By Dr. Valentin Falin and Victor Litovkin
March 22, 2005
The Wiles of the West
RIA Novosti is continuing to publish conversations between Valentin Falin, who has a Ph.D. in historical sciences, with the agency's military commentator Viktor Litovkin. They have spoken of the little known pages in World War II that were previously classified and sometimes had a decisive influence on the progress and outcome of the hostilities. #1
Question: World War II's modern historians have different opinions about its final stage. Some experts maintain that the war could have ended much earlier, as Marshal Chuikov wrote in his memoirs. Others argue that it could have dragged on for another year. Which of them is closer to the truth? And what is the truth? What is your personal opinion?
Answer: Modern historians are not the only ones who argue about this question. The war's length and end were even discussed during the war itself. They have been constant since 1942. Or, to be more exact, this question worried politicians and the military since 1941, when an overwhelming majority of statesmen, including Roosevelt and Churchill, did not believe that the Soviet Union would hold out for longer than four to six weeks. Only Benes believed and maintained that the Soviet Union would do what it did and finally defeat Germany.
Q.: As far as I remember, Eduard Benes was President of Czechoslovakia in exile. After the Munich deal of 1938 and the country's occupation, he was in Britain, right?
A.: Yes. Then, when these assessments and evaluations of our viability proved wrong, when Germany suffered its first strategic defeat under Moscow, the opinion changed drastically. The West began voicing concerns that the Soviet Union could emerge too powerful out of the war. And if it became too powerful it would determine the future face of Europe, according to Adolf Berle, the then US Assistant Secretary of State, who coordinated the work of American intelligence. This view was shared even by people around Churchill, including very respectable people who before and during the war worked on the doctrine of the British armed forces' operations and the overall British policy.
This, in large part, explains why Churchill was against opening the second front in 1942, although Lord Beaverbrook and Sir Richard Stafford Cripps in the British leadership and, especially, Dwight Eisenhower and other designers of US military plans believed that there were technical and other preconditions to defeating Germany in 1942. They took advantage of the fact that most German forces were deployed in the east and the 2,000-km coast of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Germany itself was open for the allies' intervention. At that time the Nazis did not have any permanent defense facilities along the Atlantic coast.
Moreover, the American military insisted and tried to persuade Roosevelt (there are several memorandums written by Eisenhower on the issue) that the second front was necessary, it was possible and its opening would make the war in Europe short and would force Germany to capitulate if not in 1942, then in 1943 at the latest.
Yet this did not suit Britain and numerous conservative figures on the American Mount Olympus.
Q.: Who do you mean?
A.: Well, the whole State Department headed by Cordell Hall was extremely unfriendly towards the Soviet Union. This explains why Roosevelt did not take Hall to the Tehran Conference and the Secretary of State received the protocols from the Big Three meetings only six months after Tehran. The irony is that the Reich's political intelligence brought the same protocols to Hitler in three or four weeks. Life is full of paradoxes.
After the Battle of Kursk in 1943, where the Wehrmacht was defeated, American and British chiefs of staff, as well as Churchill and Roosevelt, held a meeting in Quebec on August 20. They discussed whether the United States and Britain should withdraw from the anti-Hitler coalition and unite with Nazi generals for a joint war against theSoviet Union.
Q.: Why?
A.: Because the ideology of Churchill and those in Washington who shared it maintained that "these Russian barbarians should be held up" as far as possible in the East, weakening the USSR as much as possible, if not defeating it, first of all, with German hands. This is how the task was set.
It was Churchill's very old plan. He developed the idea in his conversations with General Kutepov back in 1919. The Americans, British and French failed and could not suppress Soviet Russia, he said. This task should be given to the Japanese and Germans. He gave similar instructions to Bismarck, the first secretary of the German embassy in London in 1930. In the first world war the Germans behaved like idiots, he maintained. Instead of concentrating on destroying Russia, they began war on two fronts. If they dealt only with Russia, England would have neutralized France.
