The Forward Observations Group, a private military company based in the United States, published a photo of its war professionals in the Russian region of Kursk, a presence confirmed by a video showing the destruction by the Russian armed forces of Forward Observations Group armoured vehicles and commandos in Kursk. This US military company, whose role is described by the authoritative Military Watch magazine as ‘very obscure’ (evidently, it is linked to US intelligence services), has been engaged for more than two years with Ukrainian forces against Russia with the task of carrying out special operations, including preparing attacks with toxic chemicals.
There is documented evidence that Ukraine is involved in the preparation of attacks with chemical and biological weapons. This US military company is not the only one operating covertly in the theatre of war against Russia. Based on precise documentation Military Watch writes:
‘Numerous facts have emerged about the role of military personnel from NATO member states (including Royal Marines and British SAS commandos) in supporting Ukrainian war operations against Russia. Military advisers, both logisticians and combatants, and other personnel have been operating since 2022 in the theatre of war with a range of newly delivered complex weaponry.’
This confirms that the Ukrainian armed forces are not only armed and trained by the US and NATO, but that US-NATO military companies and special forces operate directly in the theatre of war in command and management roles of sophisticated weaponry, such as long-range missiles and drones, for the use of which military satellite networks are needed, which Ukraine does not have.
At the same time, the US is deploying nuclear weapons (bombs and missiles) at intermediate range in Europe, increasingly close to Russia. Even the missile defence systems, which they deploy in Europe on the official grounds of protecting European populations from the ‘Russian nuclear threat’, are in fact prepared for nuclear attack. The two US Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania and the US Navy destroyers operating in the Baltic and Black Sea are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s MK-41 vertical launch systems, which, as the manufacturer itself documents, can be used for any warfare mission, including nuclear attack on land targets.
Italy actively contributes to the preparation of nuclear war. Violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it hosts US nuclear weapons (the new B61-12 bombs), which the Italian Air Force is trained to use, and through Leonardo it manufactures nuclear weapons. Now Italy has pledged to build – together with France, Germany and Poland – ground-launched cruise missiles with a range of more than 500 km, i.e. a more advanced version of the US intermediate-range nuclear missiles deployed at Comiso in the 1980s, which were eliminated by the 1987 INF Treaty, a treaty that the US tore up in 2019.
*
This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.
We had a discussion with Michael von der Schulenburg – a German top diplomat with the OSCE and 34 years in the United Nations. The topic of discussion was the transformation of Germany and the war in Ukraine. Michael von der Schulenburg argues the EU must change course on Ukraine or risk tearing itself apart.
Michael von der Schulenburg and Harald Kujat (the former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee) criticised NATO for provoking the war and sabotaging the peace agreement to use Ukrainians to fight and weaken a strategic rival. Germany is now de-industrialising, the political elites have rediscovered enthusiasm for war, the US and Ukraine attacked Germany’s critical energy infrastructure which EU partners consider to be legitimate, society is growing more pessimistic, freedom of speech is undermined, there are signs of political violence, and new political alternatives are emerging that are not acceptable to the government. Michael von der Schulenburg argues the EU no longer behaves as a rational actor. Where did it all go wrong?
Interview by Moritz Enders in Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DNW) – translated by Glenn Diesen
Harald Kujat (born 1942), retired Air Force General, was the highest-ranking German soldier as Inspector General of the German Armed Forces from 2000 to 2002. From 2002 to 2005 he was Chairman of the NATO Russia Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission of the Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking NATO General as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.
Does the Ukraine conflict mark another stage in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order? According to Harald Kujat, the former Inspector General of the German Bundeswehr, neither Russia nor Ukraine and their partners and supporters in the West seem to be able to win it. And at the same time, the next source of conflict is emerging: a conflict between the USA and China.
DWN: Can Ukraine still win the war or is it already de facto lost?
Harald Kujat: Neither Ukraine nor Russia can win the war, because neither will achieve the political goals for which they are waging this war. Ukraine wants to restore the country’s territorial integrity within the 1991 borders and become a member of NATO. But despite continued support from the West, recapturing the territories annexed or occupied by Russia on its own is a legitimate but unrealistic option given the military balance of power and the military situation that has developed during the war. It was declared at the NATO summit in early July that Ukraine’s path to NATO was irreversible. However, it was also emphasized that NATO would be able to issue an invitation if all allies agreed and all conditions were met. Not all member states, including the USA, are willing to do so. President Biden emphasized this again explicitly in an interview in early June.
For Russia, the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland is already a serious setback. It is not yet clear whether it will be possible to establish a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, a long-standing goal of Russia, albeit now in the form of a cordon sanitaire in western Ukraine. One conceivable option would be to admit western Ukraine into NATO if the areas annexed by Russia cannot be reintegrated. However, I am certain that Russia will only agree to a peace settlement if Ukraine does not become a member of NATO, because that is a core demand of Russia.
The United States will also not achieve its goal of weakening Russia politically, militarily and economically. Because of the close ties between Russia and China, this would also have an impact on China, the United States’ biggest geopolitical challenger. It has not been possible to force Russia to stop the attack through a wide range of sanctions. The economic consequences are borne primarily by the European states, while Russia’s economy is stable and domestic production is increasing there. Russia’s geopolitical influence has even grown due to the accession of important states to the BRICS organization and in relation to the global south. And the Russian armed forces are stronger than before the war.
However, two losers in this war are already clear today: the Ukrainian people and the European Union, which has fallen far behind in the power arithmetic of the major powers both politically and economically.
DWN: But could the Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk area, i.e. on Russian soil, which has been going on for more than two weeks, not influence the outcome of the war?
Harald Kujat: The Ukrainian armed forces have undoubtedly pulled off a coup with this advance. They discovered a weak point with the Russians and seized the opportunity that presented itself with determination and considerable success. There are, however, some notable aspects in connection with this operation.
Although Russian intelligence undoubtedly recognized that Ukraine was bringing together elements from several brigades with reconnaissance equipment, electronic warfare and army air defense to form a combat group, they evidently did not anticipate the Ukrainian leadership’s intention to undertake a cross-border advance. The Russian border security consisted mainly of young, inexperienced conscripts equipped only with light weapons. The fact that there was no immediate reaction with combat troops and that the organization of the resistance took a long time is extremely embarrassing for the Russian military leadership.
The Ukrainians’ conduct of the operation shows that they had an astonishingly good picture of the situation regarding the Russian forces. They managed to bring in additional forces relatively quickly to reinforce the initially small combat unit. They were also able to expand their advance in a fan shape. However, they had to accept considerable losses in personnel and material as they gained ground quickly.
So far, the Russian armed forces have limited themselves to stabilizing the situation. They could now bring in superior forces and try to defeat the Ukrainian combat unit. Or they could systematically wear down the enemy forces that had penetrated and possible reinforcements, thereby forcing them to retreat. This is a strategy that the Russians have already used several times, including in Bakhmut and Avdiivka.
The Ukrainians have given various statements about the aim of this advance, which have changed over the course of the operation. It is very likely that the nuclear power plant near Kursk was to be captured. When this did not succeed immediately, it was said that Russia should be forced to withdraw combat troops from the Russian-Ukrainian front in order to strengthen resistance in the Kursk region. The expectation was that this would reduce the pressure on the Ukrainian defense. In addition, the Ukrainian conquests of Russian territory were to serve as a bargaining chip in possible peace negotiations and could be exchanged for Ukrainian territory. Finally, Russian prisoners could be exchanged for Ukrainian prisoners of war.
However, Russia did not withdraw heavy combat units from the Donbas front, but only a few, smaller infantry units. As a result, the Russian forces in the Donbas are able to continue to make territorial gains and even increase their pressure on the Ukrainian defense lines. They are getting closer and closer to Pokrovsk, a strategically important city with sixty thousand inhabitants that could be conquered in the near future. In addition, Russia has rejected negotiations as long as Russian territory is occupied by Ukraine. Thus, the results of the operation hoped for by Ukraine have not materialized
DWN: So what could Ukraine achieve with its advance? Is it the decisive blow that will change the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor or is it a gamble by the Ukrainian president that will ultimately cost Ukraine dearly?
Harald Kujat: There is a high probability that the latter is the case. Because Ukraine is taking a big risk in withdrawing combat troops from the defense front, which is under great pressure, holding the thinned-out Donbas front and at the same time defending its positions in the Kursk area. The already critical military situation will therefore end up being much more difficult than before the advance into Russian territory. The short-term political success could soon end in a strategic defeat.
DWN: Will the war now simply continue until the American presidential elections or is there a chance of ending it through negotiations?
