremendous departure for the future, and that it is a final one. Russia and Germany fought against one another in the World War. That shall and will not happen a second time. In Moscow, too, this pact was greeted exactly as you greet it. I can only endorse word for word the speech of Russian Foreign Commissar, Molotov.”

Ask Adolf why he declared 660 days later (as his troops marched into the USSR) 22 Jun 1941:

“The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia [never mind 1914-18 and Brest-Litovsk?]. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist worldview to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means.”

Golly! Was the Führer stupid 1 Sep 1939 or disingenuous (i.e. a liar) 660 days later on 22 Jun 1941? That’s the question. Was he too busy cake binging and purging (re: valet SS-Obersturmbannführer Heinz Linge)? Most would bet on disingenuous, given Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, France, und so weiter. Commitments Hitler kept can be narrowed down to a single struggle defining greatness or death: a suicide pact with Germany.

Congratulations Scheutze and Fox: true Planet Germania stars and (by necessity) master contortionists. Pat yourselves on the back (if you can find it)!

“I would contend that the unveiling of the genocide of all of humanity that the fake pandemic of Covid-19 represents in 2021 is a vindication of all of Hitlers actions.”

LOL! Doubtless a few bon-vivants in the Plague Years espoused the same ethos. ‘Don’t mind flees or rats’ (Don’t get vaccinated, don’t wear a mask, don’t socially distance). What Hitler action ‘vindicates’ this? After all, his fate (and that of Germany) is well documented.

Word of advice: keep cyanide for the frau and your Walther PPK 7.65 oiled, loaded and at hand. Never know when you’ll need it.

Hiding the comments section on this thread is a clear suggestion that flogging dead horses is a waste of space and time. So, continuing our exchange of monologues is a waste of time. I see my comments as a modest contribution to debunking the false narratives peddled by the ‘Western’ propaganda which ceaselessly paints Russia as backward, corrupt, despotic and generally evil country and Russians as a motley crew of drunken rapists hell bent to invade the ‘West’ to satisfy their lust for the blond Gretchens, propaganda which a depressingly large mass of sophomoric nincompoops swallow hook, line and sinker. I do not ‘argue’ with you but I am addressing to the general audience trying to draw their attention to objective historical facts. Some would see the light, others would dig deeper their holes, doubling down on their bluster.
But since this audience has left this thread, I leave it too.

“Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November of 1940 left the impression that Soviet interests were not directed towards a cooperative good-neighborly coexistence with Germany”

Communists lie, and people who believe their lies are nothing more than useful idiots. Just read a few of Seraphim’s comments if you need some more proof. Of course the NSDAP were already aware of this in 1939, and there was no doubt in 1940, but Churchill and Roosevelt had backed them into a corner where Stalin and an alliance with the Jewish Bolsheviks and their the useful idiot Russian stooges was the only way out.

NSDAP knew all this, and this is why they never trusted the Judeo-Bolsheviks. They well knew that eventually the true nature of the Jews running the USSR, the UK, and the US would manifest itself, just as it did, especially in 1945 and all the lies at Nuremberg.

Many, including Seraphim, would claim that the preemptive attack against the Judeo-Bolshevik empire in June 1941 was Hitlers greatest mistake. I would contend that the unveiling of the genocide of all of humanity that the fake pandemic of Covid-19 represents in 2021 is a vindication of all of Hitlers actions.

I suggested to you to take out a globe and look at it. It will tell you that Russia has no defensible business interfering with the life in Western Europe. Russia is big enough to give everyone living there enough land and free space to live. There is nothing in Western Europe-which includes the Balkans- that Russia could possibly and legitimately need. Rather, this part of the world is overcrowded , short of resources and arable land. If, on the other hand, you think that Russia has a perfect right to mess in the Balkans, it seems only right to claim the reciprocal right to adjust undesirable situations in the near-border area with Russia in Russia. Since the Russian bear wouldn’t react well to that, the same reaction can be expected in reverse.
My question: “How did the Russia Empire grow so large if everyone was always putting it down?” was meant as a retort to your ill-conceived conviction that everyone is always opposing Russia. How indeed does a country grow year by year over centuries if everyone is always against it, how indeed? I suppose Russia always invited itself into territories that were rather opposed to it. It’s the way empires grow, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be accepted by the newly-incorporated peoples.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact states in the Secret Annex that ‘regarding South-Eastern Europe the SU emphasizes an interest in Bessarabia and the German side declares a complete political disinterest in these areas.
The specific emphasis on the interest in Bessarabia indicates to me that it was understood that South-East Europe was to be excluded from specific spheres of interest or influence as were defined in the Pact. The Pact was obviously written with a lack of great care, otherwise it would have been worded more specifically in importat passages. It was written hastily because Hitler wanted a credible document in his hands to urge Poland and England to see that they couldn’t count on the SU in the Corridor and Danzig Crisis, and rather should attempt to come to a mutually agreed-upon solution.
Since events developed rather in a direction that was drawing the Balkans into the whirlpool of the war, and Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November of 1940 left the impression that Soviet interests were not directed towards a cooperative good-neighborly coexistence with Germany, and in addition Rumania and Bulgaria were not interested in Soviet Friendship, the situation changed from the theoretical white spot in the Balkans to the practical area of concern.
As far as I can see, Bulgaria, Rumania and Yugoslavia made the sovereign decision to side with the Axis; nothing wrong with that.

I wonder if you realize how laughable your childish ‘arguments’ are. Russia shouldn’t take any interest in her own country because it expanded East!
Take a look at a map of Europe and you will realize that Istanbul is closer to Kiev than to Vienna and Berlin. The whole region of the East Balkans is closer and open towards Russia and with easier communications across the Black Sea. Besides, the peoples there belong to the Orthodox Church as well as Russia and were resistant to all attempts to bring them in the Catholic fold. They were as interested in the liquidation of the Ottoman Empire as the Russians and Armenians.
Would you like to know ”how did the Russian Empire grow so large if everyone was always putting it down?”. It’s simple, Russians beat them all, again and again. It was the good old Bismarck again who explained to the blockhead Germans why:
“Even the most favorable outcome of the war [against Russia] would never result in the disintegration of the main Russian power, which rests on the millions of real Russians of Greek confession. Even if separated by contracts, these would always come together again just as quickly as the parts of a dissected body of mercury. This indestructible empire of the Russian nation, strong through its climate, its deserts and its lack of needs, as well as through the advantage of having only one border in need of protection, would remain our born opponent in need of revenge after its defeat, just like today’s France is in the west… “”Do not expect that once taken advantage of Russia’s weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come – they will not rely on the Jesuit agreement you signed, that supposedly justify your actions. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russians you should use fair play or no play…The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia”.
Since the Germans declared their complete political disinterest in the areas of Southeastern Europe and giving Russia free hand to deal with this area, they didn’t play fair when occupying Romania, attracting Bulgaria in the Axis and making all the efforts to attract Turkey, planning the occupation of Greece for which operation the transit of troops through Yugoslavia was most important (and most importantly, planning the invasion of Russia of which the Russians were fully cognizant).

Seraphim plays on the theme of Slavic Brotherhood, but the reality appears quite different to an outside observer. Neither the Bulgarians nor the Croatians were welcoming the Russians, and the Serbs were using this proffered ‘friendship’ as a cover to realize their own chauvinistic ambitions. It is much like the Poles with their dreams of imperial greatness behind the protective and menacing shields and swords of their sponsors emerging first from Versailles.