For Churchill it was not so much war against the Bolsheviks as it was the continuation of the Crimean war of 1853-1856 when Russia, for better or for worse, was trying to impede British expansion.
Q.: In Transcaucasia, Central Asia, and the oil-rich Middle East...
A.: Naturally. Consequently, talking about different variants of waging war against Nazi Germany, we should not forget about the different attitudes towards the allies' philosophy, towards England's and America's obligations to Moscow.
I will digress from the issue for a second. In 1954 or 1955, Ghent hosted a priests' symposium devoted to the question of whether or not angels kissed each other. After many days of debates, the symposium concluded that they did, but without passion. Relations within the anti-Hitler coalition were somehow similar to this whim of the angles, if not the kiss of Judas. The promises were given without commitments or, worse, to mislead the Soviet partner.
Let me recall that this tactics disrupted the talks between the Soviet Union, Britain and France in August 1939, when something still could have been done to contain the Nazi aggression. Yet they defiantly left no choice for the Soviet leaders, but to sign a non-aggression treaty with Germany. They left us exposed to the Nazi military machine, which was getting ready to strike. I can quote a directive formulated in Neville Chamberlain's office that said that if London could not avoid an agreement with the Soviet Union, the British signature should not mean that, if the Germans attacked the USSR, Britain would come to help the victim and declare war on Germany. He said that they should have an opportunity to say that Britain and the Soviet Union had different interpretations of facts.
Q.: There is a well-known historical example, that, when in 1939, Germany attacked Poland, the British ally, London declared war on Berlin, but did not take a single serious move to really aid Warsaw.
A.: In our case, not even a formal declaration of war was at issue. The Tories assumed that the German machine would go as far as the Urals, leveling everything on its way. And no one will be left to lament England's wile.
These ties between times and events existed during the war and gave food for thought. And I believe this thought was not all too optimistic for us.
Q.: Let's get back to 1944-1945. Could we have ended the war before May?
A.: Let's put the question this way: why was the allied landing planned for 1944? No one focuses on this issue. Yet the date was not randomly chosen. The West took into account our huge losses of soldiers, officers and weapons in Stalingrad. Losses in Kursk were also big. We lost more tanks than the Germans.
In 1944 the country was conscripting 17-year-olds. The villages were almost empty. Boys born between 1926-1927 were not drafted only if they worked at defense plants - their directors did not let them go.
The American and British intelligence assessed the outlook and agreed that by spring 1944, the Soviet Union would have exhausted its offensive potential. It would have run out of human resources and unable to deal the Wehrmacht a blow comparable to the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. It meant that by the time of the allied landing we would be stuck in confrontation with the Nazis and cede the strategic initiative to the United States and Britain.
Even conspiracy against Hitler was planned to coincide with the landing. The generals brought to power in the Reich were to dissolve the Western Front and allow the Americans and British to occupy Germany and "liberate" Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Austria... The Red Army was to be stopped within the 1939 borders.
Q.: I remember that America and Britain even made a landing in Hungary, near Balaton, in order to seize Budapest, but the Germans destroyed all of them...
A.: That was not so much a landing force, but more a contact group to establish connections with Hungarian anti-Nazi forces. However, this was not the only failure. Hitler survived the attempt on his life, Rommel was severely wounded and got out of the game, although the West had counted on him. Other generals lost their nerve. And what happened - happened. America did not get an easy march across Germany to triumphant music. They got involved in battles, sometimes intense ones, for example, the Ardennes operation. Nevertheless, they were progressing towards their goals. Sometimes very cynically.
Let me give you a specific example. U.S. troops approached Paris. A rebellion broke out there. The Americans stopped 30 km from the city and waited for the Germans to destroy the rebels, because most of them were Communists. The number of the victims there were from 3,000 to 5,000 people, according to different sources. But the rebels gained control and only then did the Americans take Paris. The same happened in the south of France.
But let us get back to the period we began with.
Q.: The winter of 1944-1945.
A.: Yes. In the autumn of 1944 several meetings took place in Germany, chaired by Hitler and then on his order by General Alfred Jodl and Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. The main idea was as follows: if they could give the Americans a good whipping, the United States and Britain would become very interested in the talks that had been held secretly from Moscow in 1942-1943.
