Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 06, 2014

D-Day Propaganda Misses The Soviet Contributions

While it is given much emphasis in the "western" view of the second world war Operation Overlord, the invasion on D-Day and the following month of fighting at the Western front, were strategically less important than the Soviet operations on the Eastern front. Without the parallel Soviet Operation Bagration the invasion of fortress Europe in the west would likely have failed. Looking at the numbers of forces involved and German forces destroyed one might even argue that Overlord was just a diversion to keep a few German divisions busy while the Soviet attack in the East destroyed whole German armies.

At the Tehran conference in winter of 1943 Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin aligned their strategies:

The declaration issued by the three leaders on conclusion of the conference on 1 December 1943, recorded the following military conclusions:
The cross-channel invasion of France (Operation Overlord) would be launched during May 1944, in conjunction with an operation against southern France. The latter operation would be undertaken in as great a strength as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further took note of Joseph Stalin's statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the Eastern to the Western Front;

Stalin more than kept his promise:

The partisan brigades, including many Jewish fighters and concentration-camp escapees, planted 40,000 demolition charges. They devastated the vital rail lines linking German Army Group Centre to its bases in Poland and Eastern Prussia.

Three days later, on June 22 1944, the third anniversary of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, Marshal Zhukov gave the order for the main assault on German front lines. Twenty-six thousand heavy guns pulverised German forward positions. The screams of the Katyusha rockets were followed by the roar of 4,000 tanks and the battle cries (in more than 40 languages) of 1.6 million Soviet soldiers. Thus began Operation Bagration, an assault over a 500-mile-long front.
[T]he Soviet summer offensive was several times larger than Operation Overlord (the invasion of Normandy), both in the scale of forces engaged and the direct cost to the Germans.

By the end of summer, the Red army had reached the gates of Warsaw as well as the Carpathian passes commanding the entrance to central Europe. Soviet tanks had caught Army Group Centre in steel pincers and destroyed it. The Germans would lose more than 300,000 men in Belorussia alone. Another huge German army had been encircled and would be annihilated along the Baltic coast. The road to Berlin had been opened.

In total some 70-80% of German losses occurred in the East. In 1944 there were 228 German divisions in the East compared to a total of 58 divisions in the West (and South). In June, July and August 1944 alone the Soviets completely destroyed some 28 German divisions. A bigger German force than the 15 divisions that existed on the Western front in France on D-Day and the weeks thereafter.

It is embarrassing to see how many propaganda lines are spend on D-Day compared to the few acknowledgments of the much huger Soviet efforts and casualties on the Eastern front.

Posted by b on June 6, 2014 at 7:28 UTC | Permalink

next page »

psaki is "back" apparently the bot was broken had to be fixed.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2014 8:30 utc | 1

Frankly, who cares? That's all just ego-massage nonsense for the TV.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 6 2014 8:44 utc | 2

Some clear-headed analysis from the leading Japanese business publication below. Seems everywhere everyone gets what is happening except the Americans:

June 6, 2014

With G-8 fading, old order gives way to uncertainty

SHIN NAKAYAMA, Nikkei staff writer

BRUSSELS -- While the leaders of the Group of Seven made a show of unity here in the face of troubles in Ukraine and Asian waters, their waning ability to check Russian and Chinese assertiveness was all too apparent. ...

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who chaired the two-day summit, stressed the importance of sending a unified message. ...

But when it came to getting tough with the Kremlin, the divisions within the group became apparent. ...

The G-7's diminished clout owes partly to the flak the Obama administration has taken from domestic and foreign critics for its perceived diplomatic missteps. More troubling is the group's own loss of heft. Its share of global economic output shrank from 66% in 2000 to 47% last year, even as that of China, Russia, India and Brazil grew from 8% to 21%.

In Asia, an increasingly confident China is getting pushy with its neighbors across the seas to the east and south. ...

The [G7] communique included a veiled rebuke of these Chinese provocations that was promptly dismissed by Beijing. The "interference" of "irrelevant" countries "is neither helpful in solving the disputes nor in realizing regional peace and stability, only making the problem more difficult to solve," said Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei.

Posted by: fairleft | Jun 6 2014 8:45 utc | 3

US and its puppets always claim US was the most crucial in winning WWII, in both Europe and Asia. In reality US impact in WWII was about 5% (plus US played both sides). By far the biggest impact was by Russia, and as b pointed out, its rarely if ever acknowledged in the West.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 6 2014 8:50 utc | 4

What Hitler did to Europe was similar to what representatives of the British empire such as Churchill (who was the first to gas Iraqis) did to the rest of the world. Churchill is a hero, because his victims were, "black", "brown", or simply not "white".

Posted by: Amar | Jun 6 2014 9:10 utc | 5

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _"

Russian forces were the real reason behind the German defeat, but few people in the US or UK know how evil their own leaders have been.

Posted by: Amar | Jun 6 2014 9:34 utc | 6

Thanks b for reminded us of operation Bagration. The losses the Germans experienced in that operation pale in comparison to what happened in France in the spring of 1944. Those loses were huge. Not to mention the German losses in front of Moscow during the winter of 1941-42, the destruction of the 6th army in Stalingrad (Oct 1942-to Feb 1943) or the losses of the German Army in the Battle of Kursk in July 1943. The West continues to ignore that the Russians destroyed the German Armies in those engagements. Of the 4.5 million German troops killed during WWII, 85% were lost fighting the Russians.

The US lost about 100,000 soldiers fighting the Germans during WWII. If all of those German forces lost in Russia were available against the west the US would have lost over a million soldiers trying to defeat them. And to this day, the US is unwilling to acknowledge the role the Soviet Union played in destroying the Nazi war machine.

This is something that the people of Russia know and it must really be painful for them to see that the West denies this sacrifice. Especially today, while the US supports the Banderist (NAZI collaborators) remnants in Ukraine as supporters of "Western Democracy".

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 6 2014 9:39 utc | 7

Oh and by the way, actually Yugoslavia must be mentioned as an important factor too. Without their partisans keeping the germans involved at the southern front, they would have most probably won both the east and the west fronts.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 6 2014 9:47 utc | 8


Churchill was a brave (in the sense he actually took personal risks fighting in wars), principled, leader who was loyal to king and country and provided a shining example in troubled times. He is probably one of the rare people from the last few hundred years of human history who would be recognised as a hero by global consensus.

Posted by: maff | Jun 6 2014 10:03 utc | 9

T2015 | Jun 6, 2014 5:47:52 AM | 8

Yep the Yugoslavs under Tito made a significant contribution. The Germans lost about 300,000 soldiers KIA in that part of the war. This was much less than the Germans lost in France and Belgium in the fighting against the US (and its minor allies).

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 6 2014 10:06 utc | 10

maff | Jun 6, 2014 6:03:02 AM | 9

Many would disagree that Churchill was a hero. Especially Iraqis who were the victims of those gas attacks in the 1920s as Amar points out. He happened to provide inspired leadership for the Brits during WWII. But in the bigger picture he was a leader that oversaw the collapse of the British empire that was really an insignificant factor in WWII. I guess we can grant that he helped the US to have a launching pad for the Normandy invasion, though, if not available, that would not have changed the final outcome of WWII. Face it, the British were already a spent force in 1940.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 6 2014 10:42 utc | 11

The western part of the allied forces was like one fifth or some such number?

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 6 2014 11:54 utc | 12

harry got that right, the US played both sides. one part of history that needs more exploration is the role of the US left -CPUSA especially- in helping push the USA into support for the Soviet Union and opening a second front.

Though one gets the impression that by that point the invasion had more to do with the eagerness of US leaders to establish their position in the post-War order than anything. Many Germans were certainly pleased to have the Americans to surrender to instead of the Russians whom they had inflicted unimaginable cruelties on. An the US was happy to have them - including war criminals like the Nazi intelligence commander on the Eastern front, Reinhard Ghelen. Not to mention the dreams of fascists like Gen. Patron, who dreamed of turning on his allies on the very eve of victory and marching to Moscow (luckily, the results of that tragedy are left to writers of historical fiction).

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 6 2014 12:13 utc | 13

Gen. Patton, i mean. i hope that faction about his desire to continue the war against the Soviets is true and not apocryphal. I certainly have heard that said.

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 6 2014 12:15 utc | 14

maff #9


someone who has done something brave, for example saving a person’s life or risking their own life...
someone who you admire for their intelligence, abilities, or personal qualities

I believe that most people who are aware of Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC would consider him one of the very few genuine heros of the last century. Not only did he lead his troops from the front time after time, but he received two Medal Of Honors and turned down a third.

But to me his real heroism occurred after he resigned his commission and had the insight and then the integrity to speak the truth of his war years:

I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service.
Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)

Posted by: juannie | Jun 6 2014 12:29 utc | 15

maff #9


someone who has done something brave, for example saving a person’s life or risking their own life...
someone who you admire for their intelligence, abilities, or personal qualities

I believe that most people who are aware of Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC would consider him one of the very few genuine heros of the last century. Not only did he lead his troops from the front time after time, but he received two Medal Of Honors and turned down a third.

But to me his real heroism occurred after he resigned his commission and had the insight and then the integrity to speak the truth of his war years:

I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service.
Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)

Posted by: juannie | Jun 6 2014 12:29 utc | 16


A tip of the hat to Don Bacon, a long time MoA poster, for the above link in #16.

I haven't seen Don here for quite some time. I hope he still drops in from time to time.

