Thursday’s Mini-Report

Isn’t it a shame when cousins marry?

Steve:

Looks like a nazi troll has infiltrated the humble blogsite.

By the way Vic, my family lost over 50 relatives in your “imaginary” Holocaust. One aunt had her arm tatooed with “whore of the German Army” and was raped repeatedly; her infant was killed before her eyes.

Despicable.

***As America’s White population continues its Nazified down-breeding, you’ll see an increase in cowardliness and laziness, not forgetting outright stupidity.***

Comment by “a surviving spawn of a pathetic human political experiment that was too cowardly to face the logical reaction to its action, was too lazy to do anything for itself, and too dumb to know that “Adolf” was a chickenshit wussie….”

I hope war critics considers Murtha’s proposal another log on the fire against the war and not a zero-sum game. The article on Murtha noted:

“Murtha identified the policies he hoped to advance from his position as chairman of the powerful Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. These include:

* Certification by the individual services that troops to be deployed have sufficient equipment and training;
* Prohibiting extension of deployments by more than one year
* Eliminating the ‘stop-loss’ policy that prevents troops from exiting the military
* Guaranteeing soldiers one year at home before they return to Iraq
* Preventing offensive military action against Iran
* Closing Guantanamo Bay and bulldozing Abu Ghraib
* Removing US forces from the Green Zone
* Transferring resources from equipping the Iraqi military to agencies involving in reconstruction projects”

France has Bastille Day, I’d think Iraq would surely celebrate and Abu Ghraib day to celebrate when those walls come tumbling down.

I’m with you, Homer. I’m sure we were spared from more posts because the idiot forgot how to breathe.

“Tony Blair announced today he will pull out of Iraq. A frustrated Iraq could not be reached for comment.”

During the siege of Bar Koziba, the jews report in their ‘holy’ Talmud that “the Romans slew 400 million or ‘as some say’, four billion jews.” The Talmud claims that the blood from the jewish victims burst forth in such a torrent that it rolled boulders from the hills, and stained the sea four miles from the shore. In 1919, The American Hebrew of October 31 alleged “the holocaust” of “six million jews”, but no one believed the jew-liars and reparations-gougers at The Versailles Conference. All that had changed in 1945, because the Allies had libeled the defeated Germans with their own Holohoax, to cover up the real atrocities of their ‘gallant Soviet allies’. The Allied liars made specific claims which alleged that the Germans hauled jews and other victims to “death camps” and ‘gassed’ them with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) which was used as a delousing agent, before and after DDT. HCN was also used to execute convicts in U.S. prisons, before, during and after World War II. No European country has adopted lethal gas chambers for executions. The alleged ‘gassing facilities’ in all the German labor and internment camps dubbed “death camps” were Ellis Island-style delousing facilities, and they were just as inappropriate for “gassing” anybody.

The original figure for jewish gassees was 45 million, which the Allies rejected, since it was outrageously absurd. For the same reason, the Allies also rejected the figures of 25 and 12 million. Finally, the victors of World War II agreed that “six million jews” were put to death in German camps, along with ” 5 million non-jews”. German records show that most inmates of concentration camps were non-jews, so the number of jew inmates and ‘victims’ has been grossly inflated by the liars. No matter how many jews ‘survived’ the “Holocaust”, German tribute or ‘reparations’ payments are based on the fictitious figure of “6 million”. In the 1980s, The Canadian Jewish News reported over 5 million “Holocaust Survivors” were receiving ‘reparations payments’ from the German government. This means that at least 16 million jews and non-jews had been ‘processed’ in German “death camps”. This figure is also preposterous.

The definition of “The Holocaust” is kept purposely vague by its proponents, but we can agree that people were put into “concentration camps” for labor and internment, owing to war time emergencies and dislocations. Most camp inmates were not jews. German jews who chose not to emigrate during the Third Reich era remained where they were, like the jews of Berlin, who helped defend their city against the Red Army, along with French SS men. Since no order has been found for “the extermination” of camp inmates for ethnic, political or religious reasons, the burden of ‘proof’ that “death camps” existed remains with the Allies. German camps were established to confine enemy aliens, for the protection of the civilian population. They also supplied the German war effort with valuable labor, for which the inmates were paid!