Harald Kujat: I fear that with the Ukrainian advance into Russian territory, the chance for a ceasefire and peace negotiations opportunities for the foreseeable future have been wasted. Russia has refused to negotiate as long as Russian territory is occupied. Both sides are only willing to negotiate if the conditions you demand are met beforehand. In addition, Russia can wait for the results of the American presidential election. I consider the Chinese proposal from February last year to be the only realistic option to bring both sides back to the negotiating table: to continue the negotiations without preconditions, where they were broken off in mid-April 2022.
DWN: What effects would the election of Donald Trump as the next American president have?
Harald Kujat: With his peace initiative, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban tried to find a way out of the impasse into which the Europeans have manoeuvred themselves through their unrealistic and strategyless actions. He has discussed with Volodymyr Zelensky, Putin and Xi Jinping the possibilities of ending the war with a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. Orban has also spoken with Donald Trump about his attitude. While President Biden has always stressed that only the Ukrainian government decides whether, when and under what conditions it negotiates, Trump has repeatedly declared his intention to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible. After the conversation with Trump, Orban wrote: “We have talked about ways to make peace. The good news of the day: He will solve it.” Trump confirmed this on his internet platform: “Thank you, Viktor. There must be peace, and as soon as possible.” The election has not yet been decided, but it would make sense for not only the two warring parties, but also the European states supporting Ukraine to prepare for this eventuality.
DWN: The German government has been criticized for its decision not to provide any new support for Ukraine beyond the measures already agreed. What impact will this decision have on the course of the war?
Harald Kujat: The German government has budgeted four billion euros for support for Ukraine in 2025. The German government also points out that the G7 states intend to grant Ukraine a loan of 50 billion euros, the interest on which will be paid from the proceeds of the frozen Russian state assets. And the NATO member states have also decided to provide 40 billion euros for support for Ukraine in 2025.
However, Ukraine’s financial needs are very high because not only the material expenses for waging war but also the state budget must be financed by around 50 percent of foreign donations.
Whether the planned financial support covers the necessary needs for the continuation of the war depends crucially on whether and to what extent the United States continues to support Ukraine after the presidential election on November 5. If the aid is not continued or not continued to the required extent, the European states supporting Ukraine could very quickly be faced with the decision of whether they are willing and able to compensate for the United States’ failure.
It is noteworthy, by the way, that in Germany the continuation and the amount of aid to Ukraine is being discussed, but the question of which strategy is being pursued with it plays no role. Supporting Ukraine in defending its independence and territorial integrity is a legitimate but not sufficient measure to achieve lasting peace and a secure future for the country. The collective West has been supporting Ukraine in its defensive war for two and a half years financially, with extensive arms deliveries and with humanitarian aid. Despite this selfless commitment and the risk of the war spreading to the whole of Europe, the military situation in Ukraine has become increasingly critical. The fact that this negative development is continuing and has even intensified in recent months should be a reason to at least now consider whether it is sensible to continue to support Ukraine in order to achieve an unattainable goal and thereby bring it closer to military defeat. If, despite the Western expenditure, the negative military development is expected to continue and even intensify, alternatives must be sought that will end the suffering of the Ukrainian population and the destruction of the country. Because the alternative to a timely negotiated peace would be a military defeat for Ukraine.
This is also apparently the view of Indian Prime Minister Narandra Modi, who declared in Warsaw before his visit to Kiev: “India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on a battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy in order to restore peace and stability as quickly as possible. To this end, India is prepared to make every possible contribution together with its friendly countries.”
Those who lack this insight should think of the UN resolutions of March 2, 2022 and February 23, 2023, which call for a “peaceful settlement of the conflict through dialogue, negotiations, mediation and other peaceful means,” and also remember the peace mandate of the Basic Law.
DWN: In addition, the Federal Republic also seems to be becoming more confrontational towards China. What are the reasons for this?
Harald Kujat: The 21st century is characterized by China’s rise to world power and by the rivalry between the great powers, the United States, Russia and China. The Ukraine war has made it clear that China is the only competitor of the United States, and increasingly has the political, economic, military and technological potential to replace the United States as the world’s leading power.
In order to deal with China, the United States needs to work closely with its European NATO allies. The European NATO states, together with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, are to form an Indo-Pacific network of partners and allies in order to be involved in the conflict with China with the same unity as in the conflict with Russia. In NATO’s strategic concept, China is therefore already described as a systemic challenge to Euro-Atlantic security.
At NATO’s anniversary summit in Washington in early July, the Alliance’s heads of state and government went a step further. They declared that China had become a decisive factor in Russia’s war against Ukraine through its borderless partnership and extensive support of the Russian defense industry. This had increased the threat that Russia poses to its neighbors and to Euro-Atlantic security. The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO because developments in this region have a direct impact on Euro-Atlantic security.
The North Atlantic Alliance is thus taking a confrontational course with China. We Europeans must decide whether we want to participate in a future military conflict between China and the United States or strengthen the ability to assert ourselves politically, economically and militarily and become an independent factor of international stability with the ability to prevent and contain conflicts.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has outwitted the West by his response to Ukraine’s Kursk offensive one month ago, which was widely celebrated as a tipping point in the conflict. The conflict is indeed at a tipping point today, but for an entirely different reason insofar as Russian forces seized the folly of Ukraine’s deployment of its crack brigades and prized Western armour to Kursk Region to reach an unassailable position in the most recent weeks in the battlefields, which opens the door for multiple options going forward.
On the contrary, the West finds itself in a ‘Zugzwang’, a situation found in chess whereby it is under compulsion to move when it would rather prefer to pass.
Putin’s address to the plenary of the 9th Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on Thursday was eagerly awaited for what he had to say on the conflict in Ukraine. Several things stood out.
Putin no longer characterised the Ukrainian interlocutors as the ‘Kiev regime.’ Instead, he used the expression ‘Kiev government’. And he summed up: “Are we ready to negotiate with them? We have never given up on this.”Was he being a taunting poser, as the Kremlin leader who has tangoed with four American presidents already, expects a fifth with an “infectious” laugh, which makes him “happy.”
On a serious note, though, Putin took note that the “official authorities” in Kiev have regretted that if only they had followed up on the “signed official document” negotiated with Russian representatives at the Istanbul talks in March 2022 “rather than obeyed their masters from other countries, the war would have come to an end long ago.”
Putin implied that Kiev must regain its sovereignty. The conciliatory words were measured, possibly with an eye on the unravelling of political alignments within the ruling dispensation in Kiev.That is to say, Putin rejects Zelensky’s Ukrainian settlement process, but is willing to revive negotiations on terms first discussed at talks in Istanbul in March 2022 at the start of conflict.
Putin went on to discuss potential mediators. He singled out 3 BRICS member countries — China, Brazil, and India. Putin said Russia has “trusting relations” with these countries and he himself is in “constant contact” with his counterparts with a view “to help understand all the details of this complex process.”
Evidently, Putin is distressed that he is “constantly” being told by them about the human rights situation due to the conflict, Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s national sovereignty and so on. He regretted that they overlook the genesis of the conflict — the 2014 US-backed coup d’etat in Ukraine which was resisted by native speakers of Russian language, and over suppression of Russian culture and Russian traditions.
Fundamentally, Putin stressed, the West hoped to “bring Russia to its knees, dismember it… (and) they would achieve their strategic goals, which they had been striving for, maybe for centuries or decades.” In the given situation, therefore, Russia’s strong economy and military potential are its “main guarantee of security”. [Emphasis added.]
In such a scenario, what are the prospects going forward? Putin is sceptical about the West’s intentions. Yet, conceivably, he pampered the three mediator-countries who are also Russia’s key BRICS partners at the forthcoming Kazan summit next month (which is expected to focus on an alternative payment system for international trade.)
Moscow is wary that the BRICS partners are beating their luminous wings in the void without comprehending that the conflict in Ukraine is a civilisational war that has been going on for centuries since the Slavic peoples began developing their own Orthodox churches through more than half of Christian history.
Putin is a master tactician. Therefore, he will insist that Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine — which is, of course, also a statement of fact — given the growing pressure on Russia from the Global South. But Putin does not harbour any hopes of Zelensky meeting the pre-requisites conducive to peace talks, which Putin had outlined at a meeting with the senior officials of Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14. If anything, new ground realities have since appeared.
This becomes clear from a TV interview Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave in Vladivostok after Putin’s speech. Lavrov drew the bottom line: “Vladimir Zelensky is not ready for honest talks. The West will not let him near them. They have set the goal, if not to dismember the Russian Federation (even though this was stated as a goal), then to at least radically weaken it and to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The West will not allow him to make steps towards us. Zelensky is no longer able to understand what meets the interests of the Ukrainian people, since he has repeatedly betrayed them.”
