0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
340 $
MAY 2021

Vladimir Putin: “75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future”

Support SouthFront

Vladimir Putin: "75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future"

Vladimir Putin. IMAGE: RIA Novosti

On June 18, the National Interest published an article written by Russian President Vladimir Putin under the title “Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II“. In the article the Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War II. The full text of the article also can be found on the Kremlin website, where it’s titled “75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future“.

The full text of the article:

75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

People often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the ”red zone“ to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19–20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.

Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicised speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.

“Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs”.

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, a civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”

Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.”

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defence of Czechoslovakia.”

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That was the essence of the western policy of ‘appeasement,’ which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign a military convention on the organisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.”

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of J. Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of the question.” At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.”

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defences.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way reflected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”

Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honour … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometres deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.”

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.” In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” And on November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognised the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” On October 4, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.” Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasised, “The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.“

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided to him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s senior advisor Horace Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belorussia.

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly… would be to… drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia…” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.

World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019 directly accused the USSR – along with the Nazi Germany – of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre‑war period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgement of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilised and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany’s satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilisation and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realise, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people’s plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi ‘strategists’ were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: “Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split.”

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every metre of native land – we see examples of such unity.

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honouring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

And today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the centre of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honour the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite another document. This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And special role here belongs to members of the search movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database ”Pamyat Naroda“ (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that “the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism.” By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimise risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, about joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.

The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.

There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.

Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

179 comments

  1. shylockracy says:

    The Ziocorporate West equally bankrolled the Bolsheviks, Hitler and Mao, working “together” with them is a defeat for the people of Russia. Russia should already have enough military prowess to operate another kind of foreign policy and international relations while deterring any possibility of a world war event, much more nowadays with China’s economic prowess to balance things out geopolitically, it’s a breakthrough never seen before in known history, and calls to “maintain and improve” the current world order, mostly dictated by Ziocorporate history designers is much less than Russians deserve after being, by far, the worst-hit nation in WW2, far worse than the “losers” Germany and Italy themselves. All else is Hollywood-style bullshit.

    1. occupybacon says:

      USSR was garbage before the war so nobody could see a difference after.

      1. Zionism = EVIL says:

        The idea behind socialism was not bad as the Russia like the Americunt Jew controlled cesspool was a very unjust society with a few landowning Boyars controlling the serfs. However, the Bolshevik corrupt Jew cunts fucked it up.

        1. Porc Halal says:

          With all the respect, your text is full of contradictions … you say that the idea behind socialism was not a bad one only that the jews compromised it … but the reality is different; the jews came up with the idea of socialism aka marxism (actualy with Marx being a jew) and they did not compromise anything but simply put into practice what they had planned from the beginning … actualy, the Nazi party of Hitler’s was in fact a socialist party …

          1. Porc Halal says:

            PS…

            Another reality is that internationalist jews bloodily overthrew the tsarist regime in Russia through the bolshevik revolution for the simple fact that the latter was an obstacle in their way of seizing Russia through their financial-banking system and through political coruption which both didn’t work as planed…

          2. Porc Halal says:

            PPS…

            the fact that Putin praises the bolshevik past in Russia and does not mention anything about the tsarist period makes me raise an eyebrow about his ethics and about who or what is really behind him ….

          3. Jens Holm says:

            Very strange. Its well known who support systems like that. Names are not needed.

            The need is to support people which will change that kind of feudal nepotisme mainly by Oligarcs.

          4. Porc Halal says:

            What do you mean when you say “system like that”? The real political system in Russia? … hahaha! … You know little or nothing about what the oligarchy is and what can posible generate this type of rule (type of government) … you may or may not know that the ‘russian’ oligarchs are actually jews, at least by their faith … and, yes, I agree with you, the need is to support ‘the people’ who fight against this threat, but not by supporting exactly the mentalities or ideologies that were the basis for the growth of this oligarchic system …

          5. Jens Holm says:

            A lot in Russia and the rest of the world has changed as lot the last 48 hours.