Deaths at camps such as Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen et al. were due to typhus epidemics and not executions, with very few exceptions. German camp commanders who stole the inmates’ Red Cross parcels, for example, were executed in front of the inmates, by the Germans! Typhus-infected lice and water made delousing facilities and crematoria absolutely necessary. HCN was used to save lives, not to kill people, in German camps. Deaths occurred when there was no HCN!

In the Nuremberg Trial transcripts of the International Military Tribunal and the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, the Allies allege that “lethal chambers” existed in all the German camps, which used hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, steam, vacuum and electricity, apparently according to the whim of the commander, in addition to fleets of “gas-vans” (no numbers given) which took “millions” for lethal last rides. The Germans “recorded everything”, the Allies claim, but they seem to have omitted the tons of records necessary to perpetrate mass-murder on such an allegedly gigantic scale!

In August 1943, The British Foreign Office invented the gas chamber hoax as part of a propaganda scheme against the Poles, to diminish the impact of the 15,000 murdered Polish officers by the Soviets at Katyn. Sir Cavendish-Bentinck, head of British Intelligence, objected to the inclusion of ‘gas-libel’ in the official British statement because there was no proof, and it seemed on par with British lies of World War I. Hence, the “gas chambers” were deleted. In 1944, they reappeared in the U.S. “War Refugee Board Report”, with no further evidence.

With the occupation of Germany in 1945, jew film director, George Stevens, featured Dachau in an official Allied propaganda movie. Since Dachau lacked the ‘required’ gas chamber, Stevens had one built, complete with fake showerheads, then claimed that “200,000 to 400,000” people were gassed there. Germans were hanged for gassing inmates in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald and Mauthausen, which were in Germany and Austria. But, in 1960, the Allies changed their lies. They claimed that NO ONE was gassed outside of six camps in Poland: Auschwitz, Birkenau, Maidanek (Lublin), Sobibor, Chelmno and Treblinka! As for Hollywood’s “gas chamber” at Dachau: the sign now says “it was never used.” The Six Million had magically jumped from Germany and Austria, all the way into Poland! But even there, the Holohoax is not safe, for the Auschwitz death figure has dropped from “4.2 million” to 74,000. We should not be fooled any longer.

Confused, bewitched and befuddled over the American masses? Henry Louis Mencken, said it best — “No one ever lost a dime underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

You can never get jew-wise until you snap out of your jew-daze. When that happens, you’ll be surprised at how plain everything becomes and what sense it all makes.

This loathsome scumbag is actually doing a service, albeit inadvertantly.

I am a non-observant Jew. I haven’t been to synagogue in probably ten years, my wife is a (non-observant) Catholic, most of my Jewish friends have married non-Jewish women, none of us plans to raise our children Jewish.

Before World War II, there were millions of Jews in Europe like us–people who considered themselves first, last and almost only citizens of their countries, who acknowledged their Jewish antecedents but didn’t view the faith of their ancestors as particularly key to their identity.

None of that assimilation saved them from the reckless, relentless, unquenchable hate of demented creatures like this disgusting troll, the people who have brought us the bulk of misery in human history.

We must never forget, and we must never let down our guard–not just for persecution of Jews, but for any kind of group hatred that blazes a straight path to genocide.

Twenty Bucks, Same as in Town is up, with appearances by Newshounds, Feministe, the General, Get Your War On and a fascinating new project that bombards Republicans with old copies of 1984.

Ezra wrote that before Johah Goldberg was on. I happened to turn on NPR partially into the interview. From the portions I heard, his prediction was right (not that this is surprising considering its Jonah Goldberg).

Goldberg’s comments were a variation of the usual conservative argument that the free market will fix everything if only government would stay out. He believes that in the future we will be much more affluent and therefore it will be a lot cheaper to fix the problem than it is now. Of course he also discounted many of the scenarios and ignored the fact that the problem that climate change will be harder to reverse the longer we wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#To_remove_synonyms_.26_antonyms

To remove synonyms & antonyms
The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, good thoughts and thoughtcrimes) which reinforce the total dominance of the State. Similarly, Newspeak root words served as both nouns and verbs, which allowed further reduction in the total number of words; for example, “think” served as both noun and verb, so the word “thought” was unneeded and could be abolished. A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language. (See duckspeak.) Successful Newspeak meant that there would be fewer and fewer words — dictionaries would get thinner and thinner.