Zelensky himself is zigzagging. He took a hard line in remarks at the meeting of the so-called Ramstein Format hosted by the US on Friday that brought together generals and defence ministers from 50 countries to coordinate on arms supplies for Kiev. Zelensky lamented that prohibitions on firing long-range, Western-provided missiles and rockets into Russia persisted. He’s now taking his case to President Biden.
Zelensky’s attendance in person at the Ramstein event “highlighted the sensitivity of the moment in a new, more active phase of the war,” as the New York Times reported. The daily quoted a Ukrainian expert commenting that “The main task of Zelensky at Ramstein is to bring some adrenaline to the partners.”
Indeed, the situation surrounding Zelensky is unenviable — the sluggish delivery of Western weaponry; Germany’s wavering stance during a budget crisis even as the eastern regions comprising former GDR openly opposes the war against Russia; France, an ardent supporter of the war, is caught up in a political crisis and an early presidential election next year may produce an anti-war leadership in Élysée Palace; the post-November 5 trajectory of US policies on Ukraine remain uncertain.
Meanwhile, US-European differences have surfaced regarding Washington’s egotistic proposal that the EU give a $50 billion loan to Ukraine and ensure that Russia’s frozen assets remain frozen until Moscow pays post-war reparations to Ukraine. Washington estimates that this way, the US won’t be on the hook for repaying the loan if the Russian assets somehow are unblocked. (The rules governing existing EU sanctions, which need to be renewed every six months, allow a single country to unfreeze assets, which Washington believes jeopardises the loan.)
In Donbass, events vindicate Putin’s strategy that acrushing defeat on Ukrainian troops on the most crucial sectors of the front would inevitably lead to Zelensky’s entire armed forces losing combat capacity. In fact, signs of this happening are already there.
Putin said with quiet confidence that Zelensky “accomplished nothing” from the Kursk offensive. The Russian forces have stabilised the situation in Kursk and started pushing the enemy from border territories while the Donbass offensive is “making impressive territorial gains for a long time.” In retrospect, Zelensky’s Kursk offensive turned out to be a Himalayan blunder, which has taken the war to a tipping point favouring Russia.
In this context, the extraordinary first-ever joint piece by the spy chiefs of CIA and Mi6 which appeared in Saturday’s FT shows that beneath word play and hyperbole, the Anglo-American strategy is in a cul-de-sac. Bill Burns and Richard Moore cannot even bring themselves to articulate what Biden’s objectives are despite admitting that “staying the course is more vital than ever.”
Burns and Moore hinted that covert (terrorist) operations by Krylo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, are the option left now in the proxy war. What a Shakespearean fall for a superpower!
Well, the Jewish Lobby is at it again. In the latest kerfuffle over “Holocaust denial,” Jews and their sycophants are in an uproar over a podcast interview aired on September 2 in which Tucker Carlson spoke at length with a “popular historian” named Darryl Cooper. The two-hour episode is titled “The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe”—a bit of a stretch for a single show, but with the central theme that conventional or orthodox history is often wrong about events small and large, and thus frequently in need of revision. History is not only written by the victors, it is sustained by powerful lobbies that have a vested interest in a certain interpretation of past events. This much is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning.
And yet, when it comes to World War Two and especially the Holocaust, all rules go out the window. The “victors” cannot be named; alternate interpretations are not allowed; and revisionism is declared a crime. In the interview, Cooper offers the mildest of mild statements regarding his thoughts on WW2 and on what happened to “civilians and prisoners of war” at that time. Two points seemed to have raised the greatest ire: that Churchill, not Hitler, was the true villain of the war; and that the millions of people who died—presumably meaning millions of Jews—were, in effect, accidental victims rather than targets of a premediated and planned genocide. Our cultural guardians are upset by the first point but truly enraged by the second.
The horror of stating such views was too much for both our Jewish media and for our Jewish-inspired Biden regime. The headlines are alarming: “Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust Revisionist” (NYT); “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His Show” (NYT, Michelle Goldberg); “White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s ‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’” (CNN); “Tucker Carlson Blasted for Interview with Holocaust Revisionist” (The Hill). CNN reports that the Biden administration took the unusual step of publicly “denouncing Tucker Carlson” and his guest. Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates issued a formal statement, not only calling the interview “a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans” but also condemning Carlson for “giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda.” Bates’ chief concern seems to be with “the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler.” “Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history,” Bates assures us—“full stop.” Certainly no revisionism allowed in this most “freedom-loving” of nations.
This whole incident is worthy of some reflection. Let me start with what exactly Cooper said. Here are the relevant statements (from 46:30 to 49:00):
When [the Germans] went into the East, in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there.
You have letters as early as July, August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people they are rounding up. And it’s two months after [Operation] Barbarossa was launched [in June], and they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, “We can’t feed these people…” And one of them actually says, “Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?”
At the end of the day, [Hitler] launched that war [against the USSR] with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were going to come under [his] control. And millions of people died because of that.
To assess what Cooper is saying here, we must remind ourselves of the basic facts: Hitler launched his war against Poland in early September 1939. Based on a mutual nonaggression pact, Stalin attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, and the two great powers quickly divided Poland in half. England and France then declared war on Germany, not vice versa (wait—who was the aggressor again?), and so Hitler was compelled to direct his military efforts to the west. He never wanted a war to his west, and as Cooper explains, Hitler tried frequently to make peace with Chamberlain (not yet Churchill). Chamberlain sought compromise but the rest of his divided government—including Churchill—preferred to continue a war they were ill-equipped to fight. Germany invaded the Low Countries in May 1940, Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill was elevated to prime minister.
Throughout the second half of 1940 and into the first half of 1941, Hitler continued his impressive string of victories. France was all but defeated and England was on its last legs. Then suddenly, on 22 June 1941, Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union (“Operation Barbarossa”). This, says Cooper, was the war in which Germany was unprepared to handle “millions” of prisoners. And indeed, more than 3 million Soviet POWs came under Germany control by the end of 1941, many of whom in fact surrendered or defected. They were initially housed in the nearly 100 ad hoc camps established in German-controlled Russia, and conditions were indeed horrible, as Cooper suggests. Upwards of 500,000 Soviet POWs died each month: around two million dead by the end of 1941. As far as we know, this was unplanned; the Germans were too busy fighting on the front to take much care for their 3 million newly-captured prisoners. They indeed simply “ended up dead,” as Cooper says.
Notably, nowhere does Cooper talk about Jewish prisoners. The whole discussion centers on Soviet POWs and other political prisoners, of whom there were relatively few Jews. Jews did pay a price during Barbarossa, but it was because they were partisan fighters: attacking German troops from behind the front lines. According to international rules of warfare, partisans are to be treated the same as soldiers—meaning, they could be captured, or they could be killed. And the Germans preferred to kill partisans; this was logical, given their already overcrowded ad hoc POW camps.
This resulted in the true beginning of “the Holocaust,” if we wish to call it that. Thousands of partisan Jews were shot on the Eastern Front—perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 in 1941, based on reasonable estimates (certainly not the 400,000 or 500,000 that our orthodox historians would have us believe). But Cooper was not discussing these deaths. Jews also died in the ghettos in 1941—perhaps another 40,000 or 50,000, most from natural causes (old age, illness, accident, suicide). And precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” or “death camps” in 1941; none of the infamous six camps—Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chełmno, and Majdanek—were operational that year. For that matter, precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” during the entire war, precisely because such things did not exist. But neither Carlson nor Cooper dared step into that sticky wicket.[1]
So, in Cooper’s (and Carlson’s) defense, the passage at hand says nothing about Jews and thus nothing about “the Holocaust.” Everything Cooper said there was factually correct. In fact, in the entire two-hour-plus interview, Jews were only mentioned a handful of times, and the “Holocaust” not once, that I can recall.
Jews Go on the Attack
But that’s not how our Jewish Lobby sees it. Every reference to “millions” of deaths is, to them, a coded reference to Jews. Even discussing Hitler as anyone other than a comically-evil madman means that you are a Nazi sympathizer, a “denier” (whatever that means), or simply “disgusting and sadistic.”
A good example the absurdly inane orthodox response can be found in (Jewish) Michelle Goldberg’s op-ed in the (Jewish) New York Times of September 6. The alleged “Hitler apologist” Darryl Cooper failed to toe the party line on the unconditional evil of the Nazis, and so she condemns him in the strongest terms, without even knowing what she is talking about. She clearly doesn’t like the idea that Holocaustianity is our current “state religion” (which it is), and she is incensed when Cooper rightly mentions the “emotional triggers” that keep us from asking tough questions. To Goldberg, Cooper offers us only “clever rhetorical formulations” that are presented in a “soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way.” So overwhelmed is she by Carlson’s and Cooper’s audacity that she is reduced to the following idiocy: “Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression, and ethnic grievance.” This, from a staff writer at the New York Times.