Posted by: juannie | Jun 6 2014 12:35 utc | 17

It cannot be a mere coincidence that the countries that most ferociously fought against the axis are the ones that with most contempt are treated now by the West: Greece resisted for six months and forced the Germans to delay their attack against the USSR. Ten percent of the population perished during that war and the resistance to the occupation that followed. Nobody seems to remember this today.

Posted by: Kanenas | Jun 6 2014 13:43 utc | 18

D-Day Propaganda Misses The Soviet Contributions

I agree. The Soviet contribution is not given enough shrift in Western media when D-Day is discussed. But, if and when it is, if ever, as part of that shrift this should also be discussed. I won't hold my breath. I'm not sure of the veracity of the following or the credibility of the author, but if it's partially true, it paints a rather disgusting picture and makes one rethink the use of the word "contribution" and its meaning and implications.

The Greatest Mass Rape In History

One of this century's greatest crimes, and probably one of the greatest crimes against women in history, was the mass rape of the conquered women of Europe after the Judeo-Communist victory there in 1945. The rapists were mainly Red Army soldiers, some of them non-White troops from the Far East and Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union. But I am sorry to say that many of the rapists were men of our own race, and some were Americans. They were brutes no doubt, but they were permitted and encouraged to indulge their lower than bestial urges by official "Allied" policies which incited hatred particularly against the Germans, but also against those of other European nationalities which were then allied with Germany in an anti-Communist bloc. One cannot contemplate this great mass orgy of rape, gang rape, and sexual slavery of innocent women and little girls without revulsion. It would be easy for you to toss this newsletter aside and pickup more pleasant or amusing reading. But if you want to know the truth about one of the darkest secrets of our present establishment, a horrible crime against women about which the Politically Correct feminists are strangely silent, then I urge you to read on. I claim no originality for the documentation or recounting of this ghastly crime perpetrated mainly by what Franklin Roosevelt called "our noble Soviet ally." We are indebted to Dr. Austin J. App, a professor and scholar of English literature at Catholic University, the University of Scranton, and LaSalle College, among others, who risked career and livelihood to bring these truths to light. In April, 1946, when he published the work upon which this article is based, entitled Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe, he was a lone voice crying out for justice in an America still high on war propaganda and on a "victory" that in the later Cold War years and after would be seen clearly as a defeat for America and the West as much as it was for Germany.

As the Red Army advanced toward her in 1945, the city of Berlin had become a city virtually without men. Out of a civilian population of 2,700,000, 2,000,000 were women. It is small wonder that the fear of sexual attack raced through the city like a plague. Doctors were besieged by patients seeking information on the quickest way to commit suicide, and poison was in great demand.

In Berlin stood a charity institution, the Haus Dehlem, an orphanage, maternity hospital, and foundling home. Soviet soldiers entered the home, and repeatedly raped pregnant women and women who had just given birth. This was not an isolated incident. No one will ever know how many women were raped, but doctors' estimates run as high as 100,000 for the city of Berlin alone, their ages ranging from 10 to 70.

More at link

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jun 6 2014 13:48 utc | 19


This "cold n holefield" linking to nazi site:

Time to ban this nazi-troll.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2014 14:01 utc | 20

I dont know how reliable this site is - and sorry don't have the time to translate, but here the gist:

Jazenjuk has been a member of scientology since 1998 and has been a consultant for its bank. His sister is a US citizen and also a scientologist. His wife and children live currently in Santa Barbara and to help spread scientology.

Wer sind die neuen Machthaber in Kiew ?

Jazenjuk schloss sich der Scientology-Organisation im Jahr 1998 an, und wurde zum Berater für die Kreditabteilung der von der   Scientology Sekte finanzierten Bank Aval, später dann als Verantwortlicher der Aval Bank in der Ukraine.

Jazenjuk ist derzeit ein hochrangiges Mitglied der Sekte und hat ein Level of Auditing, welches OT-6   genannt wird. Seine Schwester Alina Petrowna Steele, eine Bürgerin der Vereinigten Staaten, ist auch mit der Scientology-Kirche verbunden. Steele ist in der Zweigstelle der Kirche in der kalifornischen Stadt Santa Barbara aktiv; sie ist auf einem niedrigeren Niveau als ihr Bruder. Jazenjuks Frau und seine Kinder leben derzeit in Santa Barbara, um  den globalen Einfluss von Scientology zu steigern.

Posted by: Fran | Jun 6 2014 14:17 utc | 21

Oops sorry wanted to post this in the former diary.

Posted by: Fran | Jun 6 2014 14:19 utc | 22

Putin chat with poroshenko

seems like poroshenko will keep on with the genocide.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2014 14:24 utc | 23

A short interview with Pepe Escobar this morning:

Pepe said Obama should be meeting with Putin.
Personally, I think Obama can't screw up the courage to actually have a face-to-face with the man he's been slandering all this time. It could be Obama is afraid of coming across as stupid and out of his league, a fully justified fear.

Posted by: madisolation | Jun 6 2014 14:44 utc | 24

Military loss US versus URSS during WW2

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 6 2014 14:48 utc | 25

Something to keep in mind as we encourage the creeping encirclement of Russia by a military alliance is something that happened within the memory of many people alive in Russia today: the invasion of that nation by a European country which resulted in the loss of more than 20 million Russian lives.

Posted by: Bill H | Jun 6 2014 15:04 utc | 26

Some kind of military plane shot down by the people in eastern ukraine.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2014 15:24 utc | 27

@24 Obama's narcissism and cognitive dissonance prevent him from reaching that conclusion. He will blame any criticism from Putin or others on racism or use Yakov Smirnov to explain Putin and Russia.

My guess is O just rambles on about the need for peace and prosperity as if he discovered it that very morning. The neoliberal and conservative Euro leaders aren't bright enough to look past O's celebrity, but Hollande and Merkel have probably caught on with recent events. They just don't know how to proceed given their weak political standing. Non native English speakers probably get lost in various idioms and don't recognize O's non sense.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Jun 6 2014 15:38 utc | 28

@27 Antonov AN-30 I think. Weather plane used for photography.

Posted by: dh | Jun 6 2014 15:41 utc | 29

b. i will never forget when you took us to berlin. as we passed under the Brandenburg Gate from west to east berlin and the magnificent humbolt university and the wide beautiful boulevard, everything and i wondered 'why/how did russia get this' and that was the first time i understood when you told me, because russia won the war.

Posted by: annie | Jun 6 2014 15:44 utc | 30


after the Judeo-Communist victory

Nice phrase.

Posted by: g_h | Jun 6 2014 15:55 utc | 31

A tremendous, concise mass-market paperback that really drives home the fact that the Red Army won World War II is Georges Blond's The Death of Hitler's Germany. (Cheap copies can be found online.)

After reading it some twenty years ago, I figured that Blondes, a Frenchman, must have been a member of the Communist Party. Turns out he was a staunch conservative who was tolerated by the Vichy government. So his briskly written assessment of the military demise of Nazi Germany wasn't merely a work of partisan propaganda.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 6 2014 16:00 utc | 32

Putin's interview by Europe 1 ( in french)

The interview starts at 35:20

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 6 2014 16:06 utc | 33

Putin brought up the point in b’s post, diplomatically in his very first answer in the long interview he gave to French MSM.

The F MSM mis-translated and garbled what he said.

TF1 even dared cut the interview in half and labeled their show Version Intégrale. Liars.

France has gone down a rabbit-hole, I heard a historian say that the propaganda right now is worse than in the run up to 14-18. (? idk.)

Putin : (The commemoration) is an important event for the whole world. We will honor /pay homage/ to those who prevented the Nazis from /rendering, reducing .../ Europe into slavery. Russian participation in this commemoration is charged with symbols. (...) Russia and the other countries in the anti-Hitler coalition /alliance etc/, including France, were allied in this fight /struggle ../ for freedom. The participation of our country was very important, /say, perhaps, probably/ decisive to vanquish fascism. (from various trans, i have no russian, + my bold.)


The hollow mantra that Peace In Europe is due to the EU is unbearble.

Peace in Europe was achieved by Stalin (Stalingrad) and Truman (Marshall Plan.) yup a 10-word summary.

Frankly, who cares? That's all just ego-massage nonsense for the TV. at 2.

Because turning recent history on its head in this way is beyond the pale.

> a pie chart of military deaths, Allies, WW2. The nos are surely debatable, the rough proportions not. See China, which fought on the side of the Allies (obv. against Japan) which is why it is a member of the UN Security Council today.

One article about China WW2 off the top of Goog, book review.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 6 2014 16:23 utc | 34

It should be noted that there is a glitch about six lines into the article. "Bagration" is misspelled. Respectfully, C-Ville

Posted by: C-Ville | Jun 6 2014 17:19 utc | 35

A couple of points on the Soviet contribution. On Cold Handjobs point on the rapes. When he learned what was happening, Zhukov ordered it stopped and had executed any soldier who disobeyed the order. The atrocities occured in East Prussia. As to the American contribution: the Soviets depended on the Americans for trucks to carry munitions, men and food the last few kilometres from the railhead to the front. Horses were traditionally used for this task, but by 1944 they were in short supply and would never have been enough to move the massive supplies the army required. It is possible that the Soviets might not have survived without this aid, but it is clear that in the big picture they did all the heavy lifting. Bagration, which is unknown in the West, was the Soviet army's biggest victory.