Look at a globe; look at the territory the SU encompassed; look at Europe in comparison. Think about the fact that the very close Balkan region was a major trading partner of the Balkan nations (i.e., a reciprocal relationship). You can travel by train from the German areas to the center of the Slavic areas in a matter of hours, but it takes 12 days by train from Moscow to Vladivostok. (See the difference in distance?). The criminals in Paris, when they hedged out their plan to permanently destroy Germany made the trade between the Balkans and Germany (that includes of course the Ostmark) a highly important segment of German survival, as well of the Balkan countries’ economic well-being. The Balkans are a mere ruse for Russian imperialism to stretch out towards Western Europe and the long-desired possession of the Bosphorus, it is of no import for Russia’s survival or of vital economic contribution.
Would you like Germany or any other country stage a coup in an area of such importance for the SU or the current Russia, or the Ukraine where you appear to reside or at least have close ties to?
The coup in early April of 1941 was deposing the Yugoslavian government which had just entered in a friendly agreement with Germany. It was sponsored by the SU and Britain. The military coup government was replaced by the former government through German intervention.
We can nicely see the principle of Cause & Effect at work here. The Cause comes first, thus ‘causing’ an effect. The coup was a violent attempt to undo the action of the legitimate government. Legitimacy is the agreed-upon standard for doing business or sign contracts. If you want to finagle it away, “contracts are not worth the paper they are written on”, to quote a famous line.
You seem to favor a causeless enmity towards the hap- and clueless rulers in Moscow. But how did the Russian Empire grow so large if everyone was always putting it down?

There were other accomodations in the picture:

“Gilbert relates that Strakosch saved Churchill from financial ruin in 1938 when, due to declines in the New York markets, Churchill’s brokerage account went into debt in the amount of £18,000 ($90,000), which Churchill could only begin to cover by selling his house Chartwell. Strakosch picked up the tab for this fancy sum, at a time when a decent American salary was perhaps $2,000 per year. In addition, Strakosch bequeathed Churchill £20,000 when he died five years later.”
(Was Churchill’s Gold Bug Jewish?
Arthur R. Butz • Journal of Historical Review, Jan/Feb 2002 Issue, Unz Review)

“That the Croats enticed the Serbs to form a South-Slavic Federation to be called Yougoslavia in 1848?”

You really should work on your grammar, that sentence is incomplete. The following sentence isn’t much better:

“I think it is asking you too much.”

So much blather.

In 1848 both “Serbia” and “Croatia” were still occupied by the Ottoman empire.

This article describes what was going on pretty well:

“However, a crucial difference between the Serbian and the Croatian political leaders in regard to the creation of a common South Slavic state was their opposite opinions upon the question who has to play a principal role in this process. The Serbian politicians claimed this role to the Principality of Serbia, while their Croatian counterparts saw the Croats as the principal leaders of the Yugoslav unification. Consequently, according to the prior, Belgrade would be the capital of a united South Slavic state while the latter favored Zagreb as a South Slavic capital after the unification.”

The events in the lead up, during, and after the two world wars, and especially the behavior of the Serbs during the Yugoslav wars from 1991-2001, make clear that the Serbs were never willing to share power, just as the Russians would never share power with Ukraine after the break up of the USSR.

The article concludes with:

“Serbian writer Milan Milojević in 1881 published a map of de facto a Greater Serbia, but under the name of a Greater Yugoslavia. According to him, a Greater Yugoslavia should embrace the following territories: a geographic-historical Macedonia (up to Thessaly), whole Banat (eastward to Arad), Bačka (northward to Szeged), and all Croatian and Slovenian lands including Carinthia, Trieste and some territories beyond Isonzo river. Such borders of future Yugoslavia were also accepted by the Serbs P. Niketić in 1890 and D. Putniković in 1896 but without Slovenian lands.[20] However, in all of such projects of a Greater Yugoslavia, Serbia was seen as a Yugoslav Piedmont with Belgrade as the “Serbian Bismarckism”.”

Which is exactly my point. “Yugoslavia” was never anything other than a sugar coated “Greater Serbia”. You let your slavic mask slip when you forgot to maintain the charade and called it “Serbia” instead of the fake Versailles construct called “Yugoslavia”.

It is critical also to remember that the Russian/English coup that forced the NSDAP to intervene in “Yugoslav” politics came about only through the aggression of the Serbian officer corps. Then too, the thin veneer of a united “Yugoslavia” was stripped away by Serbian/Russian deceit, dishonor, and of course violence.

But what was the real ’cause’? The German meddling in affairs that never concerned it directly. They again threw to the winds the advices of Bismarck, who was particularly against starting wars in the Balkans due to the region’s ethnic and religious complexity and its troubled past. His famous quip “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” and therefore [The Balkans] “were not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier.” reflects his political vision: “The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”
Well, actually Russia was invited repeatedly to ‘take an interest’ in the Balkans by the Orthodox people under the Ottoman yoke. But they never thought to ‘annex’ the Balkans. The suggestion that they should not ‘expand’ in the regions that are close to their own country, because they have enough space to expand to the East is quite ridiculous. This was at the base of the ‘Drang nach Osten’ ideology. Russia must be thrown beyond the Urals and vacate their country for German colonization.

Do you know that the Yougo-Slav project was a product of ‘visionary thinking’ of Croatian writers and philosophers of the ‘Illyrian Movement’, the first ‘Pan-Slavist’ movement with roots in the 17th century’ aiming at the creation of a Croatian national establishment in Austria-Hungary through linguistic and ethnic unity, and through it lay the foundation for cultural and linguistic unification of all South Slavs under the revived umbrella term ‘Illyrian’. That the Croats enticed the Serbs to form a South-Slavic Federation to be called Yougoslavia in 1848?
I think it is asking you too much. It is so much easy to read propaganda pamphlets instead of boring historic treatises, the more that you can delight in hateful vulgar language.

Oh, Putin Rasputin! That’s what all your cavalier treatment of history is all about. Bad, bad, bad macho Russians, macho Serbs, Pfui! Good, good, good Germans, Anglos, Nordics (‘Whites’), Heil!
”We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too,
We’ve fought the Bear before, and while we’re Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople!”
But neither the NAziTO shall have the Black Sea.
But do you really believe that the subhuman machos don’t know that all this ‘revisionist’ history, all this re-writing of history and relentless demonization of Russia, is a continuation of the ‘anti-totalitarian’ propaganda war initiated by the (Trotskist) ‘Committee for Cultural Freedom’ in 1939 and continued by the ‘American Committee for Cultural Freedom’, both funded by the ‘Directorate of Operations (DO), aka ‘Clandestine Service’ (aka the Directorate of Plans from 1951 to 1973; as the Directorate of Operations from 1973 to 2005; and as the National Clandestine Service (NCS) from 2005 to 2015)? Of the operation of ‘perception management’, part of the ‘hybrid war’ that the ‘West’ wages against the ‘Rest’, principally against Russia?
The CCF/ACCF are the spawn of the ‘Society of Friends of Russian Freedom’ and ‘Society of American Friends of Russian Freedom’ founded by Russian revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of Tsarism (through which Jacob Schiff that Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb Bank on Wall Street financed Russian revolutionaries. Schiff had been financing Russian revolutionaries since 1905).
But all this is old hat. Time to concentrate on China.

Well, as I had foreseen, the big bad L.K has scurried off, fearful of the spotlight he’s receiving from me. That won’t save him, however, it’s too late for that.

As I suspected, he is not German as he tries to come across, but more likely a Turk, or possibly Iranian (that’s just a hunch I have because of his so very arrogant and authoritarian personality) — definitely mixed race, unless he’s full blood Turkish. Of course he may have a German passport and speak German (although I’ve seen no evidence of that), but that doesn’t make him a German. I don’t have a German passport but I am still 100% German, and I know how Germans behave and how they don’t behave!

Here’s some evidence from a cursory look at his comment page: They both reveals how he accuses others of his own characteristics that he’s in denial of and that the Middle East is his real and main interest/concern:

“The same was true for the British Empire.”

No doubt about it. And the “United States” too was willing, even eager, to commit genocide in order to complete and expand its empire.

The big difference among the Unz Review commenters is that UK and US citizens can acknowledge the evil that their elites have caused. Russians, and their mini-me accomplices, the Serbs, stubbornly refuse to accept their own peoples culpability for the genocide of entire nations and peoples.

In the case of Russia, we really don’t even have to argue about what they did to Germany. We can just point to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and even more blatantly Ukraine. Once we get to Siberia, or even the ‘stans and the Caucasus, it is clear that these lands were never “Russian”, and really still aren’t today. But they all suffer the same misfortune as Latvia, Lithuania and Eastern Poland, they are all stuck with a lingering macho minority of ethnic Russians who refuse to accept history or their own peoples murderous history in butchering and ethnically cleansing the true inhabitants.