Berlin planned the Ardennes operation not to win the war, but to spoil relations between the West and the Soviet Union. The United States was to understand how strong Germany still was, how important it was for the Western powers in their confrontation with the Soviet Union. And that the allies did not have enough strength or will to stop the Red Army when it came close to German territory.
Hitler emphasized that no one would speak to a country in trouble, only when the Wehrmacht would have shown that it was powerful would talks begin.
Suddenness was the trump card. The allies took the winter quarters, believing that Alsace and the Ardennes mountains were a perfect place for a vacation and a bad one for hostilities. The Germans, however, intended to break through to Rotterdam and to cut the Americans off the Dutch ports. This circumstance was to determine the western campaign.
The launch of the Ardennes operation was postponed several times. Germany did not have enough forces. And it began in the winter of 1944, when the Red Army fought its hardest battles in Hungary, near Balaton and Budapest. At stake were the last sources of oil - in Austria and some in Hungary, which were controlled by Germany.
This was one of the reasons why Hitler decided to defend Hungary despite everything. And why in the thick of the Ardennes operation and immediately before the Alsace operation he in fact began withdrawing forces from the West and sending them to the Soviet-Hungarian front. The main force of the Ardennes operation, the SS 6th tank army, was withdrawn from the Ardennes and sent to Hungary...
Q.: To [the town of] Hajmáskér.
A.: In fact, the redeployment began even before Roosevelt's and Churchill's panicked address to Stalin, when they, if we translate the diplomatic language into common terms, begged: help, save us, we are in trouble!
And we have evidence that Hitler thought that if our allies had so often left us exposed and obviously waited to see whether Moscow would hold out and the Red Army survive, then we could do the same. In 1941 they waited for the Soviet capital to fall, in 1942 not only Turkey and Japan, but also the United States waited for us to surrender Stalingrad to reconsider their policies. The allies did not even share with us such intelligence information as the German plans of onslaught via the Don towards the Volga and on to the Caucasus, and so on.
Q.: If I'm not mistaken, we received this information from the legendary Rote Kapella.
A.: The Americans did not give us any information, although they even knew the dates and times, including the preparations of operation Citadel at the Kursk Bulge.
Of course, we had tangible reasons to see how our allies could wage a war, how much they wanted to wage it and how ready they were to promote their main plan for the operation on the continent, the plan called Rankin. It was not Overlord that was the main one, it was Rankin, which envisaged the establishment of British-American control over alloy Germany and all East European states in order not to admit us there.
When Eisenhower was appointed commander of the second front, he was ordered to prepare Overlord, but always bear Rankin in mind. If there were favorable conditions for Rankin, he was to cancel Overlord and send all forces to Rankin. The revolt in Warsaw was spurred in compliance with this plan, as were many other things.
In this sense, the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 were moments of truth. It was not a war on two fronts, but a war against two adversaries. Formally, the allies wereengaged in hostilities, which was very important for us as they did distract some part of the German forces. Yet their main scheme was to stop, if possible, the Soviet Union, as Churchill said or, as some American generals put it more rudely, "to stop the offspring of Genghiz Khan."
By the way, Churchill formulated this idea in an openly anti-Soviet way in October 1942, when our Nov. 19 counter-offensive under Stalingrand had not yet begun. "We should stop these barbarians as far as possible in the East."
When we talk of our allies, I in no way want to or can undermine the deeds of their soldiers and officers who fought as we did, knowing nothing about political intrigues and their leaders' schemes, they fought honestly and bravely. I am not undermining the help we got under the lend-lease, although we never were the main recipients of it. I am just trying to show how complicated, controversial and dangerous the situation was for us throughout the war till the victory salute. And how difficult it sometimes was to make a decision. We were not simply misled, but over and over left exposed to the enemy's blow.
Q.: Does this mean that the war could indeed have ended much earlier than May 1945?