Posted by: Knut | Jun 6 2014 17:25 utc | 36

I'll gladly take Putin over Churchill any day. USA is very good at propaganda, their participation in WW2 was a whole psyop.
Greatest generation? Horsefeathers, the Soviet men and women, they are the truly great ones, tragic and glorious at the same time.
I continue asking, why a people like Cold and Hole in the wall allowed to continue to spread his nonsense?
But Mr. Pragma is banned...??????

Posted by: Fernando | Jun 6 2014 18:23 utc | 37


I dont get how others like Mr Pragma can be banned from this site for alleged Antisemitism, but Cold never is.

Or banned for anything else. Certainly he could be banned for things other than anti-semitism.

I mean my god, he only ever appears to derail the conversation.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 6 2014 19:22 utc | 38

Colonel Cassad has posted a pretty pessimistic appraisal of what many take to be Putin's clever plan (Yandex trans.). This is that by not intervening directly in the Ukraine, the position of the fascists will gradually weaken, ultimately leading to an outcome favorable to Russia.

There are two main grounds for Cassad's pessimism. (1) The US worked for twenty years in the Ukraine setting up NGOs and cultivating elites hostile to Russia. Russia did nothing to counter that, and Putin evidently thought that just by giving huge economic subsidies to Ukraine, he could keep the country in Russia's orbit. The situation in the Ukraine is so dire today because of Russia's neglecting in the last two decades to cultivate pro-Russian elites and youth, building up a Russia-leaning civil society (to use a favorite term of Western NGOs' which Cassad himself does not use). (2) The Kiev junta may well be able to route the resistance. It is already openly using terror for that purpose, and the US will continue to ignore its terrorist acts, no matter how far the junta goes.

In the end, whether Russia eventually decides to invade southeastern Ukraine or it doesn't, either choice will have large drawbacks for Russia. The Euphoria that Russians felt with the reunification with Crimea is gone.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 6 2014 19:39 utc | 39

Putin cant be that naive to believe that this jerk poroshenko wont stop the massacres right?!

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2014 20:02 utc | 40

I mean he shouldnt believe that poroshenko would stop the killings.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2014 20:03 utc | 41

The Saker reports that Russia media coverage of the civil war is now so outraged (the junta's operations are now called "genocide") that Putin may not be able to put off intervention much longer.

Here is one example: News of the Week. In Russian, but many videos shown speak for themselves.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 6 2014 20:24 utc | 42

@38 I read the piece and I have a firm suspicion that Mr.Cassad does not have any idea about how US foreign policy works, even though I find his appraisal of Moscow's conduct mostly accurate.

Posted by: Grim Deadman | Jun 6 2014 20:27 utc | 43

Diane Johnstone has a good piece on Ukraine today at Counterpunch

Comments on D Day don't really appeal to me. The basic problem is that history, which is useful, has been overwhelmed by competing schemes of propaganda.

To try and straighten the record, the British contribution to D Day was of overwhelming importance. This is obvious enough if only on geographical grounds. I have great sympathy with opponents of the Empire but facts are facts. And, if you examine them, they often turn out to be anti-imperial.

Of the five beaches in Normandy only two were for US troops. Of the remaining three, British, Canadian, Polish and other exiled troops constituted the invading forces. I mention this because the great tragedy of post war politics was that the enormous importance of the non-American contribution was blotted out in order to justify the submission of their ruling classes to US imperialism. And the subsequent partnerships they made, which have now matured in the new fascism of "democracies" without sovereignty.

This submission was by no means necessary, any more than was US "Aid" in the post war period. A very influential minority in the Labour Party, including GDH Cole, RH Tawney and Harold Laski, warned of the importance of Britain maintaining its independence from the US. On the other side were "deep state" elements in the British establishment who preferred submission to the US to socialist rule.

It is important, when throwing around words like British and American, to bear in mind how little they mean: for example it was US secret service people who supplied and sponsored anti-Franco guerrilla forces in Catalonia in 1946, it was MI6 which betrayed them to the Spanish who wiped them out.

Similarly in the winter of 1944 it was the British Supreme Commander in Italy, the aristocratic Alexander, who informed the world, including the Wehrmacht, that the Italian partisans in northern Italy, who were holding down 14 German divisions, would not be supplied further during the winter. By the spring, that Resistance Army had been systematically decimated by the fascist forces. As a result the left, in the post war period, was deprived of many of its best leaders.
Alexander, who as a Lt Colonel had commanded the Latvian Landswehr in its resistance to the Bolsheviks, was as anti-Communist as any Texan. So, was Churchill who, by the way, was far from being the popular figure in Britain that mythology suggests: check out the 1945 election results to see what the electorate thought of the man.

Britain (and thanks to De Valera's austerity programmes Ireland) was the most mobilised of any countries during the war: very few, men or women, were not conscripted into the war effort, taxation was steeply progressive, 'confiscatory' as the rich called it.

The ruling class hated the war. Every other ruling class in Europe had made its arrangement with the fascists, intending to profit from doing so and preserving its wealth. Only in Britain were the anti-fascist forces, in the context of a barrier of angry ocean, sufficient to prevent the Tories from compromising with Hitler and engaging in a partnership, guaranteeing the preservation of the Empire, much more equal than that the US later offered.

Far from being marginal Britain was critical in the war. Had it surrendered in 1940 does anyone imagine that the US would have joined in except to annex Canada, scoop up the Caribbean islands, and acquire slices of Siberia?

As to the Soviet Union, there was enormous popular support for and understanding of its contribution among the masses not only in Europe but in North America too. It took a propaganda campaign of unprecedented complexity to erase popular pro-Russian opinion in Britain and even the United States. And nowhere was pro-Russian opinion stronger than among the ranks of the Army and war veterans: nobody understood better than Tommy Atkins the debt owed to Ivan Ivanovich.

The real significance of D Day is that it represented the culmination of the mobilised energies of a population that was predominantly proletarian. The same might be said of the Eastern Front where the Red Army represented not just the energies of the Soviet people but their hopes and dreams of social justice too.

If it is a lie that the US won the war, another lie is that the impulse behind the mobilisation of the Soviet Union was simple "patriotism" or even "orthodoxy." There, as in Britain or the US, promises of reform, social justice, economic equality-after the war- were made. For a variety of reasons they were not kept. And one consequence of that breaking of faith can be seen in the Ukraine where ordinary people are very reluctant to become involved again in a war in which only the bosses, the oligarchs and the bankers can win

Posted by: bevin | Jun 6 2014 20:57 utc | 44

Right about WWII, but that's not the point.

The Western aggression in Ukraine will not stop, and there will be no talks,
until the RU sympathizers lay down their arms and swear allegiance to Kiev.

'They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue!
It's the Tel Aviv way."

Posted by: chip nikh | Jun 6 2014 22:18 utc | 45


you have to admit that bagration was something else, really something else & i wouldn't be surprised if lin piao & giap did not study it well

it is at once very simple, to break the back of army group centre but it is don with such complexity & on so many spheres including the most concrete application of the partisan war & all my favorite generals are there, rossokovski, the brains that general vatitin had synthesised, the young & only jewish general who was to lose his life in prussia - it is war at an entirely different level than the drawing room

as bevin notes the colonised people did most of the fighting for the french & british & yes i will giove a nod to the poles but what they were involved in really wer skirmished, they were not battles in any classic sense of that word, only the chinese & the soviet union fought battles

i have read on this in three languages now for many decades & i still learn something & it is not a question of whose dick is bigger, bevin gives allussion that in real terms it was the expression oh historical forces at play

tho i must mention what the brilliant scholar, from - of all places sandhurst - chris bellamy wrote in his 'absolute war' was stalin made the most important decision of the entire european war, in 10 minutes, when he decided to move everything to the ural, stalin knew how to prioritize & he left those people entrusted with that, alone

& it is clear hole in his head is such a nazi he would not know shit from shine

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Jun 6 2014 22:30 utc | 46

I'm trying to come to grips with the propaganda implications of our situation in the "West" that Ukraine has revealed. It seems increasingly clear to me that this is where the real war has been fought, and long since won, and where the current and future insurrections lie. Everything else, I don't know yet.

Thanks for your history, Bevin - as a former European I found it to ring deeply true on many fronts. This D-Day post has been a great read from the post through all the comments.

And the nudge on Diane Johnstone was very valuable, she's written a wonderful essay on Ukraine. It deserves a link:

Washington’s Iron Curtain in Ukraine

I keep a short list of masterly views on the Ukraine situation in case one day a friend here in the west may want to know what really happened there. This will be one of the links.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 6 2014 22:31 utc | 47

@ Maff 9

Try to distinguish between the objective historical record and very successfully sold propaganda. Churchill was one of the worst monsters of his time. The idea of a global vote to describe him as a hero is grotesque. The majority of the world doesn't buy English imperial propaganda.

Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Jun 6 2014 22:37 utc | 48

Speaking of Counterpunch articles, Peter Lee wrote an informative one:
The Durability of Ukrainian Fascism

Ukrainian fascism is more durable and vital than most. It was forged in the most adverse conditions imaginable, in the furnace of Stalinism, under the reign of Hitler, and amid Poland’s effort to destroy Ukrainian nationality. …

Ukrainian nationalists, therefore, were unable to ride communism or bourgeois democracy into power. Communism was a tool of Soviet expansionism, not class empowerment, and Polish democracy offered no protection for Ukrainian minority rights or political expression, let alone a Ukrainian state.