More to the point, despite the utter lack of mention of the Holocaust in the interview, Goldberg is fixated on this supposed inference. She laments “Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism”; she frets over the “disgraced, Holocaust-denying author David Irving” (as if he is relevant here); and she bemoans the fact that “there are few better trolls than Holocaust deniers.” Those clever deniers “love to pose as heterodox truth-seekers,” and they “excel at mimicking the forms and language of legitimate scholarship”—when in fact their level of scholarship often equals or exceeds that of our conventional so-called experts.[2] Deniers “blitz their opponents with out-of-context historical detail and bad-faith questions” (How dare they go into detail! How dare they ask questions!). In the end, “they only know how to use crude provocation to get attention”—says the attention-seeking Jewess.
One of Goldberg’s biggest fears is that, in her Jewish-controlled ideological universe, that the jig might be up. She worries about the red-pilled right-wing belief “that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs.” In fact, much of what we have been told by our Jewish-inspired orthodoxy has been a lie, or a half-truth, or otherwise deeply deceptive, and Goldberg worries that more and more people are figuring this out. And she is right to worry: a mass awakening will spell big trouble for her and her co-ethnics.
Finally at the end of her piece, she puts her finger on a bit of truth: “Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future.” Hitler and the Nazis must be viewed “as the negation of our deepest values,” or else we are “softened up” for Trump-like fascism. Holocaust denial—that is, deeply questioning the basic assumptions of that event—is indeed not really about history simply because the revisionists have won: the orthodox story of the “homicidal gas chambers,” “the 6 million,” and the alleged National Socialist mad plot to kill all the Jews—all these have been utterly demolished. Orthodox historians no longer even try to respond to revisionists because they know that they will be disgraced. Instead, they and their potent Jewish backers resort to censorship, lawfare, slander, intimidation, and (in many countries) imprisonment to stifle revisionism. Such things are a sure sign of defeat.
As for her remark about what is permissible and imaginable, this too is correct: The standard Holocaust story is the keystone of present-day Jewish power in the US and the West; everything rests on our collective guilt, and all Jewish/Israeli atrocities are thereby justified. Jewish power presently declares that questioning the Holocaust is impermissible; and that a society in which Hitler and National Socialism are viewed neutrally or even positively is unimaginable. But this will soon change. When Holocaust revisionism becomes permissible, and National Socialism becomes imaginable, then everything—everything—will change. That day cannot come soon enough.
The great irony in this whole much-ado-about-nothing is that it could have been something : Carlson and Cooper could have actually discussed the many problems with the Holocaust story, and they could have actually asked the tough questions that orthodoxy cannot answer. They could have examined the many works of Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno; they could have reviewed the reasons why homicidal gas chambers were technically impossible; they could have explained that the best evidence to date suggests that perhaps 500,000 Jews died during the war, not 6 million. And when all that comes out, Michelle Goldberg and friends will truly have something to fear.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
[2] For the full academic story, see the 50-volume “Holocaust Handbook” series. For a concise treatment of all the core issues, see the newly-released Holocaust Encyclopedia.
According to the National WWII Museum, the Second World War resulted in 45,000,000 civilian deaths, 15,000,000 combat deaths, and 25,000,000 soldiers permanently wounded.
This is what many academics and media influencers refer to as “The Good War.”
Just as we cannot truly understand a court case hearing only the defense, we must also hear the prosecution in order to come to the most accurate conclusion on who is guilty, who is innocent, and how such a tragedy can be avoided in the future.
I want to make the case that the Second World War is in fact a tale of good vs. evil. In short, evil politicians on every side conscripting millions of people and murdering millions of others while the civilians of all countries remain good.
Since there is no shortage of people rightfully vilifying the Japanese Empire and the German National Socialists, I would like to focus primarily on the villainy of a man who Cambridge University reports is the “Greatest Briton”: Winston Churchill.
Exhibit A: Starvation Blockade
Winston Churchill wrote a book titled, The World Crisis, 1911-1918. In this book Churchill summarizes the British naval policy during World War I when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. On page 672, Churchill writes.
“The British blockade treated the whole of Germany as if it were a beleaguered fortress, and avowedly sought to starve the whole population – men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound – into submission.”
Notice, Churchill did not say, “This is how we will make the Kaiser suffer and prove we are the good people in this conflict by protecting innocent people. We good men must discriminate between evil Germans and innocent Germans.” The Kaiser was humiliated of course, but was never assassinated, and lived in a mansion in the Netherlands after the war was over, dying in 1941 at the age of 82.
According to historian Martin Gilbert, a man who writes Churchill in a very favorable light in his book The First World War: A Complete History, estimates of the civilian death toll from Britain’s blockade are 762,106.
Many people might have predicted that such protectionist policies would stimulate the German economy since Germany would now have to employ more people domestically, which should produce the multiplier effect of money. But of course, the opposite is true. When any state coercively stops a group of people from engaging in mutually beneficial trades, human beings suffer and frequently die as a result.
Exhibit B: Poison Gas and Biological Warfare
On May 12, 1919, Winston Churchill authored a war office memorandum in which he writes:
“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas… I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those effected.”
Would you have a friend in your life if he used poison gas against people he deemed uncivilized in order to spread a lively terror? Any one of us would be rightfully imprisoned for assault if we used poison gas against a non-aggressor. Yet, Churchill is still celebrated as a respectable statesman even though none of us would accept this behavior from any other person in our private lives.
In 1942, the United Kingdom’s War Department Experimental station conspired to infect the German civilian population with deadly anthrax by first poisoning animals, in hopes that the German food supply would turn deadly. According to the BBC in an article discussing the “island of death” off the coast of Scotland:
“The truth was that Gruinard Island had been the site of a clandestine attempt by the UK during World War Two to weaponise anthrax, a deadly bacterial infection… The project, called Operation Vegetarian, had started under Paul Fildes, then head of the biology department at Porton Down, a military facility in Wiltshire, England, that still exists today… The plan was to infect linseed cakes with Anthrax spores and drop them by plane into cattle pastures around Germany. The cows would eat the cakes and contract anthrax, as would those who ate the infected meat. Anthrax is a naturally occurring but deadly organism… The proposed plan would have decimated Germany’s meat supply, and triggered a nationwide anthrax contamination, resulting in an enormous death toll.”
Those fighting on behalf of civilization, truth, and freedom must lead the world in distinguishing themselves from the “bad guys” by explicitly discriminating between guilty and innocent parties. Churchill took no such steps to distinguish between the German civilian population, and the central figures of the national socialist state (Hitler, Hess, Goering, Eichmann, Goebbels, etc).
Exhibit C: De-Housing Policy
As the history of World War II is described in its cartoonish version with the National Socialists being hell bent on taking over planet Earth and killing all non-blue eyed, blond haired people, one can be forgiven for not knowing that it was Churchill’s government which initiated the bombing of civilians in May 1940, while the German bombing of London did not take place until the September 1940 Blitz.
The mastermind behind Winston Churchill’s policy of civilian bombing was German immigrant, physicist, and science advisor Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell. Lindemann established the S-Branch (Statistical Branch), an esoteric group of academics who regularly advised Prime Minister Churchill, and eventually was the catalyst behind Britain’s “Dehousing” policy with regard to the German civilian population.
This “Dehousing” policy was explained by Charles Percy Snow, whose position in Churchill’s cabinet was described by Britannica as “a scientific advisor to the British government” during the Second World War. In 1961, Harvard University published Snow’s Science and Government, a series of lectures Snow gave at Harvard describing the internal workings of British policy from 1939-1945. On page 48 of the lecture’s transcript, Snow claims:
“… [T]he paper on bombing went out to the top government scientists. It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and “military objectives” had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to find and hit. The paper claimed that—given a total concentration of effort on the production and use of bombing aircraft—it would be possible, in all larger towns of Germany (that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to destroy 50 per cent of all houses.”
The strategic bombing policy was also explained by Principal Assistant Secretary of Air Ministry J.M. Spaight in his 1944 book, Bombing Vindicated :
“Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… Yet, because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That surely, was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia’s decision to adopt her policy of ‘scorched earth’… It could have harmed us morally only if it were equivalent to an admission that we were the first to bomb towns.”
In 1979, British journalist and military historian Max Hastings (foreign correspondent for the BBC, editor in chief of The Daily Telegraph, and editor of the Evening Standard ) published Bomber Command: The Myths and Reality of the Strategic Bombing Offensive 1939-45. On page 127-8, Hastings cites the Cherwell Memorandum (aka Lindemann Memorandum) which he delivered to Prime Minister Churchill in March of 1942. The memorandum reads as follows:
“The following seems a simple method of estimating what we could do by bombing Germany. Careful analysis of the effects of raids on Birmingham, Hull and elsewhere have shown that, on the average, one ton of bombs dropped on a built-up area demolishes 20-40 dwellings and turns 100-200 people out of house and home.