The Romanov’s weren’t even Russian, and the Bolsheviks were Jews, but that doesn’t stop Russians from getting all teary eyed over the millions of Russians who eagerly took up arms against their neighbors on their elites behalf, or the untold millions of victims of Russian debauchery and blood lust.

The real jewel in the crown of Russian genocidal shame could easily be considered to be Crimea, but it is my opinion that Königsberg should be a badge of dishonor to all Russians. Yet it isn’t. It is far too important as a hinge used for Russian leverage and intimidation of all countries across the entire Baltic. This is the real reason why Nato still exits, and why the US is so able to leverage Nordic fear of Russia into Nato bullying in regions far from the North Atlantic. It is the typical, and historical, arrogant Russian denial and attitude so evident in Seraphim’s comments. Estonia, Norway and Denmark, to name a few, would never remain within the Nato bully alliance were it not for fear of Russia and her proven historic track record over centuries of starting wars and crushing small states on her periphery.

Thank you for reminding us of the Russian Far East and how the total view allows to see the strategic rounding out of the Russian Empire as was pursued by Stalin’s in the same line as his predecessors. While I see that strategic necessities arise, it is necessary to acknowledge others’ spheres of interest and strategic necessities also. That’ s what Seraphim, as an example, won’t acknowledge. The SU had no reason to mess around with the Balkans when it already had the largest Empire land mass in existence, i.e., more than enough land for its people. The same was true for the British Empire. Overall, the strategic situation has not changed since 1914: If Europe, i.e., the Continent at its Western end, wants to survive as a sovereign entity, it will have to beware of Britain and its horse trading (as, e.g., with Russia before 1914), of Russia and perhaps America.

“Cause and effect”, the most fundamental consideration when dealing with reality.
The cause comes first; then a reaction follows.

“When Serbia decided on her own that she doesn’t want to be in the German fold, Germany invaded.”

At least we can finally stop pretending that the mongrel country created at gunpoint and named Jugo-Slavia was some kind of union, when from its inception it had a Serbian king and the Serbs were put in charge of the military. Of course the first thing the Serbs did starting in 1919, after receiving the very Pan-Serbia that had been promised to them by the Entente in exchange for starting WWI, was to start persecuting Croats, Albanians, Slovenes and Magyars. And this is also what the Serbs did the second time around after they got their asses kicked in WWII. No other country in the Balkans wants anything to do with Serbs, they are toxic, just consider what happened in 1990-95.

In a similar fashion, all of Eastern Europe, including their brethren the Ukrainians, want anything to with Russians for the same reasons. Who would, after what the Russian Rapist armies did during two world wars and after both of them.

So sure, Serbia didn’t want to be in the German fold. But Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, and all the Magyars didn’t want to be in the abomination called Jugo-Slavia which had been awarded to the blood thirsty and sadistic Serbians for their assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and their obstinacy and trickery in settling with Austria afterwards.

Who invited Germany to take an interest in the peoples of the Balkans?
When Serbia decided on her own that she doesn’t want to be in the German fold, Germany invaded.

That man Churchill was all over the place. Possibly because he was the last Prime Minister of the Empire, he was conscious of Britain’s decline, but at the same time in his own way aware of the new forces of the 20th century as represented by the USSR and the US.

His 1936 article in the Strand about the rise of the Nazis is a classic. Churchill very early on seeing what Hitler was prepared to do during the “Night of the Long Knives”, had good reason to be pessimistic about any accommodation with Hitler

https://archive.org/details/W.S.ChurchillTheTruthAboutHitler193538

For someone who is so arrogant and self important, you really should learn some simple punctuation. That entire dogs breakfast of a comment should be broken into several paragraphs before it is even worth reading, let alone worthy of a rebuttal.

“(did I forget some area?)”

Russians, dutifully, and sadistically, serving their Jewish Bolshevik owners, were waging aggressive war in Mongolia and Manchuria as well until Dzhugashvili (Stalin) signed the “neutrality” pact with Japan in April 1941 in preparation for his pre-empted invasion of Germany.

I agree with you, Fox, Russians can never swallow enough land, or Vodka.

“Russian-German relations soured in the course of Molotov’s visit to Berlin November of 1940, when Soviet plans for the Balkans were presented in a form to the German government that could only be interpreted as to subvert the agreements of the Non-Aggression Pact of the previous year”

IIRC, the empire horny Russians were again demanding control of the Bosphorus. Some things just never change. Only a fool would believe that Putin isn’t drooling over the Bosphorus today, just like Stalin and Tsar Nicholas.

“The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.”

This article states in my view that at the time of signing no definite plan existed for a military action against Poland. And indeed, the German government was still expecting a representative of Poland to enter into direct negotiations to resolve all the differences in existence. The suggestions on the table involved also a plebiscite in the Korridor under international auspices (I think it would have been England, France, Italy and the Soviet Union), had it been accepted, a military action would have completely undone this success and been also a futile, destructive, ruinous exercise. Hence my conclusion that at the time of signing the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact military action was not considered as the necessary corollary, and any subsequent events were not forecast as a certainty, including the occupation of Eastern Poland. (The latter being Congress Poland and considered with good reason not in its entirety a legitimate part of ‘Poland’ as it existed then).
It also does not state anywhere that if either party were involved in such an action, the the other has an obligation to do the same in its area delineated in the outline of ‘sphere of interest’. Hence, after the Wehrmacht advanced on Polish territory there was no obligation for the Red Army to advance. It was a good two weeks before the Red Army crossed the Soviet-Polish border, a time when the Polish army was practically defeated and the Red Army could not materially contribute to the Polish defeat anymore. So why was Eastern Poland occupied? The remaining Polish territory could well have been counted among the Soviet sphere of interest, just as the Baltic States were until being occupied the following summer.

Therefore, according to your words, Russia with its various representations-Stalin the instance of 1940/41- “cannot allow”. Bulgaria and Rumania decided on their own whether they wanted to be in the Russian fold, and they decided against it.
If you don’t just want to be a chauvinistic agitator, then you will have to recognize the interests, rights and decisions of people who are in disagreement with you or Russia. At least be honest enough about your motivation: Imperial expansion and power. It’s not uncommon, it just doesn’t have the grand sheen of moralistic cant.
Why should Germany or any other European nation recognize a Russian interest in South-East Europe? Russia has an immense stretch of land from Poland to the Pacific coast. Is that not enough? Who invited Russia to take an interest in the peoples of the Balkans? This interest appears not to be reciprocal enough to be acknowledged by the ‘protected party’.
I believe that the Russian-German relations soured in the course of Molotov’s visit to Berlin November of 1940, when Soviet plans for the Balkans were presented in a form to the German government that could only be interpreted as to subvert the agreements of the Non-Aggression Pact of the previous year. The coup in Jugo-Slavia was merely a confirmation of Soviet plans for expansion in South-East Europe. It came directly after Jugo-Slavia’s joining of the Three-Power Pact and was instigated by Soviet Russia and Great Britain and it precipitated the German occupation. If you don’t approve, you will also not approve the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, Bessarabia, the attack on Finland (did I forget some area?). So it seems rather that the events didn’t sour, but were soured by the actions of the SU itself and of England.