            According to Your pamplet 1000s of articles and explanations soon will change on internet, at all newspapers and in the libraries too.

            I am sure many Jews will feel themselves honored by being that kind of high ranked influencers. You must be writing about emmigrant Jews comming to the Beautifull ruins of a collpased neocolonialistic Empire.

            If the Jews You descriebe are true, they never would have made a system like the USSR since okt 1917.

          6. Porc Halal says:

            Very strange…my comment in reply to your comment was deleted?…THIS, is what you call ‘very strange’…

          7. Jens Holm says:

            Its allowed to send Your comments again using other senteces. I do.

            But I do agree Your attitude as well as Your knowledgelevel seemes to be low. I fx cannot see jews running the business as Jews or pretending they are Jews in Russia, LOndon and other places.

            I can agree the Jews many places are overrepresented in %. Here You should not blame them but countries, etnicities or religions, which dont educate their people to qualify themselves to some influence as well being paid for their productivity. Her the ones, which does, get thos higher or high ranked jobs.

            And thats a main problem for Russia and was it by the Tzars too, when only the upperclass or upperclass by being chosen as party members do it.

            Very good scientists and low educated ones cant grow a living standard even they work hard unless they have their own oilwell or goldmine.

            Only those middleclassers can make those 2 influencer groups into a better level for all. Russia by Putin and Co dont see that or are not able to make that vital change.

            But we partly has solved it by Our taxsystem having socalled income tax. We have higher pay then most but also pay a lot of tax, which again goes back to things equal in use for all.

            .

          8. Jens Holm says:

            Maybee You only has one eye or brainside, but Jews was at all sides and about 5 millions emmigrated to USA and South America.

            You forgetthe reasons for relative dominans are the Tzars as well as the Bolsjevics as well as the Bolsjevics in nicer clothe today DONT educate and make a well performing middleclass.

            Those are the producers of advanced things in advanced ways as well as the ones being experts in logistics on all levels. Jews was and maybee are in that self made gab made by religios bad catholisism and feudals of the worst kind.

            Its exact the same today. You can invent very advanced things even not all and they look very nice fx like the Armata. But anyblosy can do that if You spend enopugh money.

            The needed lack is to invent productions to the production lines being cheep and good for the price not being controlled for politicalrelations, so You dont get rewarded if You are not good enough in loyalty.

            Uts the other way around Komrad. If people are educated well, has a well paid job and a good life THEN they do support the system.

            You can see in in CARTOON versions fx in Syria. If 50% of the men has no job and see no future and never can buy a female for slave, they do liketo work and have an income and a life.

            SO they become mercenairies against their Goverment and even eat a lot of bad things for it.

          9. Zionism = EVIL says:

            Well, what do you think the west is doing implement socialist ideas now after the Covid, like basic income and health care for all. To build any stable long term society, you have to invest in social capital. A few Jew cunts controlling 90% of the wealth will end up as a shithole like US.

          10. Porc Halal says:

            I think it’s a very bad idea and that in fact behind the bombastic socialist statements is absolute evil … as I said, socialism, or whatever you want to call it; communism, marxism, bolshevism, is in fact a totalitarian evil doctrine, of subjugating humanity by a very small number of people, let’s call it the elite, which is not accidentally of jewish origin … at present they control almost everything but not all! … now the final battle for total control of humanity by this jewish elite is taking place as we speak …

          11. Jens Holm says:

            I look out my window and see nothing. Parc Halal is nothing?

          12. Porc Halal says:

            If you don’t see anything it means two things … either you’re ignorant or you’re a jew … I think you’re both ignorant and a jew … and, btw, when I look out the window, I don’t see when the atmospheric pressure goes up or down. .. does that mean that the atmospheric pressure does not exist ?! …

            PS …

            I needed only one thing to realize that you were ignorant … you had all the time in the world to read my alias, but you wrote it wrong..

