Putin in Serbia: the USSR won WWII [Video]

April 27th, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
by Inessa Sinchougova

In anticipation of Victory Day, May 9th 2017, it is topical to revisit the subject of WWII. It is trendy nowadays in Western states to belittle the role of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War, as it is known in Russia, in which an estimated 27 million Soviet soldiers and civilians died. On a personal level, it is 3 of my great-grandfathers killed in battle, and 1 who made it from Siberia to Berlin, and home to tell the story. One out of four family members – and this is standard for each Russian/Soviet family.

In this clip, Vladimir Putin addresses an assembly in Belgrade in 2014, an anniversary date for the liberation of Belgrade. He states that it is the USSR and the Yugoslavian forces that offered the most resistance to Hitler’s Germany; no historical manipulation can be entered into.

It is also trendy nowadays to dismiss the destructive role Nazism had on the European continent, linking Hitler to fighting against ‘international Jewish banksters’,  ‘subspecies’ and ‘the cabal.’ In reality, nobody in history of humanity destroyed more ‘white’ Europeans than Hitler’s Germany. At that point in time, world casualties amounted to almost ¼ of the world’s population as a whole. Every Russian city today has a monument or an eternal fire to the Great Patriotic War, with the names of the deceased printed for eternity.

Today, in April 2017, preparations for the 2017 Parade are taking place in Moscow. Are you coming?

‘Insane blackmail’ or ‘historical responsibility’? Greece demands WW2 reparations from Germany

From RT

August 18, 2016

Does Germany still owe Greece billions of euros in compensation for Nazi crimes in World War Two, or should bygones be bygones since Berlin has anyway given Athens billions as part of benefits and bailout measures?

“Greece and its people will not forget the slaughter and war crimes of the Nazi army and demand tangible recognition by the German government. Greece will do whatever is necessary, mainly at a diplomatic level, and if necessary, at a legal [level],” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said earlier this week, during a visit to Kommeno to commemorate the victims of the 1943 massacre in the northwestern village, where Nazi troops killed 317 civilians.

RT sat down with political theorist Marina Prentoulis, member of Syriza, and Eike Hamer, a political commentator from Germany, to discuss whether Greece can really claim the money 70 years after the war.

Marina Prentoulis agrees it’s been a long time, but insists that one has to remember that “crimes against humanity never expire.”

Reparation – Germany’s historical responsibility for Nazi occupation 

“The people of Greece will always have to live with the memories of the Nazi occupation. I would like to say that [on August 17] in 1944 we had a very dark anniversary for Greece – the anniversary of Kokkinia, a place in the western Athens, where the same day many years ago 20,000 people were gathered at the local square – 350 of them were executed, and 800 of them were taken hostages, and they were tortured by the Nazi army and the Gestapo,” she said.

Eike Hamer argues, though, that the issue of fairness here is not the point, as “there is hardly any other country that has got as much money from Germany as Greece.”  He recalled that back in 1960, West Germany paid 115 million deutsche marks to Greece as compensation for Nazi war crimes. Now the main point is to “live together again in peace and with respect to each other,” he says.

That won’t be possible if one side “comes with old stories [over and over] again to blackmail the other one and to demand any money or whatever from them,” Hamer says. “We’re comrades in the EU, and this is insane to make a break through the population, by demanding such insane things.”

Prentoulis agrees that living in peace is crucial, but, she insists, “this is why we have a historical responsibility to the people of Europe to recognize how Greece was devastated by the Nazi occupation.”

As for the 1960 payment, she said, “it was only a fraction of the money that they were supposed to give to Greece.”

“And now it is time to recognize that as comrades and for the good of the whole of Europe in order to be able to put this story in history and remember the horrific things that happened to Greece with not wanting to do anything like that again in the future; for peace and prosperity of Europe,” said Prentoulis.

No other country in the world pays Greece as much as Germany 

Since the 1960 compensation, Hamer argues, Greece has enjoyed advantages worth “a couple of hundred billion” euros. He referred to low interest rates, European – “mainly German” – aid and other indirect payments, including advantages Greece received because of having “many contracts” with Germany.

“There is no other country in the world paying Greece that much as Germany through the EU, through other things,” he said.

“It is funny that you can pay Greece as much money as you want and the elites divide this money amongst each other, take the money away, move to London, or whatever. Now, when the people are left behind from their own elites, they are demanding more money from Germany,” Hamer said, adding that “this is not fair.”

Prentoulis insists that it’s Greece that is being treated unfairly.

“Greece is getting one of the worst treatments across the Eurozone,” she said adding that economic issues and war reparation payment should be differentiated.

“But if you want to talk about the situation in Greece now, I have to remind you again about the 1953 London Debt Agreement, when a lot of countries, including Greece, decided to cut the debt of the German state by half and connect their repayment with a prosperity of the German state. This was an act of good will from the people of Europe,” she said.