Why do you expect an answer from me?
The answer is known and it was contained in the ‘Secret Additional Protocol’ of the ‘Neutrality Agreement’ (aka Molotov Ribbentrop Pact):

”it was Hitler’s refusal to allow Stalin to dominate Bulgaria that finally led to the break up of the non-Aggression pact”.
It is the exact reverse that’s true and it was clearly spelled out by Churchill: ”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” (Tsarist or Soviet). Stalin could not allow Hitler to dominate Bulgaria and Serbia. It was Romania’s and Bulgaria’s joining the Axis (23 November 1940 and 1 March 1941 respectively) and the invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece that soured the Soviet-German relations, confirming the suspicions that Germany was indeed preparing the invasion of Russia (the Soviets knew all about the planning of Operation Barbarossa from the beginning through their intelligence and counter-intelligence operations – as they knew about Germany’s plans in WW1).
Germany was not ‘stabbed in the back’, it shot herself in the foot, twice. It refused to take heed of Bismarck’s advice: ”One could argue about this if such a war could possibly have the result that Russia, as Count Kálnoky put it, would be “smashed”. But such a result is beyond all probability even after the most brilliant victories. Even the most favorable outcome of the war would never result in the disintegration of the main Russian power, which rests on the millions of real Russians of Greek confession. Even if separated by contracts, these would always come together again just as quickly as the parts of a dissected body of mercury. This indestructible empire of the Russian nation, strong through its climate, its deserts and its lack of needs, as well as through the advantage of having only one border in need of protection, would remain our born opponent in need of revenge after its defeat, just like today’s France is in the west. This would create a situation of permanent tension for the future, which we can be forced to accept if Russia attacks us or Austria, which, however, I do not want to take on my responsibility to have brought about voluntarily”.
But I presume that these well established facts won’t prevent you to continue to orgasm over McMeekin, Docherty, Suvorov, Quigley.

These are strange things to say.

The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 is a good example for the falseness of official and therefore academic ‘historiography’ (the latter is paid by public funds). While it is considered diabolically evil by Hitler to have made that attempt to force the Poles and their English players in London to consider a solution to the problems remaining from the ‘Treaty of Versailles’, rather than aiming at an armed conflict, their insistence on either war or an intensification of the crisis is inversely considers an act of farseeing and wise vision, certainly not the evil act of conjuring war.

From Seraphim I have never received an answer what the Soviet motivation was in attacking Poland from the East. Should an armed conflict come to pass between Germany and Poland, Russia was not required to enter it, just remain neutral and not side with any party. Likewise, academic history employees ought to consider this question, rather than immerse themselves in questions about the inscrutability of the narratives for which the answer has been formulated by hanging judges and jailers beforehand.

Suit yourself. ‘Ignorance is strength’. Defend your ‘way of life’ and ‘values’ and ‘worldview’, envied by the IQ challenged lowlife ‘others’. It would be easy, fewer and fewer ‘others’ really desire your ‘values’ anymore or fall for your propaganda. But don’t stick your nose in Ukraine, you risk to have it cut.

Then I should like to voice my desire to have you remedy your lopsided view of the world. Believe me, there is a whole different world out there, co-existent with yours and peopled with those who look at their world with their own eyes based on knowledge, needs and inferences stemming from their need to live and give meaning and dignity and safety to their lives.

In “Stalin’s War” McMeekin lays out the degree to which Stalin was pushing for control of the Black Sea and the Dardanelles, and it was this constant pressure that made clear that Stalin’s plans were far more ambitious than just to regain the lands lost to the Russian Empire during WWI. In fact it was Hitler’s refusal to allow Stalin to dominate Bulgaria that finally led to the break up of the non-Aggression pact.

The truth here is that Stalin started WWII for precisely the same reasons Tsar Nicholas started WWI. Docherty and Macgregor go into detail about Russian expansion plans for the Dardanelles and Constantinople. First World War Hidden History:

“A crucial feature of the Entente was the alliance with Russia at the expense of the Turks, not an alliance with the Turks to protect them from Russia. Despite trying to find common ground with France and Britain, and even with their old enemy, Russia, all the overtures made by the Young Turks were dismissed. Turkey could have been a useful ally to the Entente since the Straits would have remained open to them. The American historian, Ron Bobroff concluded that a formal agreement with Turkey would have greatly improved the Triple Entente’s capacity to contain Germany, [17] but Britain and France had other plans and Russia expected to take the prize of Constantinople. This scenario could only take place once the old empire was destroyed along with Germany, and for that very reason the Young Turks were deliberately pushed into the German camp.

War fever and the prospect of taking Constantinople consumed St Petersburg. In February 1914, six full months before the First World War began, the Russian high command was planning to seize the city with an amphibious landing of 127,500 troops and heavy artillery from Odessa. Unfortunately for the Russians, one monumental problem lay ahead. The Naval staff expressed grave alarm at the prospect of the arrival in Constantinople of two battleships which were being built in Britain for the Turkish Navy. These state of the art Dreadnoughts would prevent the landings and the Black Sea fleet would have been entirely at their mercy. [18] The reason Russia was going to war was clearly and absolutely underpinned by the British and French promise of Constantinople, yet Britain was on the point of delivering two new warships which would prevent it. What was going on?”

Russia herself was on the verge of commissioning her own two dreadnaughts in Sevastopol, and they were completed in early 1915 and were used to dominate the entire black sea throughout the war. The Tsar’s ambitious plans for the Dardanelles were completely dependent on complete naval superiority. In fact, Russia already had complete naval superiority, it was only the two English dreadnaughts, or later the German cruisers that lay in her way.

“Russia made several unsuccessful requests to foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey in May and June 1914 to have the Turkish contract cancelled. By late July over 500 Turkish sailors had arrived on the Tyne in north-east England to take the first of the mighty warships to Constantinople. The Sultan Osman I and her sister ship, Reshadieh, itself almost completed, had been fully paid for, in part by generous subscriptions from the ordinary people of the Ottoman Empire. Naval regattas and street parties were planned and widespread public excitement anticipated their arrival.

By 30 July the matter became extremely urgent for the Russians. Foreign Secretary, Sergei Sazonov, warned Britain that it was a matter of ‘the highest degree of importance’ that the Turkish ships stayed in England. [19] It appears likely that the thinly veiled threat implied that, if the ships were released, the Czar would not be willing to go to war. He was not to be double-crossed over Constantinople.

Days before this, President Poincare of France had visited St Petersburg to keep the Czar on course for war. Poincare reminded him that, like the British, the French government had no objection to Russia’s taking Constantinople. [20] Within twenty-four hours of Poincare’s departure, Russia mobilised 1,100,000 men together with both the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. [21] It is extremely unlikely that she would have continued the race to war had the prize of Constantinople been denied her.”

So it not only was Germany stabbed in the back, but the Turks too. Of course the Russians were also arming the Armenians and turning them against the Turks, hence setting them up for a genocidal war too.

First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, ordered armed troops in Newcastle to prevent Turkish sailors boarding Sultan Osman I, and specifically instructed that the Turkish flag should not be raised over the ship. The response throughout the Ottoman Empire was of utter outrage. Churchill explained that the warships were vital to Britain, and ‘with a margin of only seven dreadnoughts we could not afford to do without these two fine ships,’ [22] but the truth ran much deeper. The Turkish warships were retained at the eleventh hour for fear of Russian reaction and last-minute rejection of war.

The retention of the Turkish warships served two important functions for the Secret Elite: It kept the Czar on track and it steered the angry Turks towards the enemy camp. As late as July 1914 the majority of the Turkish cabinet had been ‘friendly disposed’ towards Britain, [23] but the act that drove them away from the Entente was the British government’s seizure of the two dreadnoughts. As an essay in provocation, it was breathtaking. [24] ‘If Britain wanted deliberately to incense the Turks and drive them into the Kaiser’s arms she could not have chosen more effective means.’ [25]

For the Secret Elite, two positive outcomes accrued from withholding the ships, but in consequence, a shadow was cast over their long term plan for the Middle East. Russia had been placated and her mobilisation continued towards its inevitable outcome, war. As was always intended, Turkey’s overtures were spurned and she was relentlessly pushed into the German camp. But without the two Turkish Dreadnoughts, what was to stop the Russians sailing into Constantinople when the opportunity presented itself. The answer was already cruising in the Mediterranean.

I realize that Seraphim is going to start spewing his usual drivel about Docherty and Macgregor just as he does with McMeekin. Likely he will start kvetching about people claiming that “Russia is always wrong”. The real problem here is that Russians, just like the Poles, and the Serbs, refuse to accept the combination of their macho arrogance and gullibility to their elites caused Europe to be dragged into two world wars.

We can see precisely the same dynamic in operation today as the planet is at the brink of another world war. Macho Poles, macho Russians, macho white Russians, macho Serbs and macho Ukrainians all too stupid to be able to understand themselves, their own history, and the degree to which Judeo has played them for fools.