          13. Jens Holm says:

            Much as if I would prefare to be a jew compared as You.

            You dont know vital things about socialisme as well. You can find totalitarian in any ideology as well as with no ideology.

            You use the usual dirty card blaming Jews as if there are a Npbel price for bad excuses. If Jews really is running my Country its very perfect compared to whats seen around the world . So thank You Jews.

            But We do educate us like most of them trying to learn to learn. We also are paid for working hard by the skills we have as well as we are paid pr hours. Thats a difference I see to what I read here.

            We make the ones, which are best for it take care on Our companies on all levels and reward by that. By that 80% of Our companbies are are not driven by too often lazy men listening to longbeards of the bad old days.

            Women by that are on all levels too even they in numbers are minorities to the top jobs, but we do have a female Premiere Minister, which is elected by her qualifications and fx also 6 main police districts of 12 had female Leaders.

            So we are the third version comming from Marxisme but develloped drom there 150 years ago. We are rough Kapitalists having world companies, but the socialisme is there compensating for its very bad sides protecting anybody a lot.

            Socialisme includes all. Thats whats forgotten in the rotten versions, You and me dont like and accept. If You include all, they sipport the state but by that also are ready to make needed changes and quailified for it.

            All can vote even they are in jail. We do have very retarded and seniles, which cannot

        2. occupybacon says:

          The irony is that communism was invented by the jews. They didn’t took over it, they created it.

          1. Really!? says:

            Marx wasn’t a Jew, he was baptized. Dummy

          2. RichardD says:

            “Karl Heinrich Marx[12] (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) … Born in Trier, Germany, …

            Marx was … ethnically Jewish. His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier’s rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx.”

            – Karl Marx –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

          3. Really!? says:

            You want to debate but you can’t even read. Try a little bit more down in the entry and you’ll find this: Little is known of Marx’s childhood.[31] The third of nine children, he became the eldest son when his brother Moritz died in 1819.[32] Marx and his surviving siblings, Sophie, Hermann, Henriette, Louise, Emilie and Caroline, were baptised into the Lutheran Church in August 1824 and their mother in November 1825.[33]

          4. RichardD says:

            You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve written.

          5. Really!? says:

            1. You haven’t written anything meaningful to disprove. 2. You haven’t answered my questions. Touché

          6. RichardD says:

            I answered your questions with a challenge to debate the issues rather than engaging in moronic adolescent stupidity. If you don’t like the answers that’s your problem. You’re the one who dodged the question as to what it was that I wrote that you falsely claimed was an allusion to violence.

            You do realize that you’re making a fool out of yourself with your claim that a hereditary Jew like Marx who meets the Israeli government’s definition of one who was decended from rabbis on both sides of his family going back generations isn’t meaningful as to whether Talmudic ideology was a factor in his work.

            You’re wasting my time and the sites threadspace with your idiocy.

          7. Really!? says:

            I came back to you with 2 specific questions you have failed to Acknowledge because, as we all know, you can’t answer. You asked my to prove your allusion to violence, which I did and to which you have no response. You claimed Marx was a Jew, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia but failing to read the FULL description including the part where jr discusses his baptism. Essentially you fail on every level and in every way. You’re just an embarrassment to Jew haters. You’d be better off shaving your head and getting some tattoos. Oh, and Marx’s baptism would take him out of the running for citizenship as a “hereditary Jew”. It also ignores Marx’s disdain for all religion. You’re grasping at straws. Try harder.

          8. RichardD says:

            “You asked my to prove your allusion to violence, which I did and to which you have no response”

            You’re a liar. I asked you to copy and paste what I wrote that was an allusion to violence, and explain how it was. You neither provided a quote or explained what I wrote was an allusion to violence. And now you’re doubling down on the lies by falsely claiming that you did.

            “Marx’s baptism would take him out of the running for citizenship as a “hereditary Jew””

            That’s not my claim, it’s Wikipedia’s claim. If you have a problem with it take it up with them.