A.: If I may be absolutely frank, it could have. Yet it is not our country's fault that it had not ended in 1943. It is not our fault. If our allies had been faithful to their allies' duty, if they had fulfilled the commitments to the Soviet Union in 1941, 1942 and in the first half of 1943... But they did not, and the war lasted for another one and a half or two years.
Most importantly, if it had not been for these delays with the opening of the second front, there would have been 10-12 million fewer victims among the Soviet people and the allies, especially in occupied Europe. There would not even have been Auschwitz, for it began working actively only in 1944...
LEST WE FORGET THE IMMORTAL FEATS OF OUR FOREBEARS
† HOME – Dedicated to the Blessed Memory of those millions of valiant men, women, children and old
people who gave their lives in the sacred fighting for the freedom and independence of our Motherland during the Great Patriotic War in 1941 – 1945.
† Germany harps on Communist crimes to hush up Nazi Atrocities, says Wehrmacht's war veteran.
† PATRIARCH – Message by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia on the occasion of the
60th Anniversary of the Glorious Victory in the Great Patriotic War † A unique photo of the Patriarch inside the sanctum sanctorum of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Moscow
† GLANTZ - 1 – American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II
by Colonel David M. Glantz, Part One
† GLANTZ - 2 – Postwar American perspective on Eastern Front operations
by Colonel David M. Glantz, Part Two
† GLANTZ - 3 – Soviet Sources on Eastern Front operations: Perceptions and Reality
by Colonel David M. Glantz, Part Three
† BALTIC – Russia's Baltic policy before World War Two: the Baltic Lands resumed, by Dr. Valentin Falin † An impressive picture: Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin and Marshal Klim Voroshilov in the Kremlin, Moscow, 1938. How to secure the defense of the Motherland, that was the principal concern at the time. As always...
† BARBAROSSA – 1941: Year of the Truth. Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, by Dr. Valentin Falin
† The glorious defense of the Fortress of Brest
† WHY NOT 1943?
† DYKMAN – The Soviet Experience in World War Two: The numbers, the savagery, the differencies between
the war in the East and the West, by J.T. Dykman, the Eisenhower Institute, Washington, D.C.
† WINTER – General Frost: Fighting the Russians in Winter,
by Allen F. Chew, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
"The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge" which is false in both cases! Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by the 'inferior' Russians"
† APPEAL – The most important appeal to the Nation: Stalin's Radio Address, Moscow, 3rd July 1941
"Comrades!
Citizens!
Brothers and sisters!
Men of our Army and Navy! My words are addressed to you, my dear friends!"
† WARLORD – The Supreme Commander-in-Chief: Stalin as Warlord,
by Prof. Gerhard Rempel, Western New England College
† YALTA – The Crimean Conference: A Chance the World Missed, by Dr. Valentin Falin and Victor Litovkin
† CHURCHILL – On the Question of Poland: Statement by Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the House of Commons, 27th February 1945 † The Curzon Line
† VICTORY – The Great Victory in May 1945
The hard-won Victory was achieved by the Soviet Union's "Red Army which tore the guts out of the German Army", as Churchill admitted, in glorious military alliance with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, over the juggernaut of the so-called Axis: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Militarist Japan, and their satellites: Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Finland, and Bulgaria. The Axis states were supported by all the manpower, industry and resources of almost all Continental Europe, North Africa, and South-East Asia under their control.
† Stalin's Orders. Profusely illustrated. The VICTORY webpage also features a unique picture which was never before posted on the Internet: Captive German military banners and standards flung down in dishonour at the Victors' feet after the Great Victory Parade on the Red Square in Moscow on the 24th of June 1945
† FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions
The Body Count and GULAG † The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the Curzon Line and the so-called 4th partition of Poland
WHO WAS STALIN? A World-Known Anti-Soviet Dissident and a Former Rabid Anti-Stalinist Has Said His Say
Click: ALEXANDER ZINOVIEV – "Even a Donkey Can Kick a Dead Lion"
Prof. Grover Furr About Marshal Stalin and his denigrators
This article is a real MUST READ
for anybody who seek for the truth about the Russian Soul
RUSSIA IS A SUPERPOWER – WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
GENOCIDE IN SOUTH OSSETIA IS STOPPED!