Ukrainian nationalists turned largely toward fascism, specifically toward a concept of “integral nationalism” that, in the absence of an acceptable national government, manifested itself in a national will residing in the spirit of its adherents, not expressed by the state or restrained by its laws, but embodied by a charismatic leader and exercised through his organization, whose legitimacy supersedes that of the state and whose commitment to violence makes it a law unto itself. …

Like Hitler, Bandera was keen to purify the “homeland” of impure elements. Unlike Hitler, Bandera only had the chance to turn his fury on his enemies—primarily the Poles of Galicia–for a few months.

5000 Ukrainian police defected with their weapons to join Bandera’s faction as Nazi rule crumbled in Ukraine, and provided the muscle for the most notorious Bandera action of the Second World War: the massacre of Poles in what is now western Ukraine.

So it's wrong to call the Ukranian fascists "neo-nazis". This fascism is continuous with Bandera's fascism.

As for whether Putin will take a military action, I think he will wait until Poroshenko gets inaugurated and it becomes clear whether he will stop the terrorist operations or not.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 6 2014 22:46 utc | 49

The ruling class hated the war. Every other ruling class in Europe had made its arrangement with the fascists, intending to profit from doing so and preserving its wealth. Only in Britain were the anti-fascist forces, in the context of a barrier of angry ocean, sufficient to prevent the Tories from compromising with Hitler and engaging in a partnership, guaranteeing the preservation of the Empire, much more equal than that the US later offered.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 6, 2014 4:57:21 PM | 43

I was very interested in an account of a book - Donny Gluckstein (2012) A People's History of the Second World War. Resistance Versus Empire. Pluto Press, London. - Given by Giles Ungpakorn in the course of his ongoing discussion of the ongoing coup of 2006-14 in Thailand ...

Reconciliation as Betrayal The Parallel War: Taksin and the Red Shirts

According to Gluckstein there were two parallel wars against the Axis Powers. One was an Imperialist War, waged by the ruling classes of Britain, the United States and Russia for their own interests, while the other war was a People’s War against Fascism, waged by ordinary working people, many of them socialists. The two wars often overlapped in the minds of millions, but their aims were very different.

... Ungpakorn saw/sees the same in Thailand with the 'red shirts' fighting fascism while their 'leaders' contest for a variation on the status quo.

I found Chapter 3 of Stone/Kuznick's The Untold History of the United States WORLD WAR II: Who Really Defeated Germany? enlightening as well.

I couldn't find Gluckstein's book over the wire, but I did find a (very good, I think) video of him expounding his views, which I tacked on in a footnote to the re-post of Giles Ungpakorn's post above.

Ungpakorn is now living in England, driven from his home in Thailand by the lese majeste Inquisition. The Royal Thai Army has now 'summoned' him and others it's driven out of Thailand to return for persecution under its present dictatorial incarnation. Obviously the exiles won't return of their own free will - the question now is will the Royal Thai Army attempt to abduct or assassinate them abroad.

Posted by: john francis lee | Jun 6 2014 23:03 utc | 50

@43 bevin - nice overview. thanks

@44 chip nikh - that about sums it up.

@49 - john francis lee - thanks. i like the summation you've shared which seems to capture the present dynamic in ukraine at the moment too.. i think that is the nature of war to obfuscate or overlap different agendas that are at work in any conflict.

Posted by: james | Jun 6 2014 23:42 utc | 51

One simple fact should open an eyes even to any Westerners.

Operation Bagration from 5 July 1943 – 16 July 1943 according to Wikipedia:

“The operation resulted in the almost complete destruction of an entire German army group, with the loss of Army Group Centre's Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army. It is considered the most calamitous defeat experienced by the German armed forces during the Second World War.[17][18] By the end of the operation most of the western Soviet Union had been liberated and the Red Army had achieved footholds in Romania and Poland. German losses eventually numbered well over half a million men killed or wounded, even higher than the toll at Verdun in 1916.”

D-day, 6 June 1944.

So full year Soviets liberated themselves and crushed Nazis and "achieved footholds in Romania and Poland". No one knows what Soviets waited for? Only behind the scene a deal can explain that. Otherwise, the Red Army was fully capable to liberate the whole Europe alone.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jun 7 2014 0:30 utc | 52

50 Nazi division took part in the battle of Kursk, Operation Citadel, in the summer of 1943. This is twice as much as on the entire Western Front in 1943.

74% of Nazi Germany's causalities occured in battles with the SU.

Than Yugoslavia's forces under Tito was the only (of course along with SU forces) country which liberated country on its own. Even Soviets asked for permission to enter in the country to participate in liberation of Belgrade.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jun 7 2014 0:50 utc | 53

Cold Handjob had a fan club here just the other day, although not of anyone I have any memory of. And 'we' Americans may have no real sense of history, but we have one hell of a propaganda machine. I became aware of the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in the second World War after the end of the Soviet Union. One video I would recommend to anyone who hasn't already seen it is Enemy At The Gates . It's how I learned some of the truth about what I know today about the Allied victory. And of course some of it is fictionalized, I'm sure. Plus it was filmed in Germany.

Posted by: Jim T | Jun 7 2014 1:23 utc | 54

The Russians are not going to invade eastern Ukrains as of now. They are waiting to see if Poroshenko is able to call off the current offensive against the Donbas. If Poroshenko fails in doing so then it seems fairly clear that Russian forces will put a stop to the offensive.

As we all know will the US continue to advocate this violence: will we (I live here btw) support Poroshenko in his efforts to end this war? If not then the decision for more war lies in America's hands.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 7 2014 3:53 utc | 55

@ToivoS #54:

I think it's pretty clear that USG and the fascists in the junta will want to continue the terror offensive. I've read that Poroshenko doesn't have that much influence in Kiev, despite his wealth. FWIW, governments of EU countries like Germany probably want the war ended. Not sure about Poland and Sweden.

My impression is that Poroshenko plans to open negotiations with Putin as early as Sunday, probably with EU but not US mediation. I think that a lot will depend on whether Poroshenko and Putin wil be able to strike a deal that will be acceptable to the fascists in Kiev. I also believe that Poroshenko is closer to Germany than to the US.

A problem here is that Poroshenko needs to be some kind of political miracle worker, whereas he's just an oligarch.

Putin wants hostilities to stop before negotiations begin; Poroshenko has said that he wants the Russian parliament to revoke the authorization for RF forces to enter the Ukraine if necessary.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 7 2014 4:10 utc | 56

Russian Spring



Sustained gun fire. A chemical plant was finally ruined – probably were seeking sulfur storage to ignite. At the moment, the howitzers pound ”Cherevkovka” (suburb) – three houses are in flames, a gas pipe severed and extinguishing fire.

Tanks left “Semenovka”. Twice hit adversary positions by mortar fire, inflicted losses (something burnt thickly at fortified block-post near a stele in the name of “Slavyansk”).

Russian">">Russian Spring


Question: Incursion of Ukrainian troops in “Red Liman” went on in executing suspected males of ages between 18 and 40.


Sure, enemy will “find and get”. It is like some combatants of “Red Liman” under the attack retreated back home. Those survived are now in “zindans” (a pit with some water to incarcerate POWs) in “Isume”. Arrogance is never for army – if fostering from a coward is (sometimes) possible, narcissists or self-esteemed imbeciles can only be repressed.

Comment: If genocide is total, remaining side-lined without forfeiture may not pass! Resistance combatant’s chance to live on is incomparably higher: he is with others alike and armed. A bourgeois, who has decided to seat out in a cellar, while the fascists are awarded the impunity to kill anyone who is “vatnik-colorado” (1st word is an inexpensive cotton padded quilted parka for workers; 2nd word alludes to the ribbon of St. George and potato beetle) alike, is bound to ruin.

Russian Spring



Bombardment started at 9:00 to go on without respite. “Semenovka “ and nearby plants are all pounded literally from everything – 240mm mortars, 152mm “Akatsias” (?), “Grad” (rockets) and alike. No means to retaliate – the opponent dispersed artillery beyond the reach of a handful of our mortars. Competing with such a powerful art-alignment is beside the point too.

The positions we will retain. The strength is enough. Just for what the hell did the hundreds of “heroes of Don and Kuban`” arrive here? What do they defend in “Antrantsit”? Who do the fight against? Against local poultry and cisterns of vodka?

Alright, an attack is nearing “Semenovka”. Tanks again. Time to abstract.

Comment: Some emotional passages about the contemporary Cossacks were removed.

Posted by: Fete | Jun 7 2014 4:46 utc | 57

Nebojsa Malic has a good takedown of Obama and the Empire in general extending the points b makes:

Is This What D-Day Was For?

Posted by: Demian | Jun 7 2014 5:09 utc | 58

That poroshenko would stop the killing is naive. Why would they suddenly? A racist regime is a racist regime they wont stop hating and attacking those so called "pro-russians".

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2014 5:54 utc | 59

@Anonymous #58:

The point is that Russia has to see if it can talk some sense into Kyiv through Poroshenko before it goes on to consider military options. Poroshenko is an oligarch, not a fascist.

Nobody is denying that the regime is "racist", in the sense that, to quote Colonel Cassad at the link I gave in #38, the Ukraine exists "only and exclusively as the antithesis of Russia". Thus, the only content of Ukrainian nationalism is hatred of Russia, and Ukrainian nationalism is inherently fascist (see #48).