We know from our experience that we can count on nearly 14 operational sorties per bomber produced. The average lift of the bombers we are going to produce over the next fifteen months will be about three tons. It follows that each of these bombers will in its lifetime drop about forty tons of bombs. If these are dropped on built-up areas they will make 4,000-8,000 people homeless.
In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in fifty-eight towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, which, with modern equipment, should be easy to find and hit. Our forecast output of heavy bombers (including Wellingtons) between now and the middle of 1943 is about 10,000. If even half the total load of 10,000 bombers were dropped on the built-up areas of these fifty-eight German towns, the great majority of their inhabitants (about one-third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home.
Investigation seems to show that having one’s house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull, signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished. On the above figures we should be able to do ten times as much harm to each of the fifty-eight principal German towns. There seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people.
Our calculation assumes, of course, that we really get one-half of our bombs into built-up areas. On the other hand, no account is taken of the large promised American production (6,000 heavy bombers in the period in question). Nor has regard been paid to the inevitable damage to factories, communications, etc., in these towns and the damage by fire, probably accentuated by breakdown of public services.” [Emphasis Added]
Exhibit D: Intentional Provocation of Bombing Britain
The Complete War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle, who at the time was chairman of the French National Committee, addresses Churchill’s mindset after the British state initiated the bombing of civilians with no German state response for months. From page 104 of his memoirs, de Gaulle writes:
“Among the people many, in their desire to emerge from an almost unbearable tension, went so far as to say out loud that they wished the enemy would risk the attack. Foremost among them, Mr. Churchill found the waiting hard to bear. I can still see him at Chequers, one August day, raising his fists towards the sky as he cried, ‘So they won’t come!’ ‘Are you in such a hurry,’ I said to him, ‘to see your towns smashed to bits?’ ‘You see,’ he replied, ‘the bombing of Oxford, Coventry, Canterbury, will cause such a wave of indignation in the United States that they’ll come into the war!’”
Churchill knew the blowback his de-housing policy would create for British civilians, and he still unapologetically pursued them.
Exhibit E: France’s Pearl Harbor aka Operation Catapult
On July 3, 1940 Churchill initiated Operation Catapult, which was Britain’s intentional bombing of French naval ships off the coast of Algeria resulting in the deaths of 1,297 French soldiers.
“In the summer of 1940 Winston Churchill faced a terrible dilemma. France had just surrendered and only the English Channel stood between the Nazi’s and Britain. Germany was poised to seize the entire French fleet, one of the biggest in the world. With these ships in his hands, Hitler’s threat to invade Britain could become a reality. Churchill had to make a choice. He could either trust the promises of the new French government that they would never hand over their ships to Hitler. Or he could make sure that the ships never joined the German navy by destroying them himself.”
Exhibit F: Dresden
Arthur Harris was a British air officer whom whom Britannica credits as the person “who initiated and directed the ‘saturation bombing’ that the Royal Air Force inflicted on Germany during World War II.” In his memoir Bomber Offensive, Harris addresses the Dresden controversy, where the Allies bombed a city of 630,000 Germans, killing roughly 25,000 human beings in two days:
“An attack on the night of February 13th-14th by just over 800 aircraft, bombing in two sections in order to get the night fighters dispersed and grounded before the second attack, was almost as overwhelming in its effect as the Battle of Hamburg, though the area of devastation—1600 acres—was considerably less; there was, it appears, a fire-typhoon, and the effect on German morale, not only in Dresden but in far distant parts of the country, was extremely serious. The Americans carried out two light attacks in daylight on the next two days. I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unncessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgment was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in an earlier chapter in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole… Between one and two thousand acres were devastated in Dresden, Bremen, Duisburg, Essen, Frankfurt-am-Main, Hanover, Munich, Nuremburg, Mannheim-Ludwigshafen, and Stuttgart. As an indication of what this means it may be mentioned that London had about 600, Plymouth about 400, and Coventry just over 100 acres destroyed by enemy aircraft during the war.” [Emphasis Added]
Anyone who considers themself to be pro-life must unapologetically oppose the mass murder of civilians and destruction of cities so late in the war (February 1945). Yes, I agree the fetus is a living being, and so are German civilians.
Anyone who claims to oppose ‘inequality’ must recognize there is no greater inequality than a living person murdering another person. Yes, paying a person a low wage is unequal to those with high wages, but the ultimate inequality occurs in the mass murder of civilians in wartime.
Colonel Carla Coulson’s research at Canadian Forces College estimates that:
“600,000 German men, women and children died as a result of the direct bombing of German cities during the war (1939-1945); many thousands more were wounded and mutilated. Millions more were left homeless. In the prosecution of the bombing campaign the British Commonwealth lost 55,573 aircrew, 18% of which were Canadian, and only one man in three could be expected to survive his tour of duty, which equated to 30 missions, with Bomber Command.”
Exhibit G: Undemocratic and Allied with Tyrants
In May 1940, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stepped down after the “Narvik debacle,” and Winston Churchill was appointed, not by popular vote, but an act of oligarchs in Parliament.
For all we hear about “threats to democracy” from academics and the corporate press, you’d think Churchill’s rule would be met with a little more skepticism.
To recap, the “good side in the good war” was lead by unelected Joseph Stalin, unelected Winston Churchill, unelected Charles de Gaulle, and Franklin Roosevelt, who while elected kidnapped and sent 117,000 people of Japanese ancestry to interment camps and confiscated the nations gold via executive order.
Roosevelt and Harry Truman, frequent heroes of those who proudly boast of supporting democracy, also partook in a mass murder campaign of their own in Japan. According to former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in his documentary The Fog of War,
“Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50 percent to 90 percent of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.”
To be clear, I’m a libertarian who believes democracy is mob rule by the ignorant. The reason we have good computers, TVs, refrigerators, and NBA players is not because there was a nation-wide referendum on these issues. The reason we have civilization is because people engaged in voluntary contracts, voluntary profit incentives, and the Iron Law of Oligarchy within the division of labor.
The point is, those who center their world view on democracy (neoconservatives and Democrats) being a good in and of itself idolize Winston Churchill.
Exhibit H: Intention of Continental Monopoly
There is good reason courts take intent into account. The mindset of the person in question matters, for example: Did a person accidentally hit and kill a pedestrian with their car (involuntary manslaughter), or did they plan for months to murder someone by hitting them with their car (intentional homicide)?
What were Churchill’s intentions during this war? To save civilization from barbarism (by allying with Joseph Stalin, who killed millions in the 1930s Ukrainian Holodomor) or to increase his own institutional power?
In a book titled Churchill: A Life by historian Martin Gilbert, the author quotes Churchill in an exchange with Lord Londonderry—Leader of the House of Lords—on May 4, 1935:
Londonderry: “I should like to get out of your mind what appears to be a strong anti-german obsession.”
Churchill: “[You are] mistaken in supposing that I have an anti-German obsession… British policy for four hundred years has been to oppose the strongest power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other countries strong enough to face the bully. Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes the French Empire, sometimes Germany. I have no doubt who it is now. But if France set up to claim the over-lordship of Europe, I should equally endeavor to oppose them. It is thus through the centuries we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power.”
Churchill’s private position was not that the National Socialists were a unique evil, but that he would wage war on any competitor to British power, even if it comes at the cost of millions of innocent people being conscripted and killed. Churchill embraced real world tyranny in order to fight a hypothetical tyranny. Churchill was the crazy ex-boyfriend who would rather kill his ex-girlfriend than see her with another man.
Exhibit I: Results
On September 1, 1939, the National Socialist regime invaded Poland after a dispute over the city of Danzig which had been stripped from Germany twenty years prior at Versailles. The population of that coastal city was 95% German, and we have every reason to believe those people would have prefered to be reunified with Germany as opposed to remaining a minority in Poland.
Here is the text of Neville Chamberlain’s September 3, 1939 declaration of war against Germany two days afterwards:
“This morning, the British ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.”
The war waged on behalf of Polish independence ended with 7.1 million dead Poles, and Poland under Soviet occupation.
There was never a true war guarantee for Poland, since the Bolshevik regime invaded Poland on September 17, 1939, and Britain didn’t declare war against Moscow. It was a promise to wage war against only Germany, the biggest rival of Churchill’s empire.
Many will claim, “The lesson from World War II is never appease! That’s what Chamberlain did at Munich when he refused to declare war against National Socialism for invading the Sudetenland.”
The Sudetenland was roughly one fifth of the area in the newly created country of Czechoslovakia, mostly consisting of Germanic peoples. After the Second World War, all of Czechoslovakia was under Soviet occupation. We must declare war if one fifth of a country’s independence has been violated, but when the entire country’s independence is violated, we can apparently appease.