In addition, words with opposite meanings were removed as redundant, so “bad” became “ungood.” Words with comparative and superlative meanings were also simplified, so “better” became “gooder”, and “best” likewise became “goodest”. Intensifiers could be added, so “great” became “plusgood”, and “excellent” or “splendid” likewise became “doubleplusgood.” Adjectives were formed by adding the suffix “-ful” to a root word (e.g. “goodthinkful”, orthodox in thought), and adverbs by adding “-wise” (“goodthinkwise”, in an orthodox manner). In this manner, as many words as possible were removed from the language. The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a “yes” of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.

Some of the constructions in Newspeak which Orwell derides, such as replacing “bad” with “ungood”, are in fact characteristic of agglutinative languages, although foreign to English. It is also possible that Orwell modeled aspects of Newspeak on Esperanto; for example “ungood” is constructed similarly to the Esperanto word “malbona”. Orwell had been exposed to Esperanto in 1927 when living in Paris with his aunt Kate Limouzin and her husband Eugène Lanti, a prominent Esperantist. Esperanto was the language of the house, and Orwell was disadvantaged by not speaking it, which may account for some antipathy towards the language[2]. It can also be observed that some strongly hierarchical groups use these kinds of constructions liberally. For example, the Swedish Military jargon substitutes “unpeace” (Swedish: ofred) for “war”, and “ungood” (Swedish: obra) for “bad”.

The real life pitfall of the Newspeak is, of course, that there are real-life agglutinative languages which act exactly as Orwell suggests, and the various suffixes, prefixes and derivatives allow almost endless possibilities for neologizising. Instead of shackling the thought, Newspeak actually just enhances the possibilities of expression of its speakers. Certain languages, such as Finnish, Japanese or Hungarian, work almost perfectly on the Newspeak principles – they have very sparse basic vocabularies, but almost all the expressions are derived from the stem words by various prefixes and suffixes.

Ick.
My Dad served in WWII. In the few times that he would speak of his experiences, he descibed being close to a Nazi concentration camp. He described seeing bodies stacked like cordwood, among other things. He shaped my opinion of war. I believed him.
Although I was of age, I was most fortunate to just miss ‘Nam, I did not believe in that war, nor did he.
The deniers, I fear, are dupes with no connection to history.

http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223
Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?, by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun).

It sometimes happens that the most significant historical works are virtually ignored by the mainstream press, and consequently reach few readers. Such is the case with many revisionist studies, including this important work by a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the West in 1978. Even before the appearance of this book, he had already established a solid reputation with the publication of five books, written under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, on the inner workings of the Soviet military, and particularly its intelligence operations.

In Icebreaker Suvorov takes a close look at the origins and development of World War II in Europe, and in particular the background to Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa” attack against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Since its original publication in Russian (entitled Ledokol) in France in 1988, it has been published in an astonishing 87 editions in 18 languages. In spite of its importance to the historical record, Icebreaker has received very little attention in the United States. The few reviews that have appeared here have been almost entirely brief and dismissive — a shameful treatment that reflects the cowardice and intellectual irresponsibility of a “politically correct” scholarly establishment.

According to the conventional view, Hitler’s perfidious attack abruptly forced a neutral and aloof Soviet Russia into war. This view further holds that a surprised Stalin had naively trusted the deceitful German Führer. Rejecting this view as political propaganda, Suvorov shows Stalin’s personal responsibility for the war’s outbreak and progression. Above all, this book details the vast Soviet preparations for an invasion of Europe in the summer of 1941 with the goal of Sovietizing central and western Europe. Suvorov is not alone in his view. It is also affirmed by a number of non-Russian historians, such as American scholar R. H. S. Stolfi in his 1991 study Hitler’s Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted (reviewed by me in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal).

In spite of rigid Soviet censorship, Suvorov has succeeded in digging up many nuggets of valuable information from publicly available Soviet writings that confirm his central thesis. Icebreaker is based on the author’s meticulous scouring of such published sources as memoirs of wartime Soviet military leaders, and histories of individual Soviet divisions, corps, armies, fleets, and air units.