Posted by: Demian | Jun 7 2014 6:19 utc | 60

Earlier US and British news outlets were getting personal in their attacks on Russian leaders like Putin and Ambassador Churkin. The Kremlin is retaliating with recent attacks on Hillary Clinton with sexist remarks and President Obama on racist remarks. Relationship is going from bad to worse. I don't recall this happening during the Cuban crisis and missile stand-off.

Posted by: Oui | Jun 7 2014 6:30 utc | 61

@51 neretva'43.. you have your facts wrong on the date for operation bagration. and, the details are important to know as it appears it started after, not before the june 6th d-day date.. read b's post again, or see the link below.

Posted by: james | Jun 7 2014 6:33 utc | 62

Churchill and his "black dog" knew he was going to hell

Posted by: Michaël | Jun 7 2014 6:33 utc | 63

@Oui #60:

WTF are you talking about? I don't see any sexist or racist remarks by the Kremlin in the link you gave.

Maybe you are thinking of the Polish foreign minister's joke about Obama:

Have you heard that Obama may have a Polish connection? His grandfather ate a Polish missionary.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 7 2014 7:15 utc | 64

@Maff #9
The British empire left the world in shambles with all the hotspots for war today: SE Asia from Pakistan to Bangladesh, Mesopotamia, Iran and the Greater Middle-East. Churchill is far better known for his failures as first lord of admiralty for defeat and losses at Gallipoli to break through the Dardanelles.

Rewriting history – Gallipoli was not Churchill's great folly.

Churchill saw the importance of oil for the British fleet in replacing coal and ensured a foot-print of British Army in Mesopotamia and the Gulf region. At the turn of the century Churchill left his mark in South Africa during the Boer Wars and the first concentration camps.

Churchill was personally responsible for the order to take out Dresden in February 1945 sitting in a warm bath, drinking his favorite whisky and always his signature cigar nearby. The Allied upmarch was halted by Montgomery's failure to cross the Rhine river and the losses at the Battle of Arnhem. What valor?

I will admit Churchill's greatest feat were his words via BBC radio to occupied Europe for keeping hope during the misery of war.

Posted by: Oui | Jun 7 2014 7:20 utc | 65

More proof that poroshenko wont stop the killing:
RT@Poroshenko: Ukraine should sign EU association agreement asap

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2014 7:57 utc | 66

One shouldn't go too far in the opposite direction either however, Russia didn't and couldn't have won all by itself. Lend-Lease aided them significantly, especially in the first two years of fighting. And allied strategic bombing was a crucial factor in Germany's defeat. There's a lot more to winning a war than simply racking up a large deathtoll.

I would also hazard a guess that young people are far from ignorant of Russia's military contribution, given the number of video games that feature them. The Call of Duty and Company of Heroes franchises feature them heavily, for example.

Posted by: Seiji | Jun 7 2014 9:15 utc | 67

In spanish, "Diario de Berlin."

Posted by: nik | Jun 7 2014 10:36 utc | 68

From saker:

Question by The Saker: Did the Border Control Headquarters really fall to Donbas Army?

Juan's reply: Yes, done deal since yesterday morning. Lots of vids showing Donbas Army allowing the prisoners to leave after they changed in to civilian clothes and some vids showing Donbas Army going through the building and armories. Found was a got a ton of weapons and ammo including RPG's and MG's, at least two BTR's in good condition, several trucks and GAZ jeeps, at least one amphibious tracked vehicle that runs and a treasure trove of documents.

It was the officers who fought, the young boys mostly didn't or at best half heartedly. In actual fact most of the conscripts (Border Service and Militsiya are mostly draftees like the Army) were locked in a room until the fighting was over.

Donbas also took two army bases that same day. So score for that day is Donbas lost Krasni Limon and took Border Control HQ, two army bases and took control of about 90 kilometers of border when the actual border guards on duty loaded up all in to their cars and went to Rostov across the border with their families.

Donbas Army also disabled two T-64's, read shot them up pretty seriously. They can be repaired even though one had a pretty substantial fire on the rear deck over the engine/trans compartment. Both had road wheels shot off with their suspension arms and one had both drive sprockets mangled by RPG fire which means the final drive from the transmission is also damaged. Another T-64 took several antitank rifle hits on his main gun. The main tube was not penetrated but the impacts will have damaged the barrel internally and it will have to be replaced.

The Ukes also lost at lest 7 BTR's, more than one BMP, several trucks including one full of national guards that was hit with an RPG and burned. Donbas Army didn't shoot the wounded and burning boys spilling out of the truck.

The Ukes also lost, confirmed, 2 Mi24's and one Su25 with one Mi24 and one SU25 as probables. At least one other Mi24 was damaged by anti aircraft fire and was forced to land hard. Most everyone on that bird was wounded, don't know how bad the bird was damaged.

All in all the Ukes got a bloody nose. Donbas Army losses were not small especially considering their wounded being killed in hospital.

We just listened to Poroshenko's inauguration speech and it's basically a declaration of war against Novorossiya. He intends to finish 'cleaning Donetsk and Lugansk' etc etc. No federalization, no negotiation. Putin has his answer.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 7 2014 10:50 utc | 69
car blast outside ukraine president hq.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2014 10:54 utc | 70

Are you guys american? I'm a Brit, and I'm genuinely astounded by the intelligence and insight on this thread. By reading comments on Facebook, the rest of the world is starting to see America in a less than favourable light. A geography warmongering and pro-military stance seems to be stifling any real debate about issues.
For that, I salute you dudes here for restoring some faith in a country I've been to plenty of times and so badly want to still love.

Posted by: Nick C | Jun 7 2014 10:59 utc | 71

Sorry, I meant "generally warmongering.."
Frigging predict text...

Posted by: Nick C | Jun 7 2014 11:00 utc | 72

I hoped oligarch Poroshenko would be more pragmatic, but it seems he dutifully executes US orders. Oh well, an actual war is coming. Putin did his best to avoid it, but it takes two to make peace, and only one (US) to start the war.

Considering increasing bloodshed and outrage it causes, along with juntas pledge for war, the only question remains now how Russia will intervene.

My personal guess is - Russia will still try to avoid invasion and no-fly zone until the very last moment, instead it will significantly ramp up covert support. Problem with that, there arent enough resistance volunteers, and they dont need much (if any) support with weapons. They took over significant cashes of weapons from Ukie army. So how can Russia help?

Most probably, Russia will send Chechen and other "volunteers". Several thousand of well armed and trained man in guerrilla warfare would be a complete nightmare for neo-nazis. This would buy enough time while Ukie economy keeps crashing, turning more and more of population against Kiev junta.

Additionally, Russia could arrange "accidents" for bloody oligarchs like Kolomoiski.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 7 2014 11:09 utc | 73

Are Demian and vineyardsaker a same person?

Nebojsa Malic!? They reference to each other?

Very strange alliance between Orthodox ultra-nationalists and so-called Libertarians who presenting themselves as anti-imperialists.

A lot of people referring Kieve's regime as a fascists which is ridiculous. Analogous to that we can call on regimes in Poland, Paris, Copenhagen, Berlin, etc. fascist as well. Just as Orwell said: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”

Orthodox pan-slavic chauvinists are no less “fascist” than those who they label as such. They hiding is affiliations/extremism with somebody else's one!

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jun 7 2014 11:13 utc | 74


Nothing strange at all, you are from balkan right?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2014 11:28 utc | 75

"Are Demian and vineyardsaker a same person?"

LOL, very very unlikely that The Saker is impersonating/impersonated by anyone else, he is a guenuine, died in wool, religious nutjob, that cannot be easily faked.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2014 11:40 utc | 76

"Car bomb" in Kiev doesn't sound like much as the driver survived. It was probably just some Ukie asshat with a trunk full of weapons and a leaky gas tank. A real car bomb would have wreaked havoc.

Posted by: Gareth | Jun 7 2014 13:05 utc | 77

The line by Ann Richards about George W Bush - i.e., "he was born on 3rd base thinking he hit a triple" - can effortlessly transferred/extrapolated to nearly every endeavor/aspect of American life as it is a - if not THE - main thrust of US propaganda.

No matter how many natural and/or aleatoric advantages the US and American people may have it will always be presented as the result of
Merka's "exceptional" character and position in the course of world history. Nothing can escape the "black hole" of American exceptionalism not even the deaths of tens of millions of people who gave their lives in an effort which the US ultimately benefited from immensely.

Going back to the big O's "exceptional" speech, I just wanted to note how perfectly crafted the crazy effing shit TPTB spew is as it's presented. As noted by many, O basically just told the world to eff off and that he was "all-in" with the psychotic posturing and commission of war crimes that the US has been involved in for decades. By coupling/peppering his comments with terms such as the "middle class" "social media" "United Nations" "IMF" and sundry other rhetorical diversions the impression on the vast majority of the peons is: boring! and NOT, hey, wait a sec, that's some crazy motherfucking criminal shit right there. There are more than enough topics/items in O's speech that are "safe" to discuss and will keep the faux "debates/discussions" among the "social aware" at DKos etc going on until the next time TPTB need to tell the world that they're going to keep on murdering/maiming/stealing/displacing innocent people in their continued war of aggression.

I mean, if I had had a conversation with Ted Bundy I'm sure he wouldn't have spent the ENTIRE time speaking to how he murdered women and fucked their corpses.