            “Marx’s baptism would take him out of the running for citizenship as a “hereditary Jew””

            Where in the Israeli law of return does it say such a thing? Quote and link please.

          9. Really!? says:

            You clearly suffer from mental illness. I did copy & paste your allusion to violence. Twice and my proof of it. You quoted Wikipedia I simply pasted the part of the entry you chose to ignore which was about Marx’s baptism. Here you go:

            Law of Return: The Caveats

            While Israel encourages immigration, the law allows the Ministry of Interior to deny citizenship to Jews in certain circumstances, such as individuals who:

            Are viewed as a threat to state’s security.
            Have a prior record of serious crimes.
            Are fugitives of justice from another state (Israel can still extradite olim who are wanted abroad).
            Pose a public health risk.
            Actively campaign against the state of Israel.
            Converted to another religion (even if halacha would still consider them Jewish).

          10. RichardD says:

            Coming from a habitual liar like you, your false accusation that I’m mentally ill with no proof just adds to your litany of lies.

            You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve written, while I’ve disproven you repeatedly.

            Marx like Herzel and many others was a professed atheist. It’s unlikely that he’d be denied Israeli immigration and citizenship based on a baptism at 7 because of his father’s social issues.

            “Based on Jewish law’s emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish. A 2011 study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God,”

            – List of Jewish atheists and agnostics –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics#Politics

            “For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.“”

            – The Law of Return –

            http://archive.jewishagency.org/first-steps/program/5131

          11. Really!? says:

            Yet again you cite Wikipedia as law and try to compare it to the actual law I’ve referred to. You then try to diverge by bringing up an irrelevant point. Now, how again are you getting jews to leave the US? By boring us to death with stupid comments

          12. RichardD says:

            You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve written. And habitually lie claiming that you have. If what I’ve quoted from Wikipedia is so wrong you shouldn’t have any trouble disproving it, so far you’ve failed every time. So who’s the loser loser?

            There’s nothing irrelevant about pointing out Marx’ Jew nexus corrupting his work with Talmudic insanity. Of the type that Bolshevik Jews implementing it in Russia created last century in one of the greatest tragedies in human history.

            Try to get your facts straight, I quoted the Israeli law from the Jewish Agency, not Wikipedia. You’ve got brainwashed Jew who can’t think straight exhibiting behavioral issues like habitual lying and falsely accusing others of what you’re guilty of written all over you.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/967836eca40623b6b38b820dcb6b753bbcabd64abb4d631511ec377fc0bec4e9.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/494c6196b4f7ce3250ff0e0434b87058278d99af7321fe9f6c6937ae8751cfe4.png

            – The Law of Return –

            `http://archive.jewishagency.org/first-steps/program/5131

          13. Really!? says:

            It’s a good thing you’re not a lawyer you don’t know how to read. Marx had no Jew nexus – he disavowed any association with any organized religion, which is why he called it the opioid of the masses. You’re just proving your self equally ignorant AND stupid. An impressive feat.

          14. RichardD says:

            More lies from a Pinocchio retard. Do you ever tire of pathological lying and making a fool out of yourself?

            The historical facts are that Marx’ Jew nexus is that he was an ethnic Jew who was born a Jew from a rabbinical dynasty. Was a Jew by any definition until age 7. With both parents being Jews who both had rabbis for fathers:

            “His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier’s rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx.”

            – Karl Marx –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

          15. Really!? says:

            Again with Wikipedia. Anyway, doesn’t matter. Unlike in Spain where citizenship was conferred in those who were FORCED to convert voluntarily leaving the religion takes you out of the auspices of the law of return. No matter how hard you try that won’t change the reality. Thanks for playing

          16. RichardD says:

            You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve posted from Wikipedia. Until you start doing that rational people aren’t going to believe your claims with you credibility and morality deficits. Every lie that you tell adds to that.