‘Second Imperialist War’
A central tenet of Soviet ideology was that the Soviet Union, as the world’s first Marxist state and bulwark of “workers’ power,” would eventually liberate all of humanity from the yoke of capitalism and fascism (the “last resort of monopoly capitalism”). While Soviet leaders might disagree about the circumstances and timing of this process of global liberation, none doubted the importance of this objective. As Suvorov notes:

For Lenin, as for Marx, world revolution remained the guiding star, and he did not lose sight of this goal. But according to the minimum program, the First World War would only facilitate a revolution in one country. How, then, would the world revolution take place thereafter? Lenin gave a clear-cut answer to this question in 1916: as a result of the second imperialist war …

Initially the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was made up of only a handful of constituent republics. Lenin and the other Soviet leaders intended that more republics would be added to the USSR until it encompassed the entire globe. Thus, writes Suvorov, “the declaration accompanying the formation of the USSR was a clear and direct declaration of war on the rest of the world.”

Hitler understood this much better than did the leaders of Britain, France or the United States. During a conversation in 1937 with Lord Halifax, one of Britain’s most important officials, he said: “In the event of a general war [in Europe], only one country can win. That country is the Soviet Union.” In Icebreaker, Suvorov explains how in 1939 Stalin exploited the long-simmering dispute between Germany and Poland over Danzig and the “Polish Corridor” to provoke a “second imperialist war” that would enormously expand the Soviet empire.

Stalin anticipated a drawn-out war of attrition in which Germany, France and Britain would exhaust themselves in a devastating conflict that would also spark Communist uprisings across Europe. And as the Soviet premier expected, “Icebreaker” Germany did indeed break up the established order in Europe. But along with nearly everyone else outside of Germany, he was astonished by the speed and thoroughness with which Hitler subdued not only Poland, but also France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece. Dashing Kremlin expectations that a “second imperialist war” would quickly usher in a Soviet Europe, by July 1940 Hitler was effectively master of the continent.

Soviet Preparations
Throughout history, every army has had a basic mission, one that requires corresponding preparations. An army whose mission is basically defensive is accordingly trained and equipped for defensive war. It heavily fortifies the country’s frontier areas, and employs its units in echeloned depth. It builds defensive emplacements and obstacles, lays extensive minefields, and digs tank traps and ditches. Military vehicles, aircraft, weapons and equipment suitable for defending the country are designed, produced and supplied. Officers and troops are trained in defense tactics and counter-offensive operations.

An army whose mission is aggressive war acts very differently. Officers and troops are trained for offensive operations. They are supplied with weapons and equipment designed for attack, and the frontier area is prepared accordingly. Troops and their materiel are massed close to the frontier, obstacles are removed, and minefields are cleared. Maps of the areas to be invaded are issued to officers, and the troops are briefed on terrain problems, how to deal with the population to be conquered, and so forth.

Carefully examining the equipping, training and deployment of Soviet forces, as well as the numbers and strengths of Soviet weaponry, vehicles, supplies and aircraft, Suvorov establishes in great detail that the Red Army was organized and deployed in the summer of 1941 for attack, not defense.

Peculiar Tanks
Germany entered war in 1939 with 3,195 tanks. As Suvorov points out, this was fewer than a single Soviet factory in Kharkov, operating on a “peacetime” basis, was turning out every six months.

By 1941 everyone recognized the tank as the primary weapon of an army of attack in a European land war. During this period, Suvorov shows, the Soviets were producing large quantities of the well armed “Mark BT” tank, predecessor of the famed T34 model. “BT” were the initials for the Russian words “high speed tank.” The first of this series had a top speed of 100 kilometers per hour, impressive even by today’s standards. But as Suvorov goes on to note, this weapon had a peculiarity:

Having said so many positive things about the numbers and quality of Soviet tanks, one must note one minor drawback. It was impossible to use these tanks on Soviet territory …Mark BT tanks could only be used in an aggressive war, only in the rear of the enemy and only in a swift offensive operation, in which masses of tanks suddenly burst into enemy territory …

The Mark BT tanks were quite powerless on Soviet territory. When Hitler began Operation Barbarossa, practically all the Mark BT tanks were cast aside. It was almost impossible to use them off the roads, even with caterpillar tracks. They were never used on wheels. The potential of these tanks was never realized, but it certainly could never have been realized on Soviet territory. The Mark BT was created to operate on foreign territory only and, what is more, only on territory where there were good roads …

To the question, where could the enormous potential of these Mark BT tanks be successfully realized, there is only one answer: in central and southern Europe. The only territories where tanks could be used, after their caterpillar tracks were removed, were Germany, France and Belgium … Caterpillar tracks are only a means for reaching foreign territory. For instance, Poland could be crossed on caterpillar tracks which, once the German autobahns had been reached, could then be discarded in favor of wheels, on which operations would then proceed …

It is said that Stalin’s tanks were not ready for war. That was not so. They were not ready for a defensive war on their own territory. They were, however, designed to wage war on others.