Nah, he probably could wax equally eloquently on how well the American legal system worked and how the Republican Party was doing God's work in going after lazy welfare recipients in the name of protecting middle class values/ethics. How's your short game, Ted? Wanna go hit some?

People have to truly begin to understand that you have to stop listening COMPLETELY to these war criminals. Don't let them dazzle with their nonsense as it does NOT change the fact that they are INDEED war criminals.

Oh, but O said that the US was preventing terrible crimes in Congo and Sudan.

And I'm sure Bundy whispered sweet nothings into the rotting women's heads littering his bookshelves.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 7 2014 14:22 utc | 78

Re: Churchill. I always find it remarkable how my left-wingers blind themselves to our opponents' strengths. It's entirely possible to be very courageous and to be very courageous in the service of beliefs and policies we consider to be monstrous or evil or both. As we're talking about WWII the Waffen SS are a good example of soldiers who were very brave and very ferocious soldiers they werer very good at fighting and winning battles and many of them behaved heroically. The fact that that heroic behaviour was in the service of a monstrously evil regime does not negate that fact that it was heroic.

Churchill is another example he believed passionately in King and Country and that the best form of governance was that in which people like him had the upper hand. He was physically very brave, the fact that he was a brave soldier in the service of a horrifically racist empire doesn't negate the fact that he was a brave soldier. He was an imperialist and a racist, who nevertheless recognised fascism for the evil it was and had the moral and political courage to say so at a time when doing that was to risk his own career.

The opponents who are NOT unalloyed evil storybook fairytale villains are the ones who are very dangerous - they're dangerous precisely because among their characteristics such as being racist or imperialist or whatever they also have qualities that most people consider to be laudable and therefore attractive.


Posted by: Dubhaltach | Jun 7 2014 17:17 utc | 79

Damn I wish this thing had an 'edit' function the first sentence should read:

Re: Churchill. I always find it remarkable how my fellow left-wingers blind themselves to our opponents' strengths.

Posted by: Dubhaltach | Jun 7 2014 17:19 utc | 80

@Seiji #67:

allied strategic bombing was a crucial factor in Germany's defeat.

That's highly unlikely. Wars are won by destroying armies gaining and subsequeently controlling territory, not by bombing factories and civilian areas.

Strategic bombing is a specifically American doctrine, and its effectiveness is debated to this day.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 7 2014 17:53 utc | 81

Operation Bagration certainly calls into question the claim that 800,000 Hungarian Jews were herded by train to Auschwitz from June 1944 to the end of August 1944. Especially when it would have required a change of trains because of the train gauge size. The train gauges throughout the Carpathian mountains are narrow. The German tracks going into Auschwitz are wide-gauge. Also, 800,000 people would have required 8,000 cars. And the fuel for that?

Posted by: MRW | Jun 7 2014 21:32 utc | 82

@JSorrentine 78
USA is and has been committing terrible crimes (mainly via its proxy, Kagame), in DRC. We are at about 10M dead now, since the late 90s. Iraq was a sideshow. But then we'd have to get into the fraudulent matter of the standard history of Rwanda 1994.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 7 2014 21:40 utc | 83

@81 I suspect you don't know the first thing about how wars are fought and won. Devastating an enemies ability to create munitions, vehicles and other materiel can have a significant impact.

@83 What happened after Kagame came to power is one thing, but the better part of a million people were murdered in Rwanda in 1994. What are you claiming is fradulent about the 'standard history'? I hope you're not going to try and engage in apologetics for Hutu Power.

Posted by: Seiji | Jun 8 2014 6:54 utc | 84

Posted by: Seiji | Jun 8, 2014 2:54:10 AM | 84

From the New York Times on UN inaction in Rwanda

The ball was not only dropped by the U.S., it was blocked by the U.S.

But the data were there, said Ms. DesForges. She said that Administration officials ignored clear warnings before before the massacres began on April 6, 1994. Those massacres were mostly committed by Hutu militia against minority Tutsi civilians and the moderate Hutu opposition.

''They ignored a letter of warning from high military officers in the Rwandan Army in December 1993 about plans for widespread violence,'' she said. ''They ignored a very explicit telegram of Jan. 11, 1994, sent to the U.N. and the U.S. Ambassador from an informant, detailing the preparations of the militias to kill Tutsi. And they ignored a C.I.A. study at the end of January 1994 which suggested that if combat were to begin in Rwanda, that it would include violence against civilians -- with a worst-case scenario of the deaths of half a million people.''

On May 3, 1994, while the massacres were raging, President Clinton signed a major foreign policy order, Presidential Decision Directive 25. It narrowly defined the national interest in the fate of a small, faraway, unimportant place like Rwanda, whose collapse would not directly affect the United States or breach international security. The policy blocked the United States from acting to stop the killing.

That month, Administration spokesmen were instructed not to use the word ''genocide'' in referring to Rwanda. The word made it harder for the United States to explain doing nothing.

Mr. Clinton acknowledged for the first time today that ''we did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide.'' He used the word 11 times.

from Australia, the age

It is early 1997. Just days before, Hourigan has used a secure phone in the US embassy to brief the head of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Judge Louise Arbour, about his team's discovery. They have obtained incendiary information linking the Tutsi rebel leader and now Rwandan President Paul Kagame to the incident precipitating the Rwandan genocide — the shooting down in April 1994 of a plane carrying Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana and the president of Burundi, Cyprien Ntaryamira. ... But last November, almost a decade after Hourigan writes the memo, claims that Kagame is behind the plane crash make international headlines. The claims are made by French anti-terror judge Jean-Louis Brugiere, who finds Kagame and his aides responsible for the attack.

Brugiere's findings follow years of speculation about the existence of Hourigan's memo and what happened to his original investigation. The French case confirms the central claims in Hourigan's memo. It raises questions about why the UN cut short Hourigan's inquiry and, once again, highlights the organisation's failure to deliver justice.

From San Francisco

KPFA Weekend News Anchor David Rosenberg: Former president Bill Clinton flew into Kigali, Rwanda this week to, reportedly, officiate at the opening of a cancer prevention and treatment center. Critics of Clinton and the Pentagon's longstanding partnership with Rwanda and Congo think he's really there to do damage control after the latest report by the UN Panel of Experts, which offered photographic and documentary evidence that Rwanda is behind the M23 militia led by ICC indicted war criminal Bosco Ntaganda. It was that militia which resumed the war in eastern Congo in April.

KPFA's Ann Garrison spoke to Rwanda Genocide survivor and human rights activist Aimable Mugara about Bill Clinton's alliance with Rwandan President Paul Kagame.


KPFA: You wrote an essay, "Bill Clinton, the genocider who just might get away," published in the San Francisco Bay View and the OpEdNews. "Genocider" seemed to be an attempt at an English translation of the French term "genocidaire," which means "someone who commits genocide." Could you explain why you gave the piece that title?

Aimable Mugara: Absolutely.The reason why I deeply believe that Bill Clinton is a "genocider" or "genocidaire" is because everything that happened in Rwanda and Congo, the big massacres that happened in Rwanda and Congo were done using the United States government support to General Kagame. And this support was military weapons, financial support, and political support. So without that support by the United States, I really don't think the Great Lakes Region of Africa would have been transformed into the death ground that it became in the 90s. And even after he was not in power anymore, Bill Clinton continues to support General Kagame, despite so many credible sources that have shown how Kagame's forces have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possible genocide.

KPFA: And, when you say that the U.S. supplied weapons and other forms of support to the wars and massacres in the Great Lakes Region, you're including not only Rwanda and Uganda's invasions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, beginning in 1996, but also General Kagame's invasion of Rwanda from Uganda in 1990, which ended in the ethnic massacres of 1994, which then became the justification for Kagame's repeated invasions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Is that right?

Aimable Mugara: Absolutely. Basically, when Kagame invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1990, that was an international crime of aggression. Typically what happens in those situations is for the aggressor to be sanctioned, but in the case of Kagame, the U.S. government instead protected him at the United Nations against any sanctions, and continued to provide the weapons and training and all kinds of support to his rebels who then went on to cause the largest killings ever in that region.

BBC on the same subject

So much for "problems from hell".

Posted by: somebody | Jun 8 2014 10:50 utc | 85

Apologies for off-topic:
@Seiji, Somebody
The 'Genocide Fax' is a very interesting document. It was sent from a British base to UN headquarters, in 1995 (sic), when Madeleine Albright's son-in-law, Gourevitch, needed it for pro-Kagame propaganda. It was used in subsequent Rwandan trials, without annotation as to source. Its ultimate source is a fellow by the name of Abu Bakar Turatsinze, who was hired as a chauffeur by Habyarimana, as the latter expected him to be a good driver, as he was expected not to drink, being a Muslim. The document alleged to concern the murder of opposition political leaders.

Romeo Dallaire denied (in 1994) to CBC that there was an ethnic component to the conflict. In 1995, he admitted to CBC French radio that he had sought the withdrawal of the UN peacekeepers (as per his and Kagame's wishes, against the wishes of Hutu president Habyarimana). He had also seen to the closing of one of the two functioning runways, so as to ease Kagame's assassination of Habyarimana. The US shut down Hourigan's investigation.