There are multiple lessons one can draw from the example of World War II, ones which organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations will never acknowledge. They include:
War guarantees incentivize small groups of people to provoke wars since a few oligarchs can benefit from war at the expense of the population they claim to be protecting. Consider how the power, prestige, and social status of Volodymyr Zelensky has risen drastically while hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have had to suffer. The very people you claim to help (like Poles) can suffer most as a result.
The ultimate check and balance in a civilized society is the freedom to disassociate with bad actors. The governments of every combat zone did not face such a constraint. They used enslaved soldiers (conscripts) and funded their operations with taxation and money printed by a central bank. This means that people who opposed the mass murder conflicts provoked by government had to serve by law, and had to fund the operations lest they be jailed. If governments truly represent us, they should gladly allow our financing of them to be as voluntary like our funding of Amazon or the Catholic Church.
Empires fall from expansion. The world wars saw the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Czarist Empire, two German empires (Kaiser and Hitler), Hirohito’s Japanese Empire, and the British Empire. As empires expand their reach, their obligations expand, and they must tax more or print more to sustain themselves. They become “spread too thin,” so to speak, misallocate military personnel, lose support via public opinion, and cease to exist.
We can talk to the bad guys. The Allies shook hands with the Bolshevik leader Joesph Stalin at Yalta and Richard Nixon shook hands with Mao Zedong in China, but people say with a straight face that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping cannot be spoken with to reach détente. Notice how whenever the government of the United States violates the freedoms of the American people, we must always stay calm and not get riled up. But when an alleged foreign government potentially violates our freedoms we must advocate mass conscription and mass bombings of civilians to protect our way of life.
We are always told about the cost of “appeasement” or not engaging in mass murder of innocent life. But consider all the downsides of war: mass death, enslavement (conscription), dismemberment, PTSD, military occupation, and property damage on an unimaginable scale.
Wars are naturally chaotic and their results cannot often be predicted. Few soldiers and civilians could have foreseen an outcome where half of Europe would be occupied by the Bolshevik regime for forty-five years, initiating a Cold War where people walked on eggshells terrified of a nuclear exchange and fighting mass death proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Central America.
A Gift
Psychology Todaydefines a cult leader as “A charismatic leader who becomes an object of worship beyond any meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group as its source of truth, power, and authority.”
If a guy in a cabin orders you to murder an innocent person on his behalf, he is rightfully seen as a psychopathic lunatic. But for some reason—maybe the fact that governments monopolize compulsory education—when military commanders order their underlings to go commit mass murder of innocent people it is seldom met with skepticism, and even often admired.
The unwillingness or inability for people to see Winston Churchill as a cult leader who committed horrific crimes qualifies him as a cult leader if there ever was one. We seldom even get an intellectual defense by Churchill supporters addressing my above points. Instead we’re treated to typical cult-like emotional responses like “You must love Hitler,” or “Churchill saved the West, yes one man!” or the classic, “We’d all be speaking German if you were in charge.”
For the Churchill supporters, I give the gift which they so often yearn for: a disavowal of National Socialism:
National Socialism involves institutionalized aggression against private property and contracts between consenting adults while judging people on arbitrary characteristics and is thus evil down to its foundational principles.
In practice, the National Socialists bombed civilians in Warsaw, Rotterdam, and London, then declared war on America on December 11, 1941. Here is how evil one of their leading figures was. On March 26, 1942, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary:
“Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.”
National Socialists justified the mass murder and enslavement of innocent people while bombing cities which took centuries to build, thus violating the non-aggression principle. They are indisputably villains of history.
A Way Forward
While I am very pleased to hear people disavow Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces for their killing of innocent people, we inheritors of Western civilization must reject double standards and equally oppose the mass indiscriminate murder of civilians. Yes, the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 were unjustifiable and destructive, but nothing compares to the crimes of states with militaries which have a legally recognized monopoly on violence.
Every crime of the West (slavery, Native American massacres, segregation, etc) is immoral because it involves one person or group of people initiating violence against non-aggressors. Too often the focus of these atrocities is the race or nationality of the victim or perpetrator as opposed to the actions being immoral insofar as they initiate violence against non-aggressors.
The heroes of history are not politicians who claim the right to rule millions of strangers, but entrepreneurs and workers who used the voluntary sector to improve the lives of everyday people. Cornelius Vanderbilt drastically lowered the price of travel by steamship from $7 to six cents, giving the average person access his ancestors never could have fathomed. Steve Jobs and Apple employees played a central role in giving the average person access to more freely available communication with people across the globe while empowering people to educate themselves using this easy to grasp technology. The Wright Brothers gave the average person the ability to see parts of the world kings and queens of the past never could have imagined visiting.
Let us not be primitive moral relativists, only using morality when it suits us. Let us reject double standards on violence and embrace a genuine pro-life and antiwar position unapologetically.
Germany, along with Denmark and the Netherlands, will supply 77 more Cold-War-era Leopard 1A5 tanks to Ukraine, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has announced. In addition, Berlin intends to provide an additional twelve PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers, he said.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz approved the delivery of German-made tanks to Ukraine back in January 2023. Kiev has since lost an unknown number of these tanks. The Russian military has released numerous videos showing the destruction of such hardware.
Speaking during a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at US Ramstein military base in Germany on Friday, Pistorius met with Vladimir Zelensky, who attended personally in a bid to drum up more defense aid. The German minister assured the Ukrainian leader that Berlin “remains in a continuous delivery process for Ukraine.”
Pistorius estimated that Germany, together with Denmark, had already delivered 58 Leopard 1A5 tanks to Ukraine, with 77 more pieces of this hardware to be supplied in the near future.
“We will deliver twelve modern PzH 2000 howitzers to Ukraine, with six expected to arrive in the country by the end of this year,” Pistorius added.
He went on to say that air defense remains a crucial area for Kiev and that more hardware is needed to better fend off Russian missile strikes. According to the minister, Germany is funding the procurement of twelve IRIS-T air defense systems to be shipped to Ukraine. Moreover, Berlin has pledged more medium- and close-range systems, including more than 60 self-propelled Gepard anti-aircraft guns.
Pistorius also stressed that since November 2022, more than 16,000 Ukrainian service members have been trained on German soil.
In mid-July, the Bavarian daily Munchner Merkur, citing government data, claimed that Germany had secretly delivered a “huge” defense aid package to Ukraine between late June and early July. The package reportedly included ten Leopard 1A5 tanks, among other hardware.
The media outlet also alleged at the time that Berlin planned to send by an unspecified date 85 more tanks of this type to Ukraine as part of a joint project with Denmark.
Moscow has consistently warned that deliveries of Western weapons to Ukraine only serve to prolong the bloodshed, without changing the course of the conflict.
The purpose of the war is “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people.”
Letter from General Sherman to Mrs. Sherman, July 31, 1862
“[H]ad the Confederates somehow won . . . they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.”
Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians during Sherman’s Campaign, p. 286.
“Distinguished military historian B.H. Liddell Hart observed that the code of civilized warfare which had ruled Europe for over two hundred years was first broken by Lincoln’s policy of directing the destruction of civilian life in the South.”
Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, p. 116.
In When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession Charles Adams wrote of how the first Geneva Convention on War took place in 1863, followed by three more, with the last one being in 1949. The 1863 convention codified the laws of war as were understood at the time to say: 1) Attacking defenseless cities and towns was a war crime; 2) Plundering and wantonly destroying civilian property was a war crime; and 3) Only necessities could be taken from a civilian population, and they had to be paid for. Some historians, Adams wrote, claimed that these laws were the laws of war for four centuries and that they were all broken by the Lincoln regime. The lawlessness of the Lincoln regime, in other words, set the stage for the military atrocities of the twentieth century.
Most Americans have been taught to ignore the Lincoln regime’s war crimes by repeating Sherman’s CYA quip, “war is hell.” But there is a clear historical record of rape, murder, torture, arson, and the bombing of civilian occupied cities by the Union army. See for example War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco; The Civil War by Shelby Foote; Union Terror by Jeffrey Addicott; and South Carolina Citizens in Sherman’s Path by Karen Stokes for starters.
There you will learn that there was so much murder, arson and theft in Missouri that vast sections of the entire state were uninhabited by the war’s end. Entire towns, including my former town of Bluffton, South Carolina, were burned to the ground with every private residence set ablaze by U.S. Army “soldiers.” The Union Army was an army of pyromaniacs, rapists, and thieves.
In August of 1863 Charleston, South Carolina was not defended by Confederate forces when a six-month bombardment of the city commenced, exploding more than 22,000 artillery shells in the city. Unexploded shells were still being found a century later.