Airborne Assault Corps
Similarly designed for offensive war are paratroops. This most aggressive form of infantry is employed primarily as an invasion force. Germany formed its first airborne assault units in 1936, and by 1939 had 4,000 paratroops. And the USSR? Suvorov explains:

By the beginning of the war [1939], the Soviet Union had more than one million trained paratroopers — 200 times more than all other countries in the world put together, including Germany…. It is quite impossible to use paratroopers in such massive numbers in a defensive war…. No country in history, or indeed all countries in the world put together, including the Soviet Union, has ever had so many paratroopers and air assault landing sub-units as Stalin had in 1941.

As part of the planned invasion, in early 1940 orders were given for large-scale construction of airborne assault gliders, which were produced in mass quantity from the spring of 1941 onward. The Soviets also designed and built the remarkable KT “winged tank.” After landing, its wings and tailpiece were discarded, making the KT instantly ready for combat. The author also describes a variety of other offense-oriented units and weapons, and their deployment in June 1941 in areas and jumping-off points right on the frontiers with Germany and Romania. All these weapons of offensive war became instantly useless following the Barbarossa attack, when the Soviets suddenly required defensive weapons.

Suvorov tells of a secret meeting in December 1940 attended by Stalin and other Politburo members at which General Pavel Rychagov, deputy defense minister and commander of the Soviet air force, discussed the details of “special operations in the initial period of war.” He spoke of the necessity of keeping the air force’s preparations secret in order to “catch the whole of the enemy air force on the ground.” Suvorov comments:

It is quite obvious that it is not possible to “catch the whole of the enemy air force on the ground” in time of war. It is only possible to do so in peacetime, when the enemy does not suspect the danger.

Stalin created so many airborne troops that they could only be used in one situation: after a surprise attack by the Soviet air force on the airfields of the enemy. It would be simply impossible to use hundreds of thousands of airborne troops and thousands of transport aircraft and gliders in any other situation.

Suvorov also reports on the dismantling in June 1941 of the Soviet frontier defense systems, and the deployment there of masses of troops and armor poised for westward attack.

Stalin Preempted
During the period just prior to the planned Soviet invasion, the USSR’s western military districts were ordered to deploy all 114 divisions, then stationed in the interior, to positions on the frontier. Thus, remarks Suvorov, June 13, 1941, “marks the beginning of the greatest displacement of troops in the history of civilization.”

Such a massive buildup of forces directly on the frontier simply could not be kept secret. As Suvorov notes, Wilhelm Keitel, Field Marshal and Chief of Germany’s armed forces High Command, spoke about the German fears during a postwar interrogation:

All the preparatory measures we took before spring 1941 were defensive measures against the contingency of a possible attack by the Red Army. Thus the entire war in the East, to a known degree, may be termed a preventive war … We decided … to forestall an attack by Soviet Russia and to destroy its armed forces with a surprise attack. By spring 1941, I had formed the definite opinion that the heavy buildup of Russian troops, and their attack on Germany which would follow, would place us, in both economic and strategic terms, in an exceptionally critical situation … Our attack was the immediate consequence of this threat …

In 1941, Admiral N. G. Kuznetsov was the Soviet Navy minister, as well as a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. In his postwar memoirs, published in 1966, he recalled:

For me there is one thing beyond all argument — J. V. Stalin not only did not exclude the possibility of war with Hitler’s Germany, on the contrary, he considered such a war … inevitable … J. V. Stalin made preparations for war … wide and varied preparations — beginning on dates … which he himself had selected. Hitler upset his calculations.