Greece, however, is being treated differently now, says Prentoulis.

“The Greek people have been totally brought to the knees, once again because of austerity, because of the decisions of the conservative government of the EU, including the German one, and they are going on suffering since the crisis of 2008. You remember what happened with the Greek negotiations, and the whole Europe has been witnessing that,” she said.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


Occupants or liberators: the USSR’s role in WW II


Putin blasts attempts to rewrite history of Russia’s role in WWII as ‘cynical lies’
March 17, 2015

Defamation of the whole generation of people, who gave everything for this Victory and stood up for peace in the world is aimed at eroding the power and moral authority of modern Russia, Putin says

People in Sofia greeting Soviet soldiers, 1944

People in Sofia greeting Soviet soldiers, 1944

© Fotokhronika TASS

The Russian president said that “the insolent defamation of the whole generation of people, who gave everything they had for this Victory and stood up for peace in the world,” was aimed “at eroding the power and moral authority of modern Russia and to deprive it of the status of the victor-country with all the following international legal consequences.”

Russian President has instructed Russia’s Victory Day celebration organizing committee to effectively counter attempts to distort the truth about World War II.

“The task of the Russian organizing committee in each Russian region is to effectively counter these challenges with the citizens’ active participation and support; it is important to use all the possibilities to tell the truth about the Fatherland history, about combat heroism and labor achievements of our ancestors, to open the doors before those who want to become known in this field, fulfil their aspiration to make a contribution to the national cause, patriotic education, defending the own country’s national interests,” the president said at a meeting of the Victory organizing committee.


False statements on attitude to Soviet WWII soldiers easily refuted
March 20, 2015

Chief of Staff of the Russian Presidential Administration made this statement visiting a Second World War memorial in Moscow together with head of the General Office of the Communist Party of China

MOSCOW, March 20. /TASS/. False statement about Soviet troops treated “not as liberators but as occupants” during World War Two are easily refuted by documents, including by photographs of those years, Chief of Staff of the Russian Presidential Administration Sergey Ivanov said while visiting a Second World War memorial in Moscow together with head of the General Office of the Communist Party of China Li Zhanshu.

Ivanov noted that various statements to this effect that could be heard now were nothing else but attempts to falsify history. They claim that “that was not liberation but enslavement and occupation”. “When we show photos depicting people with flowers welcoming Soviet troops, these myths are debunked,” he said.

Ivanov and Li Zhanshu began the museum tour by visiting the Hall of Remembrance and Sorrow, which honors all Soviet people who perished in the war or were reported missing.

The two politicians also visited an international exhibition dedicated to the 1938 Battle of Wuhan and Soviet assistance to China in its struggle against Japan.

In conclusion, their paid a visit to the Hall of Glory featuring feats of heroism by Red Army soldiers and officers.


What’s really driving the attacks on Russia? Revanchism and russophobia as historical undercurrents

Revanchism: The act of retaliating, especially by a nation or group to regain lost territory or standing; revenge. [1]

And if Russia continues to pursue diplomacy and out-peace the U.S. and the West, will the United States and its allies react with ever-increasing animosity?

From Vineyard of the Saker, March 4, 2015

The situation in the Ukraine is more or less calm right now, and this might be the time to step back from the flow of daily reports and look at the deeper, underlying currents.  The question I want to raise today is one I will readily admit not having an answer to.  What I want to ask is this: could it be that one of the key factors motivating the West’s apparently illogical and self-defeating desire to constantly confront Russia is simply revanchism for WWII?

We are, of course, talking about perceptions here so it is hard to establish anything for sure, but I wonder if the Stalin’s victory against Hitler was really perceived as such by the western elites, or if it was perceived as a victory against somebody FDR could also have called “our son of a bitch“.  After all, there is plenty of evidence that both the US and the UK were key backers of Hitler’s rise to power (read Starikov about that) and that most (continental) Europeans were rather sympathetic to Herr Hitler.  Then, of course and as it often happens, Hitler turned against his masters or, at least, his supporters, and they had to fight against him.  But there is strictly nothing new about that.  This is also what happened with Saddam, Noriega, Gaddafi, al-Qaeda and so many other “bad guy” who began their careers as the AngloZionists’ “good guys”.  Is it that unreasonable to ask whether the western elites were truly happy when the USSR beat Nazi Germany, or if they were rather horrified by what Stalin had done to what was at that time the single most powerful western military – Germany’s?

A few days ago I saw this picture on Colonel Cassad’s blog:

Stalin and his commanders

Looking at that photo I thought that for the western elites, to see these men must have been rather frightening, especially considering that they must have known that their entire war effort was, at most, 20% of what it took to defeat Nazi Germany and that those who had shouldered 80%+ were of an ideology diametrically opposed to capitalism.

Is there any evidence of that fear?