Well, I think that it would be extremely profitable if you try to remedy this gap in your worldview.

Seraphim,
I remember now more clearly the incident with the opera. The young Russian I asked about it (it had been played on the Classic Radio Station the previous evening and made me curious) recounted not without pride that in the opera the Poles were thwarted in their march on Moscow. This quite a log time ago, and much has faded from memory. I noted that Poland is apparently not regarded with disinterested equinamity by Russians ( based on the n of 2, my Russian friend and Glinka).
I didn’t follow any of it up, and you know obviously a great deal about this incident of Polish imperial ambitions that came to naught. In one of the maps of Poland I have seen the border to be in sight of the walls of Moscow, in the west it included a good part of Germany, Bohemia as well. Can’t say that the Poles didn’t think big.
The subject, brought up by you in a question, was “a hostile Poland”. Being forcibly appropriated by an arbitrary foreign potentate into his tax and power base constitutes hostile behavior, I’d say.

Admittedly, I do not know much about Russian history, something I regret.

If it ‘smells quite a bit like US ‘manifest destiny’’ is because it was! The problem is that many people consider the American ‘manifest destiny’ as divinely ordained, whereas the Russian one inspired by Satan (Russia is the abode of ‘Gog and Magog’, isn’t it?).

Can you see the flaw in your argumentation? You just ‘heard’ about a Russian opera and you ask whether it treats of ”another thwarted Polish ambition of Imperial Greatness by expanding into foreign territory”? Have you had a little more advanced knowledge of Russian history and culture, you couldn’t possibly have asked such a question.
The opera is a classic of Russian music: ”A Life for the Czar”, renamed during the Soviet era ”Ivan Susanin” was the obligatory season-opener in the Imperial Russian opera theaters and the first Russian opera to be known abroad.
Indeed, the subject is about the thwarting of the last Polish attempts to claim the Russian throne after their defeat in 1612 by Minin and Pozharsky and the election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar in 1613, which put an end to the ‘Time of Trouble’ which followed the death of Ivan IV (1598-1613). A decisive moment in Russian history.

For someone who pretends disinterest and that I am completely unimportant, you must have spent quite a bit of time putting this together. Which tells us who is living in who’s head, and whose cage has been shook up! Are you getting scared?

For your information:
No one is a stalker on Unz Review; you have no special privileges. I have been “stalked” myself and there was nothing I could do about it. So live with it, because it’s not going to stop.

Your excuse for ‘lifting’ promotional blurbs from Amazon by blaming it on Seraphim is juvenile. As is calling him my ‘buddy’ (3 or 4 times!) bc I agreed with something he said about you. I happened to appreciate it; no one else here has enough spunk to take you on. Also, the way you go on and on in defense of yourself is embarrassing, but you clearly don’t have enough brains to be embarrassed. Your inflated ego is blocking you from seeing yourself. You also copy my language as soon as I use it; I’ve noticed others here doing the same. Not all, of course.

It’s interesting what you call LIES. I said your comments amount to “tripe” and you say I’m lying. Hmmm, how to figure that out? Your long-winded defense of the invisible “historical evidence” that you produce doesn’t hold water, I’m afraid. Instead of giving an example of what I’ve failed to do, in your estimation, why not come up with examples of your historical evidence that I asked you for previously and you fail to produce! Saying or claiming that you “support what [you] claim with EVIDENCE produced by experts” is not equivalent to producing or pointing to said support. If it’s there, it should be no trouble for you to do so. Instead you just resort to name-calling. I think I’ll make a list of all the names you have called me so far. It’s growing fast.

When it comes to Holocaust revisionist work, everybody’s views are based upon the early revisionist writers/researchers. I am one of those who has insisted on remembering that, not you. (jan27.org This site disappeared for awhile and we are just now starting to rebuild it. It will take awhile.) They are not just Mattogno and Rudolf, but are Paul Rassinier from 1949-50, Thies Christophersen and Wilhelm Staeglich in Germany and Robert Faurisson in France, plus Arthur Butz, W.D. McCalden and Fritz Berg in the USA, all in the 1970’s. Then Ernst Zundel, Bradley Smith, Serge Thion and others in the 1980’s. That’s just the beginning. I am or have been on first name basis with all of those mentioned, except the first 3 and Serge Thion–and also with Carlo Mattogno & Germar Rudolf. You have taken on someone – in me – who is WAY beyond you and your petty conceits. You may regret it.

As to your comments on G.R.’s wikipedia page … PLEASE. As is typical with your general trickery, you quote from a page but don’t link to or identify what page it is. This is purposeful and everyone should take note. I recognize the portion you quoted from it as an OLD argument though, that Germar has answered long ago. I don’t see what you think you’re accomplishing by putting it here. You’re looking for something to trash me with, but in the process you trash everybody. As for Ingrid Rimland, I told her to piss off, not the other way around. I have the emails. You have nothing. You’re looking up to the wrong people … because you’re a nobody … and a know-nothing.

How are you going to answer this time? Or will you stay quiet … and just keep running to Fox. Yes, it’s noticeable. Your behavior is predictable.

In a nutshell, acc to Seraphims worldview, Russia conquered the third LARGEST world empire ever, extending from central Europe to North America, all this apparently done for defensive and/or ‘necessary’ reasons. It smells quite a bit like US ‘manifest destiny’, doesn’t it? i bet the shill Seraphim does not quite agree with these US ‘defensive’ and ‘necessary’ needs, especially when those encroach on Russia.
IOW, this guy flagrantly applies the crudest double standards, a complete hypocrite.

Not to mention he lies and makes things up in ways that would make Pinocchio blush. For ex, he casually suggested upthread that Austria-Hungary, or Germany, were the ones behind the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Creative isn’t it? There is even a handwritten note by Nikola Pašić discussing the distribution of guns and explosives to the students, but I guess Pašić also worked for the Germans. It reminds me of some of the pro-Russia shills who still claim with a straight face the Germans shot the Poles at Katyn.
Fox

However, I as referring to the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939; meant for Germany to put pressure on England and Poland by robbing them of their hopeful intent to recruit the Soviet Union into their front against Germany.

Yes, for Stalin however the treaty was clearly a trap. It worked quite well for him, until it did not.

So, I got a stalker now… the loser Carolyn Yeager. Mildly amusing but somewhat creepy.

Carolyn Yeager:

You lifted this straight from this Amazon page:

Yes, of course I did, so what. Your buddy Seraphim was smearing, as he always does, a historian whose views are not entirely in line with Russian propaganda and completely anti-German. The reviews demonstrate his smears are merely that, smears. All historians, irrespective of nationality, Russians included, who do not completely toe Russian propaganda lines re both world wars are relentlessly smeared and character-assassinated by this shill, I’ve seen him in action many times under different threads. Obviously YOU know all this. But, then again, you are a TROLL.

Seraphim is not a fan of the Stalinist regime, he is on record here at Unz on that. So, when I was dealing with one of several Stalinist shills claiming Stalin had barely been responsible for any killings/deaths inside the SU, and backed it up with quotes from several Russian historians, he THANKED me. Obviously there are also pro-Stalin historians, including even in the Anglophone academia, who whitewash Stalin and have posited much lower death figures as well as rationalizations for Stalins crimes.
When it comes to WW2 though, your new buddy forgets all he does not like about Stalin, and focuses on defending the peaceful and wrongfully attacked Soviet Russia, this has precedence over his dislike of Stalinism. Seraphim is utterly dishonest and so are you. He just lifted those attacks on McMeekin from the same idiotic wiki article you used.

Loony Carolyn:

Such tripe is what most of your comments amount to.

This is just another one of your pathetic LIES.
I do, however, very much attempt to support what I claim with EVIDENCE produced by experts, since all of us nobodies – and yes, you are a NOBODY – can just about claim anything we want, make anything up in some internet forum.
It’s a simple concept and even a RETARD like you can grasp it.