            I asked for case law on whether a renunciation of a conversion nullifies the conversion for purposes of negating 4Aa, and 4B being applied to Marx or someone who renounced a conversion allowing them to apply and be approved for immigration and citizenship. You haven’t provided it. Until you do you haven’t disproven that 4B would apply to Marx and vacate 4Aa as an impediment to citizenship.

          17. Really!? says:

            Don’t need case law, israel is a civil law state so the statute governs. Yes, I’m a lawyer. I know. You’re an unemployed retard. You don’t. There is no exclusion to the exception of a voluntary conversion. Also, note – Marx’s parents converted prior to Marx’s birth which means he wasn’t considered Jewish. Sorry Charlie. You’re wrong on every level.

          18. RichardD says:

            You’re a habitual pathological liar and a fool. Statute governs everywhere. Where it’s conflicted or lacks specificity it’s further defined by case law in Israel and everywhere else that I’m aware of.

            “The Supreme Court of Israel also sits as the High Court of Justice. In this capacity, it has original jurisdiction over civil rights cases filed by citizens against government entities such as administrative agencies. Therefore, this guide also includes resources for High Court of Justice case law.”

            – Finding Israeli Supreme Court Decisions –

            https://guides.library.harvard.edu/IsraeliSupremeCourt

            You wrote “Marx’s parents converted prior to Marx’s birth which means he wasn’t considered Jewish.” Try to get your facts straight rather than constantly peddling lies and ignorance.

            Marx’ grandparents were also Jews which provide a path to immigration and citizenship. And his mother was a Jew at the time of his birth and didn’t convert to Christianity until after he was converted:

            “Karl Heinrich Marx was born on 5 May 1818 to Heinrich Marx (1777–1838) and Henriette Pressburg (1788–1863).

            – Karl Marx –

            Karl Heinrich Marx was born on 5 May 1818 to Heinrich Marx (1777–1838) and Henriette Pressburg (1788–1863).

            “Henriette’s husband changed his name from Hirschel to Heinrich and was baptised into the Lutheran Church, followed by their children in August 1824. Henriette was baptised in November 1825.”

            – Henriette Pressburg –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henriette_Pressburg

          19. Really!? says:

            No, I’m telling you the law you’re insisting the facts are o. Your side so YOU have to provide the Case law establishing facts trump statute. Also, his fathers conversion, Marx’s baptism (he was never circumcised, bar mitzvaed or any of the required rites of passage) and his mother’s baptism all prove his lineage is irrelevant. I’ve had fun proving you stupid but it’s becoming repetitive. Buh bye

          20. RichardD says:

            You can’t even write grammatically correct sentences let alone interpret law properly.

            Any rational person can see that I’ve outed you continuous lies, ignorance and stupidly over and over again with judicial quality evidence that you’ve been unable to disprove. Because it’s true and you’re a habitual liar and head case.

          21. Really!? says:

            No, it had nothing to do with grammar. It was late, I was bored. This conversation has been going on circles with you saying the same thing repetitively and my response proving the fallacy of your arguments. Still boring because you’re still saying the same thing. You’ve outed nothing. As previously mentioned you’ve been entertaining. I mean, you are so rooted in your position that even in the face of all evidence you cling desperately to it. That’s a spectacular mental illness. But common with cowards who threaten violence and then back down as quickly.

          22. RichardD says:

            You are one very sick and twisted pervert and head case shilling for blood sucking Jew baby raping pedophile cultists. Every time that your lies get disproven you double down on them and make false allegations trying to distract attention from them.

            Unfortunately for you I’ve disproven them so many times conclusively on this thread that no rational person reading it believes them or you. Your credibility and integrity deficits are to glaring. And the whoppers that you’ve spammed this thread with are to obvious.

          23. Really!? says:

            “your credibility and integrity deficits are to glaring” To glaring to what or to whom. Did you intend to write “too glaring” but you don’t know the difference between “to” and “too” (I assume you also don’t know the difference between “their” “there” and “they’re” So cute! But claim other people can’t write grammatically correct sentences. Oh, and the next sentence if written correctly should read “And the whoppers with which you’ve spammed this thread are too obvious” (making the whole “to” “too” error again, and countering your inevitable attempt to claim it was a typo. You’re just stupid, and we all know, you can’t fix stupid.