The Rwandan government lacked the heavy weaponry to conduct the genocide (see Hilberg's Destruction on what happens when people have to conduct a genocide up front and personal), going so far as to return an Egyptian shipment of ammunition ordered before Kagame's invasion, per implementation of article II of the Arusha accords (although the US and Canada continued to flout this, by arming Kagame during the subsequent 3 and a half years). Kagame was ethnically cleansing entire regions (Rwanda's breadbasket went from about 800 thousand people to 2700 people under his tutelage, before 1994). As Rwanda had only 600 thousand Tutsi citizens in 1990, and as half were killed (Ibuka numbers---Ibuka was a Tutsi human rights organization, and one of the few more or less legit organizations operating in Rwanda, as most were formed after Kagame's invasion, and one formed the day before Kagame's invasion, in likely anticipation, as none of the human rights organizations reported on Kagame's crimes), it is obvious that the majority of the dead were Hutu. None of the opposition parties (legalized in 1991, on a promise of Habyarimana in 1990 prior to the invasion) commanded much support, so the 'moderate vs extremist' line is so much nonsense.

Much is made of the term 'Inyenzi' (cockroaches) to hint at genocidal intent. This is a bit problematic, as the term refers to aristocratic refugee Tutsis who fled Rwanda in 1959, during the anti-feudal revolution, during which 20 thousand Tutsis were murdered, and 120 thousand Tutsis fled abroad, mainly to Congo-Kinshasa, Tanzania and Uganda (Kagame was of the last group---he fled to Uganda at age seven). Many of these Tutsis would form terrorist organizations, that would infiltrate back into Rwanda periodically and murder Hutu peasants. They would come in teams of six or twelve, thus the name Inyenzi, by analogy to the number of legs of an insect. See Lemarchand's Rwanda and Burundi.

The 'Inyenzi' business is usually cited in the context of governmental and pro-government radio broadcasts; the transcripts of these are available online. Note that there is massive outrage against Kagame's crimes, and likening of his forces with the Inyenzi (well, gee, could we call them Inyenzi II, given Kagame's class background and land of refuge?), yet sympathy is expressed for Tutsi civilians. Note that the Interahamwe is seen as a defensive force, protecting against Kagame's violence; the head of the Interahamwe, Robert Kajuga, is a Tutsi.

For a detailed account, see Robin Philpot's Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa.

Kagame was one of Museveni's fighters, and ran a massive child-soldier operation (Kony is small fry); this continued in Rwanda, when he invaded and took power, and he used child soldiers to get rid of Mobutu---the left was very naive in this regard. When Kabila senior took power, he eventually turned against Kagame, thus the continuing Rwandan (RPF/Kagame) genocide there.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 8 2014 16:42 utc | 86

Forgot to add: Lemarchand's book (re the term Inyenzi) was published in 1970, so no, it is not genocidal apologetics.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 8 2014 16:47 utc | 87

You type a lot and somehow manage to not say much of anything.

"The Rwandan government lacked the heavy weaponry to conduct the genocide"

Machetes aren't exactly heavy equipment. And how do explain the massive amounts of eyewitness testimony? Not to mention all the video and photographic evidence. You're also claiming Kagame had Habyarimana killed, which is contradicted by all the evidence. This really is Hutu Power apologetics, I wasn't actually expecting to see anyone engage in that.

Posted by: Seiji | Jun 8 2014 19:58 utc | 88

@Seiji And allied strategic bombing was a crucial factor in Germany's defeat. German war production was, near the end of the war, 1944, was much higher than it had been at any time since the start of the fighting. Its as though the strategic bombing was in fact bout little more than "racking up a high body count" as you say.

I would also hazard a guess that young people are far from ignorant of Russia's military contribution, given the number of video games that feature them. Sure, but many of those games - even ones you cited specifically - portray the Soviet Union as some sort of evil force interested in killing its own. I would suggest watching this takedown of the propaganda masterpiece Company of Heroes 2. It is an excellent expose that even hits out at the B.S. of Solzhenitsyn.

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 8 2014 20:03 utc | 89

As for ColdHeart DickHead, it's funny how the mask always eventually comes off. Here I thought he was your run of the mill American-Exceptionalist gas bag, but todays comments expose him for the full on 100% nazi shitstain he is.

But then could it be that I'm naive for even making the distinction? Maybe all American-Exceptionalist gas bags are 100% nazi shitstains? Could that be? He wouldn't be the first one here (you know who you are, you fucks).

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 8 2014 20:06 utc | 90

Here is a real pig - Roman in the Ukraine who subtitles his blog: "Searching for free market philosophies in Ukraine."

He could have just subtitled his blog "I'm an asshole" and I'd have gotten the same impression. But he does have the info about Patton's idea that he could roll over the Soviets and their "chicken coops".

Which leads all into a wild conspiracy theory which involves a CIA/OSS - Soviet combo assassinating Patton for holding such wild ideas (though if true, I would suggest that it amounts to the single moral act of the American Intelligence).

It's an interesting question though - what if Patton's ideas were followed? I'd suggest that it would have been impossible. At the end of the war, the CPUSA and related unions were extremely powerful, and as bevin notes, it took a massive propaganda campaign (and the anti-democratic, near totalitarian methods of McCarthy) to take the shine off of the alliance.

So - my guess? A total failure. It may have amounted to a massive strike wave and possible revolution in the United States at home and in the US Army in Europe. Which, in either case, would have halted the campaign soon after it started - Soviet reliance on their "chicken coops" and "cattle on the hoof" or not.

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 8 2014 20:18 utc | 91

The machetes was all that they had at that point, versus Kagame's mortars and the like.

The evidence was quite clear that it was Kagame. And nowadays, the 'Hutu extremists shot down the plane' line is somewhat muted, especially since the prosecutor who did the investigation has come forward (i.e. Hourigan).

But as I said, conducting a genocide with machetes, or even automatics, is no way to go about the matter. Starvation and depersonalised death produces far less disciplinary problems (see the Nazi case, thus the switch to gas mobiles, later gas chambers, thanks Walter Rauff).

In the Rwandan case, you have plenty of eyewitnesses for individual atrocities (although Kagame's Pinochet-style international assassination habits have a habit of shutting people up, so we hear much less about his atrocities). But the numbers speak for themselves.

But all of this is off-topic, so if you want to pursue it further, maybe another blog?

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 8 2014 20:25 utc | 92


But the 'You type alot but say very little' is standard Tutsi power / genocidal apologetics. We can all play that game.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 8 2014 20:27 utc | 93

@ Seiji | 88

This really is Hutu Power apologetics, I wasn't actually expecting to see anyone engage in that.

So you are US and their puppets apologist? I wasn't actually expecting to see anyone to be THAT naive.

US wanted to see tutsi puppets in power, and they did it - by all means necessary, as usual. Hutu werent the ones who started that mess, and while they had their share of committed genocide, it was mutual. Difference is, tutsis after provoking massacres did genocide with US provided weapons, support and training (and protection from UN investigation), against hutu with machetes, what do you think was more massive?

US also helped genocide to go full scale and thus demanded for peacekeepers to leave while vetoing any UN intervention to stop massacres, while US puppets were doing "their work". What you know is only official US propaganda, which has little truth in it.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 8 2014 20:43 utc | 94

Jesus, it amazes me how many biased fools write on this blog!!

Firstly, WWII "history" is bunk, a pile of lies, half truths and distortions put up by, obviously, allied propagandists and since then carried on by court historians. Be it Zanglo-Zamerican or Soviet. Most WWII historians, past and present, are court historians,i.e, dirty propagandists.
Both the West and the Soviets( now Russia as the main heir of SU) continue to abuse the facts for self serving motives.

The war was NOT a just war, pitting good vs evil. The main allied powers, ZUSA, the British, France and the SU all had a lot of responsability for the outbreak of the war and for it becoming a global conflict and committed huge war crimes. It was not just the Axis' fault, or even just Germanys fault as nearly 70 years of propaganda would have us believe.

In fact, to understand WWII one needs to go back to the unification of Germany in 1871 and all that happened since.

As for the alleged reason for its start, to protect Poland, the whole thing is a joke. The whole pact with Poland was designed to get a war with Poland going. Funny that Britain and France then declared war on Germany but of course did not do the same when the soviets invaded from the east taking 60% of the country. No, they and later ZUSA, would in fact fight on the side of the stalinist regime, certainly a much more brutal regime than the hitlerian one. Plus, in going to war against Germany, the British and French leaders transformed what was then a geographically limited clash between Germany and Poland into a continental, European-wide conflict. And when the guns finally went silent Poland was firmy... NOT FREE, but instead was entirely under the brutal rule of the Stalinists. Oh, er, my mistake, it was indeed 'free' as it was 'liberated' by Stalin, who, according to the many fools here, was a nice chap and the SU a peace loving country...NOT.

ZAmerica's two most important military allies in the war were Great Britain and the Soviet Union – that is, the world's foremost imperialist power, and the world's cruelest tyranny.

At the outbreak of war in 1939, Britain ruled over the largest colonial empire in history. This vast empire included what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa.

ZAmerica's other great wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was, by any objective measure, one of the most tyrannical or oppressive regime of its time, and a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler's Germany. One should not forget about the French empire either, or ZUSA's, for that matter(Philippines, Pacific possessions, Central America).

The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were cangaroo courts, show trials.

B has made the correct point that Bagration was more important than Normandy. Its actually bigger than that. the war did not begin in the summer of 44. By then, the Germans had been decimated on the Eastern front. Large numbers of the best, most experienced german forces had already been killed or captured. The totalitarian stalinist regime was the main force behind the axis defeat, given that Germany was by far the most formidable axis opponent, military-wise.