Your friend Seraphim does so ALL THE TIME. He has just casually suggested under this thread that Austria-Hungary, or Germany, were the party behind the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, pulled that right out of his anus.
Another ex, you, a complete nobody, write your crappy posts based on what? Your own historical research into various archives??
NO, of course not, you get it from historians who have done the work, plus whatever else you make up, since you are generally too lazy and arrogant to provide references.
This includes ‘your’ holocaust revisionist views, which are based upon the work of the actual holocaust revisionist historians, folks who have done the actual work, such as Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, etc. You, yourself, are just some loony activist, one who does more damage than good. Another thing; since you don’t care for my posts, just ignore me, how about that?

You then go on to cite Wikepedia of all places in order to also smear McMeekin and pretend you are making a great point and being so clever!!
Does my stalker, Carolyn Yeager , really believe that if McMeekin had always played safe and been 100% a Court historian, the wiki ‘article’ about him would be as nasty?
No, Carolyn Yeager is just a little pissant who, due to the hard truths I told her upthread, is now simply attacking me in anyway she can out of spite, like a 14 year old brat, though this nut is over 80 yeas old.
So Carolyn Yeager , why don’t you next quote what Wikipedia has to say about Germar Rudolf, holocaust revisionism(‘denial’) in general, or, for that matter, any WW2 historian who does not simply toe the propaganda line about sole German guilt… this is usually the case even with WWI, for obvious reasons.
Wikipedia:

Rudolf stated that his findings at Auschwitz and Birkenau “completely shattered his world view”. Among other things, Rudolf’s report claims that only insignificant traces of cyanide compounds can be found in the samples taken from Auschwitz. However, Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Project have criticized the report, saying that like Fred Leuchter in his report, Rudolf did not discriminate against the formation of iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide, so that his experiment was seriously flawed.[4][5][6]

Buhuhu, eh?
Obviously this article is total garbage, so anyone could play these idiotic games you are playing here. Observing your creepy behavior reminds me of correspondence I saw between you and Ingrid Rimland, and it becomes very clear why Rimland just basically told you to piss off.
You and Seraphim should get a room already. I’ll just ignore you from now on. Keep talking to yourself. bye, bye.

I think you take a too on-sided view of Russia’s rights and needs. They will sometimes collide, and in most instances be not in harmony with her neighbors’ . It is the same for any other sovereign country.
Such colliding interests can be seen with the Bosphorus -I mean the water passage between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea- which was desired by Russia, and probably still is, as a strategic necessity. The Treaty of 1841 allowed Russian shipping to pass, except for war ships. That would have been a considerable restriction.

Years ago, I talked with a Russian about an opera by Glinka (I can’t remember the title) about one of the Polish campaigns into Russia. I think a Russian acted as a guide to the Poles through the Pripyet marshes, leading them to their doom. Does this opera then treat another thwarted Polish ambition of Imperial Greatness by expanding into foreign territory?
However, I as referring to the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939; meant for Germany to put pressure on England and Poland by robbing them of their hopeful intent to recruit the Soviet Union into their front against Germany. It was merely defining spheres of interest, and Eastern Poland was in the SU’s. No clause stipulated that the SU was going to occupy this part. Yet it was done. At least there was no love lost between Poland and Russia. (Notwithstandig the fact that it was taken from the SU in the settlement of the war of 1921).

You lifted this straight from this Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Origins-First-World-War/dp/0674072332 Such tripe is what most of your comments amount to.

The following is from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McMeekin

McMeekin’s 2011 book The Russian Origins of the First World War was initially praised as a “bold and brilliant revisionist study” for its use of “long-neglected tsarist documents,”[2] but also criticized and refuted by specialists skeptical of its core theses, which advance a view of Russian involvement beyond that of what other historians have concluded.[3][4][5] Because McMeekin was the first historian to publish questionable documents from the Tsarist archives showing Russian support for Armenian groups inside the Ottoman empire during the war, his treatment of the Armenian genocide has also been criticized, with one scholar pointing out that “The mass slaughter of Armenian civilians was in no way justified by the haphazard Russian support for Armenian paramilitary groups in Eastern Anatolia.”[6]

Further

McMeekin’s 2013 book July 1914: Countdown to War has been described, in the New York Review of Books, as “a punchy and riveting narrative” which is “almost impossible to put down.”[8] The Guardian called his 2015 study The Ottoman Endgame: War, Revolution, and the Making of the Modern Middle East “a marvelous exposition of the Historian’s art.”[9]

His latest work, “Stalin’s War”, received various reviews from academic historians. Historian Serhii Plokhy called it “…a revisionist take on the second world war.”[10] It also received positive reviews from Historians Simon Sebag Montefiore, Geoffrey Wawro, and Antony Beevor who called it “…both original and refreshing, written as it is with a wonderful clarity.”.[11] Historian Mark Edele said that the book contains misquotes of Stalin’s speeches, and included sources refuted decades beforehand, or else long ago shown to be fraudulent. Edele concluded “A gifted writer and a talented polemicist, he has lowered the historian’s craft to the level of propaganda. The result is a lamentable step back in our understanding of Stalin and his second world war.”[12]

It just goes to show there are lots and lots of historians with many different views. To rely on just one or two, and cherry picking quotes from them, cannot give the full story. When have you ever given your own view and backed it up–we haven’t seen that.

To have set Germany and Russia against each other in two Jewish World Wars is a masterpiece of cynical Anglo-American-Russian (US&SU=Shekel) background diplomacy by Jews.

The Russian and German people sacrificed the bloom of their youth in these terrible wars and with it their future elites. Germans have not been allowed to recover from it to this day. The Jew is playing God on earth and will pay an incredible price for it, for he too is soul.

Germans and Russians are brother nations, and the Jewish World Wars between Germany and Russia were brother wars. Ultimately, this is true of all European nations manipulated into this bloodshed.

„Why do 350 mio Americans need to protect 450 mio Europeans from 150 mio Russians?“

To protect Jew’s republics and federations with Jew’s democracy cows in East & West?

The arrogance and brazeness of the Jew and the stupidity of his groupies is satanic by any means.

The value of anything is what at least one buyer is willing to give. Nothing else.

There is not denying the interests of other countries. They were conflicting with Russian interests. The problem is that your take on the situation is that the interests of the non-Russian countries naturally (or by a divine decree) have precedence over Russian interests which are just a hindrance to their fulfillment. That Russia actually is not entitled to have her own interests.
The Bosphorus was not controlled by Russia. But by international conventions of which Russia was part. Which ensured that Russian commerce would not be in the hands of intermediaries.
Was Poland a hostile neighbor? What do centuries of history teach us about Russian-Polish relations?

That’s what happens when you ‘discuss’ with sophomoric nincompoops.

Of distorted history you mean.
Why is Russia’s history an ‘American problem’? Haven’t the Russians practically gifted Alaska to America?

Interesting what you present as your summary opinion.
The Bosphorus was not controlled by Russia; it never was, hence for Russia (or the SU) not to allow control of the Straits is presumptuous; it also constitutes an important part of Russia’s reason to press for the outbreak of the war in 1914.
Russia had, apart from St. Petersburg and Kronstadt no access to the Baltic Sea. At the time when they were, neither the Baltic States nor Finland were willing members of the Russian Empire; hence, to expect access or even mastery of the Baltic Sea by claiming -in your words- vital maritime interests there, despite holding only a marginal access area seems presumptuous. In other words, did Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Finland not weigh much more in this equation if considering something like vital maritime interests? Why should they be constricted in an intrusive manner in their maritime interests at their common interior sea by interests that have practically only a river-mouth as access to that body of water?
As an aside: What is now a very inconvenient and sad fact for NATO, namely the Russian presence in the Northern part of East Prussia, was, I think a means for Russia to improve the very poor strategic positioning of Kronstadt/St.Petersburg/Leningrad and provide a good access to the Baltic Sea.
Russia had a border with Poland: Was Poland considered a hostile neighbor? If Germany was considered also hostile, or perhaps more hostile than Poland, why move the border westwards so that Russia becomes contiguous with Germany? I believe that the Russian-German on-Aggression Treaty of August 23, 1939 was meant to guarantee Soviet neutrality in case of armed conflict between Poland and Germany. It was neither predicated on such a conflict, nor on an attack of the SU on Poland.
In your equation the existence and interests of countries other than Russia or the SU are missing.