          24. RichardD says:

            I don’t butcher the English language on a regular basis like you do. As illustrated in this thread repeatedly. When you can keep your mental issues in check long enough to write something that is grammatically correct. It just illustrates your mentally challenged inability to conduct a rational fact and evidence based debate devoid of lies and stupidity. As you peddle a continuous stream of disinfo that I’ve outed repeatedly. To which you either don’t respond or double down on the lies and false accusations to try to divert attention from your failures and credibility and integrity deficits.

          25. Really!? says:

            You don’t butcher the English language but you don’t know the difference between “to” and “too” – which you completely attempted to gloss over. That’s what my kids learned in second grade, so we have now established the limit of your education. As I wrote- you can’t fix stupid and you’re all kinds of stupid. But I’ve confirmed you don’t need to be smart to be a janitor, so you just keep being the best janitor you can be!

          26. RichardD says:

            I know that I don’t butcher the language and exhibit your mental issues. Because I’m not a pathologically lying depraved headcase like you.

          27. Really!? says:

            Now, to clarify, would that be you’re “to” smart or you’re “too” smart because you’re just so smart for a third grade graduate

          28. RichardD says:

            Stupid is someone who can’t spell and avoid spewing incoherent nonsense. And that’s you on a regular basis. Let me guess, you’re a mental out patient of a Jew pusher shrink with psychiatric drugs in your medical history.

          29. Really!? says:

            It’s clear you hate Jews. I do wonder why. Is it you had a job working for a Jewish boss but he fired you because you were an incompetent dolt? We’re you sweet on a Jewish woman but she refused to date you because you had 11 fingers and a lack of manhood? Is it that a Jewish landlord wanted to be paid money but your mother could only offer her herpes infected crack as payment? Tell us the truth, it’s ok, we’ll understand. We’ll laugh at you, (we are anyway) but we’ll understand. Now, still want to allude to violence or are you going to keep pretending your a real man?

          30. Really!? says:

            JUDICIAL QUALITY EVIDENCE (hahahahahahahahaha) That’s not even a real thing. I would LOVE to face you in a negotiation, you’re as dumb as driftwood.

          31. Really!? says:

            You continue to shame bigots and your parents. Wikipedia will never be an authoritative source for anything. You should stop referring to it. 2. The term “judicial quality evidence” that you used in not mentioned or referred to in blacks law dictionaries (which is what you linked to dummy). It’s not a real term, it’s just some stupid word salad you made up. Next

          32. RichardD says:

            If Wikipedia is what you falsely claim you shouldn’t have any trouble disproving it. You haven’t once. Though it and numerous other sources have been used to disprove you many times. None of which you’ve disproven with credible evidence.

            You just ignore being disproven or lie and make false allegations to try to divert attention from your failures. You’re a pathological habitual liar shilling for blood sucking Jew pedophile mass rape cultists. Probably because you are one.

            Playing semantics with terms like judicial quality evidence doesn’t change the fact that it’s used in the judicial system every day.

          33. Really!? says:

            Why, I’ve used Wikipedia to prove your wrong. You just have limited reading skills. Again, not surprising for someone who didn’t go past third grade or whose mother married his grandfather. It’s cute that you call making up new terms that don’t actually exist “semantics”. Try that the next time they haul you in front of a judge for indecent exposure, loser. Now let’s get down to the real question everyone wants to know – Are you still sexually abusing goats or has the therapy helped you control your urges?

          34. Really!? says:

            OMG, every time I think you’ve reached the pinnacle of stupidity and ignorance you continue to impress me by going further. AGAIN you didn’t read your own source:

            The Law of Return, 5730-1970: 2nd Amendment

            1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950, the following sections shall be inserted after section 4:
            “Rights of members of family:
            4A.
            a. The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an Oleh under the Nationality Law, 5710 – 1950, as well as the rights of an Oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.