I think there is and I already mentioned them in the past:

Plan Totality (1945): earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Operation Unthinkable (1945) assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.

Operation Dropshot (1949): included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

But the biggest proof is, I think, the fact that none of these plans was executing, even though at the time the Anglosphere was safely hidden behind its monopoly on nuclear weapons (and have Hiroshima and Nagasaki not been destroyed in part to “scare the Russians”?).

And is it not true that the Anglos did engage in secret negotiations with Hitler’s envoys on several occasions?  (The notion of uniting forces against the “Soviet threat” was in fact contemplated by both Nazi and Anglo officials, but they did not find a way to make that happen.)

So could it be that Hitler was, really, their “son of a bitch”?

More proof?  Okay.

Hitler was most definitely not a Christian.  If anything, he and Himmler were pagans with a strong satanic bend to their dark cult of ancestor worship (Ahnenerbe).  But what about Hitler’s allies such as Petain, Franco, Pavelic – where they not defenders of what they would call the “Christian West”?  Is it not a fact that 70 years after the fall of the Third Reich those who admire Petain, Franco and Pavelic *still* speak of the need to defend the “Christian West”, but this time against the “Islamic threat”?

Furthermore, if the Nazi regime represented an existential threat to European Jewry, a quick survey or articles written by Jewish authors in the US and British press during much of the 20th century clearly shows that most Jews had little to no sympathy not only for pre-Revolutionary Russia, but also for the post-Trotsky USSR and that even though the USSR fully supported the creation of the state of Israel, many if not most US and European Jews felt that the Soviet Union was also a threat to their interests.

I believe that the rabid russophobia (phobia in both the sense of “hate” and “fear”) of the AngloZionist Empire cannot be only explained by pragmatic reasons of great power competition or a struggle of political systems.  The constant propaganda about the “Russian threat” is not only a political tool to dumb down the western people by keeping them in a state of constant fear (of Russia or Islam), but it is also the expression of a deep fear really felt by the 1% plutocracy which rules over the western world.

Finally, the fear of Russia is also a fear of the Russian leaders.  When they are like Eltsin (a drunken imbecile) or his Foreign Minister Kozyrev (the ultimate “yes” man) western politicians feel appropriately superior.  But remember that even mediocre personalities like Krushchev or Brezhnev truly frightened them.  So it is no wonder that strong and smart leaders (like Stalin or Putin) would absolutely terrify them and make them feel inadequate.  The infantile way in which Obama has tried to show that he was smarter and stronger than Putin is a clear indication of how inferior he really felt face to face.  The same, of course, also goes for Kerry and Lavrov.

Everything I have written above fully applies to East European leaders too, only with even more intensity.  We are talking about countries which sometimes had a rather glorious past and who during WWII had no other purpose then being the furniture in the room where the two Big Guys slugged it out.  Worse, they more or less kept that same passive role during the Cold War and now they have hardly become more relevant.  In part, I would argue that this is their own fault, instead of finally making use of their new found freedom to develop some kind of meaningful political identity, all they did was to engage in a brown-nosing competition to see who would become Uncle Sam’s favorite pet (Hungary under Orban being the sole exception to this sad rule).

It is really no wonder that when the Americans overthrew Yanukovich the Europeans felt that now, finally, their “hour had come” and they would show those disrespectful Russians who “is boss” on the Old Continent.  And every time the Russians warned the Eurocretins in Brussels that there were issues linked to the Ukraine which required urgent consultations they were told “that is none of your business, there is nothing to discuss”.  The problem was, of course, that the West European leader had forgotten that in the real world they were just the administrators of the USA’s “EU colony” and that the US leaders truly did not give a damn about them (as Mrs Nuland so lyrically put it in simple words).  As for East European leaders, their irrelevance is simply painful to look at, I almost feel sorry for them and their trampled egos.

I personally think that contrary to the official narrative, there is a strong case to be made that the end of WWII left a lot of people very, very unhappy and that all those who felt wronged or frightened by the Soviet victory in 1945 did join forces in an attempt to correct the wrongs of the outcome of that war.  At the very least, the question of the importance of russophobia and revanchism has to be asked.

It just not make sense to explain away the apparently crazy behavior of the western leaders during the entire Ukrainian crisis by saying that they are simply stupid, naive or ill informed.  What they are doing may appear stupid, naive or ill informed to us, but that does not mean that there is no deep rationale behind the actions of these “elites”.

Most people in the West want to live in peace and are completely unaware of these undercurrents of the war in the Ukraine.  What I describe above is only relevant to various minority groups.  The problem is that taken together and when they act in unison, these minorities end of wielding a lot of power and influence.  The best way to stop them, is to shed a strong light on them and their real motives.

The Saker

Revanchism and russophobia: the dark undercurrents of the war in the Ukraine

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revanchism