What I replied to your comment on McMeekin was a serious critique of your failure to ever answer anything or to make a substantial contribution of thought to the knowledge on any subject. You seem to fancy that you do — if I’ve missed it why not point out a worthy example in this long thread. If you can’t, that’s an indictment against you.

I have exposed you as mainly a braggart, and a creator of ‘strawmen’ that you can then proceed to take down. That’s all you’ve done with me is make up ‘strawmen’. Some examples are in this very comment: that I ever claimed my websites have a “gigantic readership” and that opposing you means I’m “taking sides” with Seraphim or with anyone. Also that you’re “living in my head.” You make things up and then pat yourself on the back.

Well, it does not bother me. I was just reading that Cochran book and thought that exchange with Prof. Barnes and his friend was instructive in light of your (very useless) comment to Seraphim. And it’s so similar to so many others you’ve posted. Of course, there will be no answer from you to that.

It became a dogma emphatically repeated whenever one talks about Russia, that Churchill ”defined Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” and his words in 1939 spoke eloquently to the Western sense of Moscow as the “other” – an inscrutable and menacing land that plays by its own rules, usually to the detriment of those who choose more open regulations”.
Well, what Churchill really said in a speech broadcasted on the 1st October 1939 is that:
”I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. 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. Thus, my friends, at some risk of being proved wrong by events, I will proclaim tonight my conviction that the second great fact of the first month of the war is that Hitler, and all that Hitler stands for, have been and are being warned off the east and the southeast of Europe. Here I am in the same post as I was 25 years ago. Rough times lie ahead; but how different is the scene from that of October, 1914! Then Russia had been laid low at Tannenberg; then the whole might of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was in the battle against us; then the brave, warlike Turks were about to join our enemies. Then we had to be ready night and day to fight a decisive sea battle with a formidable German fleet almost, in many respects, the equal of our own. We faced those adverse conditions then; we have nothing worse to face tonight. We may be sure that the world will roll forward into broader destinies…”
So, the actions of Russia in the war which just commenced, are not to be presumed on the inscrutability of Stalin’s mind, secret ‘ambitions’ of the eternal ‘Evil Empire’ of Russia, world revolution, totalitarianism, etc., but plainly on the acknowledgement of the fact that Russia has interests and on the correct assessment of them. Russia never turned her attention from South-East Europe, Black Sea and the Straits, because of its vital interest to keep its maritime front free. It would not permit Hitler (or anyone else, for that matter) to became master of the Straits and the Black Sea (and of the Baltic). It would not permit the existence of hostile powers on its borders. It would not permit foreign control of its economy and resources. It would favor and militate for resolution of conflicts through collective security arrangements (“We preferred agreements with the so-called democratic countries and therefore conducted negotiations. But the English and French wanted us for farmhands and at no cost.”). It would avoid war at all costs (contrary to the bluster, Stalin was conscious that a war against the German dominated Europe would have been suicidal-almost ironically all revisionist historians insist on the lack of preparedness of the Red Army).

The subject of discussion here is history.
That can be unpleasant for bigotted fools.

As to being a neighbour of Russia, let’s read the beginning of William G. Bray: Russian frontiers: from Muscovy to Khrushchev, Bobbs-Merrill, 1963, pp 11, 13:

’” For five centuries, Russians have been seeking a final frontier which they never find.” This statement by A. L. Kennedy in a lead article in the January, 1947, issue of The Quarterly Review sums up our problem with Russia. … A brief study of five centuries of Russian history makes it clear that Russia’s aggression today follow the same pattern that has guided her every maneuver since approximately 1462 AD. …This territorial hunger can be compared to the farmer who, when queried as to why he was acquiring so much land, said: „I don’t want much land, I just want that which joins my farm.”

So, any Jewish writer about World War to is to be discounted?
What about Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans? They all may have axes to grind.

I have really shaken your tiny cage pretty hard, eh? It is funny how I now live rent-free in that tiny little head of yours! It gives me a chuckle.

Listen, loony, I own 6 of McMeekins books, including the 2 that I have mentioned. Under this thread, I have directly quoted from The Russian Origins of the First World War.
Keep trolling though… that is all your good for anyway.

Readers under this thread can verify my posts and yours and decide for themselves which ones contribute to the discussion.
And yes, in order to just simply TROLL me, you are taking sides with anti-German shill/propagandist Seraphim. Nothing better to do, loser?
How about you now go take your pills and take care of those 3 websites with its ‘gigantic’ readership. Huauhahahaha

Not that I’m taking sides with my old foe ‘Seraphim,’ but your response to what he argued on McMeeken is as meritless as your responses to me (I won’t call them arguments or even answers).

Using publisher’s blurbs to answer criticism of a book on history is as ignorant as it gets! Since you like quoting from books so much, here is what highly respected revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes wrote in his 1931 Foreword to M.H. Cochran’s early revisionist history “Germany Not Guilty in 1914: Examining a Much Prized Book)“, critical of (mainstream) historian Bernodotte Schmidt’s newly issued “The Coming of the War.” Recalling a conversation he had with what he called “a cynical friend,” Barnes wrote that his friend said:

You (Barnes) have been jumping on Schmitt for the last five years, yet when his book appeared I read publisher’s blurbs from the moguls of your profession fit for one of old Leopold von Ranke’s masterpieces. A bright young fellow in my home town attends one of your great [American] universities. He tells me that his professor of modern European history has denounced [Sidney B.] Fay in his graduate seminar for not going far enough towards extreme revisionism and that he has been poking fun at Schmitt for years. Yet when Schmitt’s book was published he supplied one of the most glowing blurbs, declaring that the book was the most convincing thing he ha ever read on the subject. He told me of another eminent professor who had been sputtering bitterly about Schmitt’s book to everybody he met. But when he published his review of the book in a great historical journal, he had nothing but phrases of honey to offer. Another literary friend of mind “in the know’ tells me that the Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Schmitt’s book by the vote of one of the most highly honored of American historians. You, yourself, have admitted that Schmitt is going to be sent over to Geneva through the influence of the historian whom you most admired in your academic days. […] It is not what one of your professors says in his smoking-jacket that counts, but what he gives out on public platforms, in your forbidding historical journals and in the public press.” pgs xi-xii

Barnes did not disagree. This is a clear repudiation of the kind of “evidence” you provide here on a regular basis. And what’s worse, you don’t even try to defend what you do; you just quietly move on and do it again. One really has to wonder what your purpose is? Or maybe it just amounts to your limitations, viz a viz IQ.

P.S. Your next attempt (comment 748) to bolster the book through reviewers is no better. Maybe you should read the book yourself before you promote it.

„At the outbreak of war, the Jews fully entered into the spirit of enthusiasm which seized upon all the nationalities of the Russian Empire. They, were convinced that without victory “it would be impossible for Russia to continue on the road of progress, to exist as a modern state.”“

The war and the Jews in Russia, Prof. E. R. A. Seligman (Jew), p. 7, Introduction.

The reasoning in McMeekin’s book on WWI is somewhat similar to what he employs in Stalin’s Wars. The strange thing is while I found his thesis that the Russians were equally if not more responsible for starting WWI quite unpersuasive, I did not have the same reservations about his thesis on Stalin’s responsibility for WWII.

The reason being that by July 1914, the whole thing was a powder-keg waiting to explode, it just required a match, whether thrown by the Germans, French, Austrians or Russians. But the powder-keg itself was in the main the making of the Germans all through the past decade. Whereas with Stalin, one always knew that after Zhukov had defeated the Japanese in Khalkin-Gul, that Stalin would eventually turn his attention to Europe.

I will. Your jaundiced reactions amuse me big time.
McMeekin only joined the ‘hate Russia’ bandwagon. It is good for career advancement.

‘The Russian Origins of the First World War’ by Sean McMeekin.