Sherman ordered the four-day bombardment of Atlanta in the Fall of 1864 when it was only occupied by women, children, infants, and elderly men, with his artillerists targeting homes where they spotted human habitation. As many as 5,000 artillery shells rained down on Atlanta’s civilian population in a single day. Corpses littered the streets, something that Sherman called “a beautiful sight.” Thousands of surviving residents were homeless at the onset of winter.
Such war crimes were committed by Lincoln’s army, with his direction and full knowledge, for the duration of the war. It is said that when the Prussian military invited Sherman’s sidekick, General Phil Sheridan, to present a lecture on the American way of war the Prussians – no shrinking violets – were shocked and disgusted by how he described the murder, rape, plunder, and arson that occurred under his command in the Shenandoah Valley.
Just three months after Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia General Sherman was put in charge of the “Military District of the Missouri,” which was all land west of the Mississippi River. His orders were to essentially wage a campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians, which he did for the next twenty-five years, killing some 45,000 of them, women and children included, and placing the rest in concentration camps called “reservations.” In 1891, the year of his death, Sherman expressed his regrets that his army did not kill every last Indian. He is famously associated with the genocidal quip, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” He did all this, he once said, “to make way for the [government-subsidized] railroads,” of which he was a major stockholder.
During the Philippine Insurrection (1889) the U.S. Army killed some 200,000 Filipinos, with some estimates that a million civilians were killed. That was after the Spanish-American War also massacred thousands of civilians.
All of this was brought to mind when I recently ran across a 2010 book entitled Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 by Thomas Goodrich. (There is also a YouTube video, “Hellstorm: The Genocide of Germany”). It is a hard book to read because it describes the results of the American way of war (imitated by the Russians, British, and Germans as well) combined with twentieth century military technology.
Goodrich starts by writing of how Hitler’s 1925 Mein Kampf promised to rid Germany of all “Jewish influence” if he were to ever obtain political power. This naturally “alarmed Jews worldwide . . .” Influential Jewish businessmen first organized an international boycott of the German economy and of course denounced the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazis). That quickly turned into what the organizer of the boycott called a “holy war” against “cruel and savage beasts,” i.e., all Germans.
Goodrich quotes Hollywood script writer Ben Hecht as writing that a “cancer” flourishes in the world in the form of “Germany, Germanism, and Germans.” They are “murderers, foul and wanton,” said the Hollywood movie script writer. “Germany must perish,” added Theodore Kaufman in a book of that title. He argued that, after the war, “all German men and women should be sterilized” to eliminate the disease of “Germanism and its carriers.” The New York Times praised this as “A Sensational Idea” while the Washington Post labeled it “A provocative theory.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt made these calls for “extermination” and genocide official when he endorsed the so-called “Morgenthau Plan,” named after his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. The plan called for the complete destruction of Germany after the war by the dismantling of all industry and the confiscation of massive amounts of land, among other things. The plan estimated that the result would be death by starvation of some 50 million Germans. Their hope was that “within two generations Germany would cease to exist.” When others expressed shock at such a barbaric proposal, Morgenthau snapped, “They asked for it. Why the hell should I worry about what happens to their people?” Morgenthau obviously wasn’t worried about what might happen to him in the afterlife.
Winston Churchill also endorsed the plan and, it goes without saying, so did Stalin. Goodrich claims that Hitler considered the war to be a war against “Jewish Bolshevism” since “Lenin, Trotsky, and many other Russian [communist] revolutionaries were Jewish.”
Hellscape vividly describes the carpet bombing of civilian-occupied Dresden, Germany, where tons and tons of bombs were dropped by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the U.S. Airforce on the defenseless city. Literally thousands of bombers dropped phosphorous bombs on the city, creating a hellish inferno that melted bodies almost instantly, literally broiling them alive. The entire city was described as “one huge glowing wave.” There were thousands of dead bodies everywhere and the stench of burnt, decaying flesh was nauseating, said survivors. The animals in the Dresden zoo were incinerated along with everyone else caught above ground.
Knowing that people would flee to a large public park outside of the city the RAF dropped tons of high explosive bombs there. American bombers followed up by strafing the civilians in the park with their machine guns. This whole scene was repeated day after day as though the objective was to murder every last human being in Dresden. Goodrich cites estimates of some 400,000 civilians killed in Dresden alone.
This mass murder of defenseless citizens was gleefully and fiendishly repeated in Hamburg and many other German cities near the end of the war when there was little or no military resistance. “What had taken the German nation over two millennia to build, had taken its enemies a mere six years to destroy,” Goodrich concludes.
Goodrich writes of how Stalin considered Russian prisoners of war to be traitors since his order was to fight to the death. The American authorities after the war helped Stalin enforce his rule with “operation keelhaul,” which returned thousands of Russian prisoners of war back to Stalin. “[T]he entire Cossack nation had been delivered to the Soviets. Within days, most were either dead or bolted into cattle cars for the one-way ride to Siberia” and slave labor. Over five million Soviet citizens were returned to Stalin and “delivered to torture and slavery.” General Eisenhower supervised all of this with a collection of concentration camps that held the prisoners before handing them over to Stalin. Thousands of them were intentionally starved to death in the camps, writes Goodrich.
Stalin wasn’t the only newly-anointed slave owner. “When France requested slaves as part of its war booty, Eisenhower transferred over 600,000 Germans east.” And “like the Americans, the French starved their prisoners.” Several hundred thousand prisoners in Great Britain “were transformed into virtual slaves” as well. Eventually, “at least 800,000 German prisoners died in the American and French death camps” after the war.
One of the more sickening sections of Hellstorm is the description of the massive rape of German women and girls that occurred for several years. I will spare the reader of the gory stories and details. The Russians were the primary perpetrators, while American soldiers boasted that rape was not necessary; it was easy to bribe starving and destitute German women with a mere candy bar or a few slices of bread. “A bit of food, a bar of chocolate, or a bar of soap seems to make rape unnecessary,” an American soldier is quoted as saying very matter-of-factly. “By the summer of 1945, Germany had become the world’s greatest slave market where sex was the new medium of exchange.”
As I said, this is a hard book to stomach, but it is also a necessary book to read to understand the realities of the American way of war that was introduced the world in the 1860s and which, because of its “success,” was imitated by murderous tyrants – and their propaganda mouthpieces — the world over during the twentieth century. War crimes and their “ends-justify -the-means” rationales are so routine today that propagandists for the current Israeli war of genocide in Gaza have nonchalantly advocated the “Dresdenizing” of Gaza and the subsequent murder of thousands of women, children, and infants.
While the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the big winner in Sunday’s German state elections, but it is unlikely to change the course of Germany on the national level over the short-term, even if the AfD’s policies could gain ground locally. Still, there are reasons to believe we could see long-term changes on the horizon.
While the AfD is still contained behind the firewall, the results in Thuringia and Saxony effectively “toppled” the governing coalition, and alongside the AfD, a new party, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) has also become visible on the political scene.
Bence Bauer, director of the Hungarian-German Institute, explained this by saying that both the AfD and BSW agreed on most of the three major issues. These are the migration issue, Germany’s misguided Ukraine and arms transfer policy, and the economic policy vis-à-vis the German government.
With the German government in a very bad position, the AfD and BSW parties were able to ride the social discontent very well, to formulate an alternative.
“This is especially a great success for Sahra Wagenknecht, whose party is eight months old,” Bence Bauer stressed.
Based on initial statements, she would be willing to cooperate with the CDU, but Sahra Wagenknecht is demanding a very high price.
“It’s essentially about changing the CDU’s war policy,” said Samuel Ágoston Mráz, head of the Nézőpont Institute. However, he added, it could be a ploy on her part, as she has no intention for the CDU to actually accept her proposal. In short, it may not be an acceptable demand from the CDU just to form a state government.
Wagenknecht knows that the CDU is looking to 2025, and the east is not their top priority. After all, a Thuringia of only 2 million in a Germany of 80 million cannot be so important that it jeopardizes its showing next year in federal elections.
Another reason to not ultimately strike a deal with BSW is the fact that if BSW gets into government at the state level, this party could take root in the German system. Sahra Wagenknecht is now in two state parliaments, and if she gets into government, that will give her great potential for growth.
“I expect a protracted government formation,” added Mraz Ágoston Samuel. In this context, he recalled the claims that “the German economy will be ruined if the AFD comes close to power.” That is why Samuel believes the “firewall” will remain in place against the AfD.
“There will certainly be protracted coalition talks, I agree that the firewall will remain,” said Zoltán Kiszelly, director of political analysis at the Századvég Centre for Public Policy Studies. As he told our paper, the recent state elections in Germany seemed to be dominated by national issues, showing how dissatisfied voters are with the government. Of the mainstream parties, the CDU has held up best, but it remains to be seen what kind of alliances they will find.