Suvorov comments:

The admiral is telling us quite clearly and openly that Stalin considered war inevitable and prepared himself seriously to enter it at a time of his own choosing. In other words, Stalin was preparing to strike the first blow, that is to commit aggression against Germany; but Hitler dealt a preventive blow first and thereby frustrated all Stalin’s plans …

Let us compare Keitel’s words with those of Kuznetsov. Field Marshal Keitel said that Germany was not preparing an aggression against the Soviet Union; it was the Soviet Union which was preparing the aggression. Germany was simply using a preventive attack to defend itself from an unavoidable aggression. Kuznetsov says the same thing — yes, the Soviet Union was preparing for war and would inevitably have entered into it, but Hitler disrupted these plans with his attack. What I cannot understand is why Keitel was hanged [at Nuremberg], and Kuznetsov was not.

Suvorov believes that Hitler’s preemptive strike came just two or three weeks before Stalin’s own planned assault. Thus, as Wehrmacht forces smashed Soviet formations in the initial weeks of the “Barbarossa” attack, the Germans marveled at the great numbers of Soviet tanks and other materiel destroyed or captured — an enormous buildup sufficient not just for an assault on Germany, but for the conquest of all of Europe. Suvorov writes

Hitler decided that it was not worth his while waiting any longer. He was the first to go, without waiting for the blow of the “liberating” dagger to stab him in the back. He had begun the war in the most favorable conditions which could possibly have existed for an aggressor; but given the nature of Stalin’s grand plan, he could never have won it. Even in the most unfavorable conditions, the Red Army was able to “liberate” half of Europe …

As devastating as it was, Hitler’s assault was not fatal. It came too late to be successful. “Even the Wehrmacht’s surprise attack on the Soviet Union could no longer save Hitler and his empire,” Suvorov writes. “Hitler understood where the greatest danger was coming from, but it was already too late.” With great effort, the Soviets were able to recover from the shattering blow. Stalin succeeded in forming new armies to replace those lost in the second half of 1941.

As Suvorov repeatedly points out, the widely accepted image of World War II, and particularly of the roles of Stalin and Hitler in the conflict, simply does not accord with reality:

In the end … Poland, for whose liberty the West had gone to war, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe, including a part of Germany. Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won the Second World War.

… Stalin became the absolute ruler of a vast empire hostile to the West, which had been created with the help of the West. For all that, Stalin was able to preserve his reputation as naive and trusting, while Hitler went down in history as the ultimate aggressor. A multitude of books have been published in the West based on the idea that Stalin was not ready for war while Hitler was.

A Soviet Europe?
An intriguing historical “what if” is to speculate on the fate of Europe if Stalin, and not Hitler, had struck first. For example, a less rapidly successful German campaign in the Balkans in the spring of 1941 could have forced the postponement of Barbarossa by several weeks, which would have enabled Stalin to strike the first blow.

Could German forces have withstood an all-out Soviet assault, with tens of thousands of Soviet tanks and a million paratroopers? With the advantage of striking first, how quickly could Stalin have reached Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Rome and Madrid? Suvorov writes:

It would be a mistake to underestimate the enormous strength and vast resources of Stalin’s war machine. Despite its grievous losses, it had enough strength to withdraw and gather new strength to reach Berlin. How far would it have gone had it not sustained that massive blow on 22 June, if hundreds of aircraft and thousands of tanks had not been lost, had it been the Red Army and not the Wehrmacht which struck the first blow? Did the German Army have the territorial expanse behind it for withdrawal? Did it have the inexhaustible human resources, and the time, to restore its army after the first Soviet surprise attack?

Partially answering his own question, Suvorov states: “If Hitler had decided to launch Operation Barbarossa a few weeks later, the Red Army would have reached Berlin much earlier than 1945.”

Suvorov even presents a hypothetical scenario of a Soviet invasion and occupation of Europe, replete with Stalinist terror and oppression:

The [Soviet] troops meet endless columns of prisoners. Dust rises on the horizon. There they are, the oppressors of the people — shopkeepers, bourgeois doctors and architects, farmers and bank employees. The Chekists’ [NKVD] work will be hard. Prisoners are cursorily interrogated at every stopping place. Then the NKVD investigates each one in detail, and establishes the degree of his guilt before the working people. But by now it has become necessary to expose the most dangerous of the millions of prisoners: the former Social Democrats, pacifists, socialists and National Socialists, former officers, policemen and ministers of religion.