Some REVIEWS:

“This book should forever change the ways we have understood the role of Russia in the First World War.”―Michael S. Neiberg, author of Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of World War I

“A bold reinterpretation of the Russian Empire’s entry into the First World War. McMeekin argues that Russia believed a European war to be in its interest, that it sought to humiliate Vienna, and that it hoped to conquer Constantinople and the Ottoman Straits.”―Mustafa Aksakal, author of The Ottoman Road to War in 1914

“The Russian Origins of the First World War is a polemic in the best sense. Written in a lively and engaging style, it should provoke a much-needed debate on Russia’s role in the Great War.”―Michael Reynolds, author of Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918

“Going against a century of received wisdom, Bilkent University professor McMeekin offers a dramatic new interpretation of WWI…Rifling the archives, analyzing battle plans, and sifting through the machinations of high diplomacy, McMeekin reveals the grand ambitions of czarist Russia, which wanted control of the Black Sea straits to guarantee all-weather access to foreign markets. Maneuvering France and England into a war against Germany presented the best chance to acquire this longed-for prize. No empire had more to gain from the coming conflict, and none pushed harder to ensure its arrival. Once unleashed, however, the conflagration leapt out of control, and imperial Russia herself ranked among its countless victims.”―Publishers Weekly

“As Sean McMeekin argues in this bold and brilliant revisionist study, Russia was as much to blame as Germany for the outbreak of the war. Using a wide range of archival sources, including long-neglected tsarist documents, he argues that the Russians had ambitions of their own (the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, no less) and that they were ready for a war once they had secured a favorable alliance with the British and the French.”―British historian Orlando Figes, Sunday Times

What is missing here is better coverage of the French and BRITISH angles, but there other authors who cover those quite well.

Nor is McMeekin the first to explore the issue of Russian responsibility at all, since Tsarist archives made public after WWI already made several historians take Russia’s role into account. A bit more recently there was also George F Kennan 1984 ‘The Fateful Alliance: France, Russia, and the Coming of the First World War’ which covers some of the same ground as McMeekin.

Keep trolling though; killing the messenger in order for people not to read the letter is really all you got.

Calling you an IDIOT is an understatement.

McMeekin is a serious, well respected historian, while you are a nobody shill for Russian imperialism.

Stalin’s War: A New History of the Second World War

>> SOME REVIEWS

“A provocative revisionist take on the Second World War…an accomplished, fearless, and enthusiastic ‘myth buster’…McMeekin is a formidable researcher, working in several languages, and he is prepared to pose the big questions and make judgments….The story of the war itself is well told and impressive in its scope, ranging as it does from the domestic politics of small states such as Yugoslavia and Finland to the global context. It reminds us, too, of what Soviet ‘liberation’ actually meant for eastern Europe….McMeekin is right that we have for too long cast the second world war as the good one. His book will, as he must hope, make us re-evaluate the war and its consequences.”―Financial Times

“Brilliantly inquisitive.”―National Review

“Indispensable… There are new books every year that promise ‘a new history’ of such a well-studied subject as World War II, but McMeekin actually delivers on that promise.”―Christian Science Monitor

“The volume is impressive even by the standard of histories of the second world war…The book is well researched and very well written. It puts forward new ideas and revives some old ones to challenge current mainstream interpretations of the conflict… a new look at the conflict, which poses new questions and, one should add, provides new and often unexpected answers to the old ones.”―Guardian

“McMeekin is a superb writer. There isn’t a boring page in the book. His familiarity with the archives of several countries is extraordinary.”―The Times (UK)

“Based on a vast amount of research.”―Prospect (UK)

“In considering the war from a global perspective and shifting the focus from a Eurocentric view, he [McMeekin] provides a refreshing corrective that takes in areas of the war often overlooked by westerners.” ―The Spectator (UK)

“[A] well-written book…the product of massive research involving every detail of the war. Stalin is intimately painted in all his colours.”―Eurasia Review

“Gripping, authoritative, accessible, and always bracingly revisionist.”―Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar

“Sean McMeekin’s new book fills a massive gap in the historiography of World War II. Based on exhaustive research in Russian and other archives, this examination of Stalin’s foreign policy explores fresh avenues and explodes many myths, perhaps the most significant being that of unwittingly exaggerated emphasis on ‘Hitler’s war.’ McMeekin shows conclusively that the two tyrants were equally responsible, both for the outbreak of war in 1939 and the appalling slaughter which ensued.”
―Nikolai Tolstoy

“Sean McMeekin’s approach in Stalin’s War is both original and refreshing, written as it is with a wonderful clarity.”―Antony Beevor, author of Stalingrad

“A sweeping reassessment of World War II seeking to ‘illuminate critical matters long obscured by the obsessively German-centric literature’ on the subject….Yet another winner for McMeekin, this also serves as a worthy companion to Niall Ferguson’s The Pity of War, which argued that Britain should not have entered World War I. Brilliantly contrarian history.”―Kirkus

“Historian McMeekin (The Russian Revolution) draws from recently opened Soviet archives to shed light on Stalin’s dark reasoning and shady tactics….Packed with incisive character sketches and illuminating analyses of military and diplomatic maneuvers, this is a skillful and persuasive reframing of the causes, developments, and repercussions of WWII.”―Publishers Weekly

Etc…

Of course you ‘remember’ incorrectly that Russia ‘forced the war’.

Sean McMeekin is a shill for Turkey. Married to a Turkish woman, he taught in Turkey as an assistant professor in the Centre for Russian Studies at Bilkent University in Ankara and in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Koç University in Istanbul. He is a denier of the ‘Armenian Genocide’ and exonerates all Ottoman behavior and play down Armenian suffering, which he has the gall to blame it on Russia.
An assessment of his ‘Stalin’s War’ by historians is: ”A gifted writer and a talented polemicist, he has lowered the historian’s craft to the level of propaganda. The result is a lamentable step back in our understanding of Stalin and his second world war”,”Distorted history of a complex second World War”, ”book contains misquotes of Stalin’s speeches, and included sources refuted decades beforehand, or else long ago shown to be fraudulent”. Ditto for ‘The Russian Origins of the First World War’.

Seems that you are v e r y flexible with the targets you are training your argument guns at. If I remember correctly, Russia forced the issue of the war in 1914 by using its supposed bond to the Slavic Servian brothers. I.o.w., the Servs played the role of the injured and abused small nations in Russia’s strategy, in the same way the Entente in England found that the supposedly violated right of Belgium was a convenient propaganda reason to partake in the war, whip up morale in the fighting troops and the suffering and squeezed population. After the war, this same reasoning was used to idiotically re-draw borders in Europe, always to the disadvantage of the German middle of Europe (Austria, being a German province, was savaged with the same ferocity as was Germany proper). The German offer to end the war and return to the ante bellum borders in late 1916 was turned down. Why would that be? Because the war had not produced the results projected in the decade-long plans that were set on the path to realization when Grey’s secret, informal ‘conversations’ between the English and French General Staffs had been begun in 1905. This established the fact of an unofficial, yet binding military alliance between France and England, aimed at a common military campaign against Germany, the object of France’s and England’s disdain for its mere existence. Belgium was becoming part of these ‘conversations’ as well.

As regards Belgium: Due to the treaty of 1939, Prussia, England and France had certain rights in and expectations of Belgium.

LYING clearly comes as easily to you as breathing does to most people…
The reasons Russia went to war in 1914 had NOTHING to do with ‘defense’… or with the ‘protection’ of ‘Slavic’ Serbia, as I have seen some foolish Serbian activists claim…

Prof. Sean McMeekin explains it in his The Russian Origins of the First World War

Here, at the end of Russia’s war, we may finally understand its beginning. Public rhetoric aside, Serbia and “Slavic honor” had nothing to do with it. It was not over these phantom issues that Russia had gone to war in 1914, nor did they play the slightest role in the world-historic political tremors of 1917.

For Russia, if not for her allies, the war of 1914 was always principally about the Ottoman inheritance: about Constantinople and the Straits. In pursuit of this great strategic prize, at a moment that seemed uniquely propitious for enlisting British and French power to neutralize the mounting German threat to Russia’s ambitions, Sazonov and the generals at Stavka had plunged Europe into the greatest catastrophe of modern times.