Russian armored column is rushing to stop the genocide in South Ossetia
SAVED!
A South Ossetian military man holds a child as he looks at
an armored Russian column arrived to save them from Georgian assault
A PATH TO PEACE IN THE CAUCASUS
By Mikhail Gorbachev, 12 August 2008 The Washington Post
MOSCOW - The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.
The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force – both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar – it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.
Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.
Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.
The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.
What happened on the night of 7th August 2008 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinval with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.
Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.
In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.
Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims – the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend - and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus – a region that should be approached with the greatest care.
When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.
Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.
Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.
The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.
Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.
The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too – but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.
The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank.
RUSSIAN BEAR WILL GROWL THEN BITE DEADLY – IF PROVOKED
Well what did else the West expect? Any self-respecting bear will growl first as a sign to ward of attackers, then pounce and maul them if provoked sufficiently.
Remember the dire fate of Napoleon, Hitler, and all the other bloody murderous scum who dared to insult Holy Russia.
The Russian Bear is confident and proud and looking more for respect in international affairs rather than a fight. But we Russians are always ready to make mincemeat of any aggressor.
With 4,237 strategic Russian warheads, approximately 2,000-3,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000-10,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads Holy Russia is being remarkably well equipped to defend herself and her allies.
RUSSIA IS A SUPERPOWER – WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!
It is incredible!
HOMELESS CHILDREN IN AMERICA
It is incredible for any Russian like myself
to learn about poor homeless people in the West,
and especially about homeless children in America
because formerly we used to consider the USA to be
the wealthiest and happiest country in the world
Obviously, we were wrong in thinking thusly
Friends, I must admit that despite being myself
quite a hardy, tough, and experienced man, as I am
nevertheless
I could not hold back my bitter tears
when I was watching this
extremely heartbreaking video
Click on the picture to watch it yourself
No true Christian can ever watch this video
without tears in the eyes!
Now, you will have to realize
why we Russians love and esteem Stalin:
This is because
Stalin denied the Soviet children
the "freedom" to be homeless
he denied all of us the "freedom"
to sleep and perish in the street
as in America
IN THE SOVIET UNION
NO ONE HAD THE "RIGHT"
EITHER TO BE HOMELESS, OR UNEMPLOYED
OR TO LIVE AND DIE IN THE STREET
HELPLESS AND ABANDONED
AS IN AMERICA
ALL OF THE SOVIET PEOPLE
WERE DENIED SUCH WESTERN "HUMAN RIGHTS"
BY THE STALIN'S REGIME
In this regard I suggest that
you should have a look at the shrewd observations
by an American expat now living in Russia:
click HERE
IS THE WEST HELL?
NO, IT IS NOT HELL
THE WEST IS TERRIBLE HELL
With all its benignity and peoples' fraternity
inasmuch as the former Soviet Union used to serve
so today's Russia continues to serve as an open rebuke
to the Western infernally inhuman and godless way of life
And this is the only true reason
why Russia has been hated, defamed and reviled so much
by the West's ruling class and the media under their control
No wonder!
Some say we are five minutes to a new Cold War
This is a false assertion
In fact, with the NATO Navy entering the Black Sea
THE WORLD IS ONE MINUTE TO A THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR
ARE YOU READY FOR NUCLEAR WAR?
The Mindlessness is Total
By Paul Craig Roberts, August 19 2008
Nothing real issues from the American press, which is about demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too many points.
The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the government, for which it is a spokesperson.
The American media do not serve American democracy or American interests. They serve the few people who exercise power.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.
Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics of the US military.
When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.
The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.
It is obvious that American foreign policy, with its goal of ringing Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government’s insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.
Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.
In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, "our" leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.
This is the final part of an article by P. C. Roberts.
Warning
This video contains images depicting the reality and horror
of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience
with their nerves of steel
Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists
One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.
Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.
#1
#1