Millions of prisoners have to be sent far away to the east and the north, in order to give them the opportunity, through honest labor, to expiate their guilt before the people …

In Suvorov’s scenario, a camp called Auschwitz is captured early on by the advancing Soviets. In response to the question, “Well, what was it like in Auschwitz, pal?,” a Red Army man replies: “‘Nothing much, really’ The worldly-wise soldier in his black jacket shrugs his shoulders. ‘Just like at home. Only their climate is better’.”

Actually, “what if” historical speculation is normally uncertain because key factors are often simply imponderable. In this case, one such factor is Soviet morale. While it is certainly true that Soviet troops fought bravely and tenaciously in 1941-1943 defending their home territory, they may not have fought with the same fervor and morale in an invasion of Europe. The tenacity and endurance shown by Red Army troops in Hungary and Germany in 1944 and 1945 is not necessarily indicative, because these soldiers were bitterly mindful of more than two years of savage fighting against the invaders, and of stern occupation, on their home territory.

Another imponderable is the response of Britain and the United States to an all-out Soviet invasion of Europe. If Soviet forces had struck westward in July 1941, would Britain and the United States have sided with Stalin and the USSR, or would they have sided with Hitler and Germany, Italy, France, Romania, Finland, Hungary, Denmark, and the rest of Europe? Or would Roosevelt and Churchill have decided to remain aloof from the great conflict?

Anyway, when Hitler did launch his preemptive strike against Soviet Russia, Roosevelt and Churchill immediately sided with Stalin, and when the Red Army took half of Europe in 1944-45, neither the British nor the American leader objected.

What can now be stated with certainty — thanks to the work of Suvorov and other revisionist historians — is that in smashing the great Soviet military buildup in 1941, Hitler dashed Stalin’s plan to quickly conquer Europe, and that, in spite of his defeat in 1945, Hitler saved at least the western half of Europe, and tens of millions of people, from the horrors of Soviet subjugation.

“Stalin” continued to expand Khazar imperialism with military might and terror in Spain and Finland, but his main goal was to achieve what his rival, “Trotsky”, had failed to achieve in the 1920s: the conquest of Europe! We need not take into account, the reports I have obtained from German high altitude aerial reconnaissance observers, that Red Russia was completing its preparations for the massive invasion of Europe in 1941, a few weeks too late. One observer told me that the territory of the Khazar Soviet Empire looked like a huge sandtable model from his altitude: “The smoke of endless trains revealed that the Russian (sic) rail system had been converted into a gigantic conveyor belt. Trains brought military equipment from east to west and took farming and factory equipment, along with grain and livestock from west to east.” Former Soviet Military Intelligence officer (GRU) “Suvorov” substantiates in his book, “The Icebreaker”, in which he includes the names and numbers of the Red Army units en route to the west, when the German attack caught them on the hop. “Stalin” apparently believed that Operation Sealion (the touted German invasion of Britain) was genuine, whereas Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Red Russia) was the ‘real thing’, and the German units which were, according to bogus intercepted radio traffic, standing on the French coast, were really under the large noses of Khazar observers.

“Stalin” changed nothing about Bolshevism, except some names and propaganda labels. The Khazar rulers remained and their policy of imperial expansion was intensified. Another indicator that the jews remained in control of Red Russia was in the fact that Britain and North America continued their staunch and substantial support for the Stalinist regime, before, during and after World War II. The bolshevik policies had made the rich Russian Empire into a financial and agricultural basketcase, so overseas partners made sure their Red Monster was given continual life-support in the form of funding, food and technology, such as the atom bomb. The myth that Red Russia became “bolshivic-free” and “nationalist” under “Stalin” was part of the other hoax called “The Cold War”. The fact that Mr. Posner of Moscow and Mr. Posner of Washington DC report the ‘news’ to each other’s Goyim should provide another clue.

RE: 2Manchu

KNOWN ‘LIBERATED’ GERMAN TECHNOLOGY and CONCEPTS used by the USA during and after SWATKWP.
Army.

“Shaped” explosive charges. First used by German airborne engineers in the assault on the Belgian fort of Eben Emael in May, 1940.

US M-60 machinegun of the mid 1950s. This weapon was directly based on the German MG-42.

Assault Rifles. The Germans were first in the field with this idea with their Gewehr assault rifle of 1943.