Also, take a look at the wiki articles linked by b. It helps one understand the way propaganda plays out. The wiki articles are based on 'historians' work of these campaigns. Troop strenghts and casualties are generally wrong. German troop strenght in Normandy was NEVER up to 1 million men. While the allied casualty figures stem from allied military archives, the German figures are stupid and bloated allied 'estimates'.
Why don't these mostly anglo-american 'historians', people like 'Aple-pie Ambrose' and sir j.Keegan, work from German archival materials? Because they are lazy but also bc they wish to present the allied victory as more convincing, thus they generally inflate german troop strenght and german losses.

No more than 640,000 Germans fought or supported the operations in Normandy, so the western allies had ample numeric superiority, better than the Soviets in the summer of 44. When the allies finally succeeded to break out, launching Cobra, the germans had about 380,000 men in Normandy vs nearly 1.5 million anglo-american-canatdians,etc.
A manpower advantage 3.8 : 1. Soviet advantage was 2.7 : 1.
German casualties for all of the Western front, NOT JUST Normandy for the summer 44, June,July,Aug were as follows(from german military archives):
some 90,000 killed or wounded(23,000 KIA). About 200 thousand were captured. Normandy casualties were smaller.
The allies suffered badly to achieve this; over 190,000 were killed or wounded in the same period. As they won, not so many were captured.

The battle in White Russia cost the Germans worse losses. 136,000 kia or mia plus some 263,000 pows.

Whats more, the average quality of the german divisions lost in the east was quite higher than in the west where there were many static, green infantry formations.

As for Toivos 4.5 million german killed in wwII.
Well bud, on the eastern front, from june 41 to 31 dec 44 - close to the end of the war - the germans suffered 885,802 kia, 3,448.000, and over 1.1 million captured. So, even when we factor in that a percentage of the wounded died later, we cannot reach anywhere close to more the 4 million military deaths. Which, indirectly, shines some light on one of the many taboos of the war, the huge number of german pows who died in captivity. Not only in the hands of the soviets but also the french and zamericans.

If 'historians' make gross 'mistakes' re troop strengths and losses in order to make their side look better(there is incompetence too, a norm in the field), to what lenghts would they be willing to go in order to distort the stuff that really matters?

It's funny how people who come to this blog mostly only recognize propaganda when it suits their prejudices and pre-conceived notions while ignoring all the propaganda carried out by the allies against the axis countries, notably against Germany, possibly the most maligned nation ever. The propaganda has been non-stopping for more than 7 decades, with cinema and tv playing a particularly pernicious role.

Lastly, let me recommend Alison Weirs great new book, "Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel', can be found at Amazon.

Posted by: Luca K | Jun 8 2014 22:48 utc | 95


That's a pretty pathetic takedown. Right out of the gate he misrepresents the scene where the soldiers are mown down my machinegun fire. They aren't being forced to defend their country, they're being forced to make a suicidal charge. The fact is that Order 227 was a thing that actually existed. You can criticize the game for being lazy and presenting an unfair, Enemy at the Gates inspired stereotype of the Eastern Front, but calling the writers Nazis and claiming it's a propaganda piece is asinine. The fact is that a huge number of those 20 million dead are because the Soviet military had horrifically bad leadership in the early years of the war, in large part because of the repeated purges of the officers corps, which are also verifiable historical facts. They had a similarly poor showing in the Winter War with Finland, where they suffered massive losses not because the Finns were tactical geniuses or supersoldiers but because the Red Army had cripplingly stupid leadership.

As for Solzhenitsyn's "BS", I'm sure a 20 year old kid who has probably never even spent a night in jail is in a position to question the claims of a man who literally spent years in the gulags he wrote about. The worst you can say about Solzhenitsyn is that his exact figures are unreliable because he was guessing. My copy of Gulag Archipelago notes that in the damn introduction. That doesn't invalidate his experiences, interviews, and investigative journalism on the subject. The political prisons existed, millions of people were sent to them, including many WW2 veterans who had shed blood for their country.


If you want to have a discussion about whether Kagame was right to even be waging his war in the first place, or about the horrors he's inflicted on the Congo, by all means. He may even be a US puppet. But that doesn't change the fact that the Rwandan genocide happened. Are you claiming he's the one who did it? So, what, he and his army wandered around the countryside for three months and killed hundreds of thousands of their own people and then blamed the Hutu for it? Is Romeo Dallaire full of shit and his account fabricated? And all the other journalism and investigation about the subject?

Posted by: Seiji | Jun 9 2014 5:39 utc | 96

I'm saying Kagame killed the majority of the Hutu dead in the three months, and of course, as is now public record (irrespective of how much genocide whine his apologetists put up), he was on a mass ethnic cleansing/mass killing spree from much earlier.

As to Dallaire, he is so full of shit, one wonders where to begin. I've already put up two of his early statements that contradict his current line. And I've already put up the fact that he was an instigator, by enabling Kagame's assassination of Habyarimana. I'll add in this post that he was running a de facto taxi service for the RPF.

The 'wandering around the countryside' bit is rich, considering that he took over the entire country in the three months, and even ethnically cleansed (for a second time) the population of the breadbasket, the second time from refugee camps north of Kigali into Congo-Kinshasa, where he proceded to shell their refugee camps, 'to find genocidaires' (sic---his justification, with US and Canadian support). This was of course not his Congo genocide---that would start about 5 years later. Then he (with US and Canadian support) forcibly repatriated them into Rwanda, without allowing them to go back to their lands. Tutsi Feudalism, part II.

As to the minority of deaths over which you obsess, namely the Tutsi deaths (the 1991 census stands, and it was conducted by a unity government that included Kagame partisans; even HRW in their screed on the matter had to acknowledge that the 1991 census had, within variance, the expected Tutsi population considering the previous census and Tutsi birth rates, though they declined to apply the modus tollens and conclude that therefor the census was legitimate), they were mainly killed by Hutu groups (although the Tutsi deaths in the breadbasket region of course predate 1994, and were thus perpetrated by Kagame, but facts are so irrelevant when they contradict the western party line). But then again, tongues have become looser in the subsequent years, and we now know that Kagame had more than 150 Tutsi terrorist cells in Kigali alone. That of course does not justify the destruction of half the Tutsi population (300 thousand, the rest being Hutus murdered mainly by Kagame), but it does put to rest the whole 'long premeditated' psychobabble. We are of course talking about terrorist strikes against civilian infrastructure, including the natural gas state enterprise, the electricity and water state enterprises, etc.

I should repeat that Kagame's ethnic cleansing and murder campaign in the three months was merely a stepping up (by a factor of 100) of his conduct the previous three and a half years. And this of course he could readily do, because propaganda aside, the majority of the dead were not hacked, not least of all (falling back on Dallaire's propaganda in 'They fight like soldiers, they die like children,' here) because malnourished refugee children in clown suits simply don't have the physical strength to hack up other children with machetes, let alone adults. Depersonalised killing, as exercised by Kagame, i.e. using his long range weapons, like your nazi friends in Ukraine, just works much better at killing or otherwise causing the death (infrastructure disruption) of large groups of people.

And again, all of this is irrelevant to the O/P, so again, I suggest we switch to a different blog.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 9 2014 14:41 utc | 97

@Seiji Most of the journalism comes from people who were led around by Dallaire (see e.g. War Junkie---a number of rather embarrassing confessions in that one), or by people interpreting events around them based on accounts such as HRW.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 9 2014 17:36 utc | 98

In fairness to Dallaire though, his books were ghostwritten, and the ghostwriters relied largely on materials from the Kangaroo courts of the ICTY/R and Kagame's Kangaroo courts.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 9 2014 17:46 utc | 99

This is a history puff piece, the great Russian sacrifice. Let me fix it for you. The Russians in concert/agreement with the Germans based upon the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939 invaded several central and eastern European as well as Baltic countries. The Russians either killed or forcefully deported an estimated 6 million people of which a quarter died. The Russians sent millions of central and eastern Europeans to Siberia to die in work camps under slave conditions. Both the Russians and Germans committed mass genocide on many of these peoples, re-populating these areas with ethnically Russian or German populations. The Germans subsequently launched Operation Barbarossa betraying their former ally and pushed the Russians back into their borders after which they orchestrated their own genocide in these regions that the Russians had occupied focusing on the Jewish, homosexual, and gypsy populations. The Russians finally made a counteroffensive, re-invaded the central European countries followed by Eastern Germany in concert with the Allied forces on the western front. Due to significant shortages, the Russians enlisted many of these same starving central/eastern Europeans and Baltic peoples that they had sent to Siberia to fight in their armies or within independent (Communist-led) units. They also sat at the edges of Eastern and Central European cities while their respective inhabitants engaged in street warfare with the Germans, (See Warsaw uprising) while prohibiting the Allied forces from providing air support to these resistance fighters lest they represent an opposition to their puppet regimes later. At this point they orchestrated another genocide sending untold populations of soldiers, resistance fighters, and anyone left with any authority to Siberia again, plundered these reoccupied areas and eastern Germany, raped untold populations of women, and propped up oppressive totalitarian regimes across central and eastern Europe which existed for the next 40 years. I am not defending the Americans or Western Europeans. The Europeans certainly could have stopped the Germans early on if they had taken the threat seriously before the full strength of the German war machine had mobilized. But, come on buddy, can I get some of what you have been smoking?

Posted by: Stelios Theoharidis | Jun 9 2014 20:22 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.