The Eurosceptic party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), won a regional ballot for the first time, surpassing Scholz’s ruling coalition.
AfD secured 32.8% in Thuringia, leading the race, followed by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) with 23.6%, according to exit polls.
In Saxony, the Eurosceptic party garnered 30.6%, losing to the CDU by a narrow margin.
The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) claimed third place in both races, with 15.8% in Thuringia and 11.8% in Saxony.
Scholz’s “traffic-light” coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens, and the Free Democrats (FDP) performed poorly. The FDP failed to reach the 5% threshold required to enter either regional legislature, and the Greens did not make it into the parliament in Thuringia.
SPD received 6.1% and 7.3% in Thuringia and Saxony, respectively.
“We are ready to take on government responsibility,” AfD leader in Thuringia, Bjorn Hocke, declared, celebrating what he called a “historic victory.”
Omid Nouripour, co-leader of the Greens, lamented the outcome and described it as “a profound turning point” in German history.
The AfD’s victory sparked a heated debate, with mainstream Western media warning that Germany’s political center is “crumbling” ahead of the next federal election in September 2025. Some outlets noted that Scholz have been “humbled” by the German right-wing party.
Others highlighted the rise of anti-establishment parties in Germany, acknowledging that both AfD and BSW, which advocate halting arms supplies to Ukraine, and imposing immigration controls, have performed notably well.
Since the beginning of the Ukraine Crisis in 2013/14, German governments, first under former chancellor Angela Merkel, then under her pathetic successor Olaf Scholz, have totally failed to help find a solution through compromise. This is no minor matter, and history won’t look kindly on Germany. Representing a traditionally significant if declining and now self-diminishing power in Europe, Berlin could have made a difference – quite conceivably one that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yet things are what they are. Initially, under the thoroughly opportunistic yet usually intelligent Merkel, this German failure was mostly due to subservience to the US but practiced in Berlin’s then signature style of evasive shiftiness. Yes, Merkel helped Kiev sabotage the 2015 Minsk II agreement, which could have avoided large-scale war between Russia and Ukraine. But she did that on the sly and only admitted it retrospectively, when criticized for having been “soft” on Russia. “No, I wasn’t!” she, in essence retorted, “I did my part and lied like a street grifter!” What can one say? Ideas of personal dignity differ across cultures.
Under her successor, the merely opportunistic Scholz, Berlin’s approaches have reverted to a certain elementary simplicity. The so-called “Zeitenwende” (epochal turn) he announced two years ago with traditional German modesty means that his coalition government has obeyed Washington in an unprecedentedly self-harming manner. Accepting sabotage of vital infrastructure – Nord Stream – and the systematic demolishing of the German economy by America’s beggar-thy-vassal policy, Scholz has grinned submissively, while not just sacrificing national interests but taking a flamethrower to them.
At the same time – and with a certain consistency one may also observe in committed masochists – this government of death wish loyalty has also ruined Germany’s relationship with Russia with Teutonic furor and thoroughness. All to pander to a Ukrainian regime that now stands accused of blowing up Nord Stream. That accusation makes no sense. Kiev loves to do its worst, true. But it could not have done it without the US. And yet the accusation is the new party line handed down via the Wall Street Journal. It serves as yet another test of how much public humiliation Berlin will take. Answer: there’s no limit.
But Berlin is not Germany. A government so bizarrely out of touch with its own country and its interests is unlikely to represent its citizens well. For some of its members that is even a point of pride. Foreign minister and geometry expert Annalena “360 degrees” Baerbock has long declared that she doesn’t care what her voters want but only about what the Zelensky regime demands. Baerbock, then, must have been positively delighted by the results of a recent and solid opinion poll.
Conducted by the topnotch INSA pollster, the new poll proves that many Germans do not see foreign policy – especially with respect to Russia and Ukraine – the way their current, immensely unpopular and massively failing (as even the Economist admits) rulers do. Consider some highlights: Asked if they are in favor or against peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, 68% of respondents were in favor.
And 65% consider it a “good” or “very good” idea to offer Moscow a quid pro quo, in which Russia would agree to a ceasefire and negotiations, while the West would stop supplying Ukraine with weapons. It’s another matter that Moscow would be unlikely to accept such a deal; those times are over. But Germans outside the Berlin elite clearly prefer winding down the war in lieu of the forever-war scenario that NATO and EU officially promote.
A clear plurality of respondents, 46%, believe that their government has failed to engage in enough diplomacy to protect Germany from the risk of war. Only 26% feel that Berlin has done enough. Yet there is no duty more elementary for rulers than doing everything possible to protect citizens from the threat of war. They cannot always succeed. But those widely seen as not having tried hard enough lose their legitimacy. That much we have known, at the latest since English political philosopher and arch-realist Thomas Hobbes published his “Leviathan” in the seventeenth century.
Legitimacy may sound abstract. Let’s talk about elections then, especially as three important regional elections are coming up. In the länder (states) of Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg, all in Germany’s East, the Berlin coalition parties are staring at serious, even devastating losses to be inflicted by two surging newcomers, the very rightwing AfD and the leftwing yet culturally conservative BSW, named after its leader Sarah Wagenknecht.
Could the decline of the coalition parties have something to do with their resolute detachment from many voters’ wishes and fears over foreign policy? Absolutely. Asked in the INSA poll if a party’s demanding or failing to demand peace negotiations for the Russia-Ukraine War is a decisive factor in casting their vote, 43% of respondents answered in the affirmative. The same share said “no.” But leaving almost half the electorate with a strong sense that you don’t care about what they care about – especially in matters of life and death, i.e. war and peace – is never a winning strategy.
It is true that the question focused specifically on an election at the federal level; that is, for Germany as a whole. Regional politics, you might be tempted to think, has different priorities. You’d be so wrong, though. For one thing, Germans love to use their many regional elections as a way to punish the federal government. Voters do not make a neat separation between voting locally and dishing out the pain centrally. On the contrary.
Second, the results of regional elections, therefore, constantly affect Berlin politics, at this point right into the sick heart of a coalition that is terminal already. Third, regional elections in what used to be East Germany before the West German takeover in 1990 are even more neuralgic, because as a rule, voters there tend to be especially skeptical about Berlin’s by now abject subservience to the US and self-defeating if neo-traditional Russophobia.
Germany’s current mainstream media, think tanks, and academic cadres – such as conformist historians Jan Behrends and Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk – love to caricature, belittle, and patronize those Germans in the East of the country as in essence backward and brainwashed by Russians. (By the way, if you think that sounds weirdly familiar, that’s how Ukraine got its local civil war going in 2014.) Yet the Soviets/Russians haven’t had a say in eastern Germany for over a third of a century now. While Washington, of course, has maintained its propaganda grip. Maybe the proud domestic kulturträger (culture bearers) of NATO “value” Germany, and who love to look down on their eastern compatriots, should face their own lack of intellectual, political, and ethical independence instead. Where the fear of freedom cripples thought (while boosting careers), a little Kantian reliance on one’s own judgment might help.
In any case, belittling Germans in the East will make them only more determined, and rightly so, to vote their probably freer minds. And what freer minds in Germany see is a government that serves not their country but the US and Ukraine. That is a recipe for richly deserved defeat.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
On Sept. 1, two key East German states, Saxony and Thuringia, will hold landmark elections: The Alternative for Germany (AfD) looks unstoppable and the popularity of the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) is soaring.
The whole of Germany is watching anxiously as local people decide their future on Sept. 1. In the former East Germany, there is a growing discontent with the policies and actions of the federal coalition government, which, according to opinion polls, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now without doubt the strongest party in Saxony and Thuringia, followed by the Christian Democrats (CDU), while the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which was formed in the winter, is in third place and starting to catch up with 15 to 20 percent.
The right-wing AfD, which is calling for more action against illegal immigration, and the similarly oppositional but left-wing BSW are not only united by a general dissatisfaction with the CDU; both parties are opposed to further support for Ukraine and call for peace as soon as possible.
A poll in January this year already showed that if the elections in Saxony had taken place then, the radical anti-immigration AfD would almost certainly have won the most votes, 37 percent, followed by the CDU with around 30 percent, while the Social Democrats would not even have been elected to the state parliament.
The latest figures show a slight difference, but this does not mean that Michael Kretschmer, who currently leads the CDU-SPD-Green coalition in Saxony, can sit back comfortably. Opinion polls show them with a lead of just 4 percent, while the AfD is a close second with 30 percent.
And the serious terrorist attack in Solingen on Friday and the steady increase in other migrant-related crimes are probably not a reflection on the Kretschmer’s side either.
In Thuringia, where the CDU is in government with the Greens, the AfD is confidently in the lead with 30 percent, with only 21 percent supporting the CDU and 3 percent the Greens.
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 