Wire guided infra-red tracked anti-tank missiles. The US TOW anti-tank missile of the late 1960s is a proven lineal descendant of the German X-7 Rotkapchen of 1944. With improvements the TOW follows the X-7’s entire design concept. Earlier French wire guided efforts of the 1950s like the SS-9 lacked the semi-automatic tracking common to the X-7 and the TOW.

Nerve Gasses. The Germans are known to have originated Tabun and Sarin since they had already weaponized it in bombs by the early 1940s. Presumably their Army chemical R&D program didn’t close down after those two successes.

A reasonable question is how much did the origin of VX nerve agent derive from captured German expermimental work and prototypes? This nerve agent appeared nearly simultaneously in both USA and USSR arsenals.

Infra-red night vision weapons sights and viewers. The Germans had these fielded by late 1943.

Missile technology. The A-4 ballistic missile (called V-2 by Allied propaganda) is famous enough. Following SWATKWP Wehrner von Braun brought most (not all) of his Peenemunde development team to the USA. All subsequent developments up to the SATURN V flowed directly from the work of these men.

Air Force.

You’ve already seen the Horten brothers’ stealth flying wing info. One of the Hortens worked for Northrop periodically following SWATKWP. It’s no coincidence both the YB-49 Flying Wing and the B-2 Stealth bomber emerged from this same company.

The Luftwaffe suffered terribly from the mal-administration of General Ernst Udet, their version of John McCain. As the Luftwaffe Director of Air Armament from 1937-1941, he and three deputies allowed everything to stagnate. For instance, the Air Secretary, Erhard Milch, and the first Chief of Air Staff, Wever, had two different four engine heavy bomber prototypes ready by 1937. Udet cancelled these. This Richtofen veteran and ex-circus stunt flyer (his character appears in The Great Waldo Pepper) started requiring that 2 and 4 engine aircraft also be required to dive bomb! Udet committed suicide in 1941 and was replaced again by Erhard Milch. (Milch was not a jew contrary to rumor. His step-father was a jew). Despite this the Luftwaffe achieved…

First airborne anti-tank cannon. The Germans were first with an airborne 30mm automatic cannon in 1941. This same caliber is used by the A-10 today and used for tank busting as the Luftwaffe did.

First jet powered prototype in 1939. Udet retarded jet development.

First operational jet fighter, the Me-262.

First operational multi-engine jet bomber, the Arado 234.

Best performing piston-engined aircraft ever built: the Dornier Do 335 fighter bomber. Top speed is 474 mph. Superior to the P-51 Mustang in all aspects.

First guided ‘Smart’ Bomb. This was the Bv 246 frst deployed in 1943. Followed by the “Fritz X” and others.

First Air-Surface guided missile. The HS-293 anti-ship missile.

First cruise missile; the Fi-103. So-called ‘V1’. (The Brits caled it the “buzz bomb” due to its characteristic sound. Robert)

First guided air-to-air missiles with active homing seeker heads.

First guided Surface to Air Missile (SAM). This was Enzian E-4 with a slant range of 30 km.

Forward swept wings for high speed aircraft. You can see these in Popular Mechanics from time to time. They first appeared on the Junkers Ju-287 forward-swept wing bomber in 1944.

(Also invented the honeycomb-adhesive construction for aileron, fin and trim tab assemblies)

p.s In another vein, the Germany of that period was the first to establish the link between smoking and lung cancer. Also verified was the link between eating hydrogenated fats and circulatory problems. If one does his research on Nazi Germany, he might discover the awesome potential of White people unencumbered by the slugs and cruds of this world. The jews incessantly fart about their “holocaust” pipe dreams as a means to block the REAL TRUTH from ever being known. But it’s there, if you care to dig it out. Research is a mite more demanding than watching monkeyball or porno flicks.

Yet with all that technology, they still got their asses kicked severely by the slugs and cruds of the world. Great thinkers, shitty planners.

Or maybe God just hates the Master Race. His Only Son was born in a non-white Jewish family, you know.

Yes, the Germans did conceive a quite a treasure trove of military technology. The Allies seemed more concerned about developing weapons and technology that would win the war at the soonest, as opposed to pie-in-the-sky wonderweapons that were too little, too late.

The fact that the US was so quick to adapt German technology into its military only makes practical sense. Why spends billions of dollars inventing technology when the stuff is already thought out?

I eagerly wait your next rant.