          35. RichardD says:

            It doesn’t matter. 4B clarifies 4A, that’s what it’s there for. It overrides 4Aa. And being an atheist Marx qualifies under 4B

            “4A.
            a. The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an Oleh under the Nationality Law, 5710 – 1950, as well as the rights of an Oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.
            b. It shall be immaterial whether or not a Jew by whose right a right under subsection (a) is claimed is still alive and whether or not he has immigrated to Israel.
            c. The restrictions and conditions prescribed in respect of a Jew or an Oleh by or under this Law or by the enactments referred to in subsection (a) shall also apply to a person who claims a right under subsection (a).
            Definition:
            4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”

            – The Law of Return –

            http://archive.jewishagency.org/first-steps/program/5131

          36. Really!? says:

            It’s good that you’re not a lawyer. 4B doesn’t clarify anything, it’s a definition. It expressly states when the term “JEW” is used, that’s a person who meets those qualifications. So i’ll help because you clearly can’t figure this out on it’s own.

            4A “…except for a person who has been a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion (JEW) and has voluntarily changed his religion.

            Thus, a person who meets the definition of a Jew (4B) but voluntarily changed their religion DOES NOT have any rights under the law. Super dummy. Remind us again of what you do for a living?

          37. RichardD says:

            Marx meets the definition of a Jew under 4B. Your claiming that 4B doesn’t clarify 4Aa or doesn’t apply to someone like Marx doesn’t mean that that’s the Israeli government’s position on the topic. Do you have any case law supporting your contention? If you don’t then you’re unable to disprove my read on the law.

          38. Really!? says:

            4B defines a Jew. 4A states that a Jew who voluntarily left the religion doesn’t benefit from the law of return. I provided you with case law. Are you suddenly a lawyer that you would even understand it? Didn’t think so. Listen, sweetheart, you’re in over your head.

          39. RichardD says:

            You’re a habitual liar and a very sick and twisted headcase shilling for a blood sucking Jew pedophile rape cult. Nowhere did you provide case law that someone who was born a Jew and renounced a conversion wouldn’t be considered a Jew for immigration and citizenship purposes. Case law comes from a court case, not from your lies, which are continuous and many.

            It’s unlikely that the Israeli government would deny someone citizenship based on a conversion at 7 that they renounced at maturity. Again, if you have case law disproving my read on the law, then provide it. Until you do, which you’re unlikely to be able to. Then you’re unable to disprove that the law of return wouldn’t apply to Marx as stated in 4B based on a renunciation of a conversion . What is it about a renouncement nullifies a conversion that you don’t understand?

          40. Really!? says:

            1. Do you have any other arrows in your quiver other than “habitual liar”. I mean, especially since I’ve proven you can’t read time and time again.

            2. “It’s unlikely” doesn’t carry any water when the law is explicit. 4B defines a Jew. 4A sets out the rule. Again, where did you go to law school where you learned to interpret statutes.

            3. A renouncement doesn’t undo a conversion, unless you’re an expert on Halacha too now.

            4. It’s been several days since you’ve taken your medication.

          41. RichardD says:

            I don’t need a law degree to read and understand it, something that you’ve repeatedly demonstrated an impaired ability to do.

            Halacha isn’t government statute and case law. It’s rabbinical interpretation of Talmudic cult manual insanity.

            If a renouncement doesn’t undo a conversion for immigration and citizenship purposes then you shouldn’t have any trouble being a lawyer and a Jew providing court case law illustrating that determination. Until you do you’ve failed to prove that 4B wouldn’t be the determinative statutory application in Marx case where he clearly would be compliant with it. I’d be very surprised if this issue hasn’t been through the Israeli court system because there are a lot of people with similar circumstances.

            The reason that you keep avoiding providing this proof is probably because I’m right and the Israeli government allows immigration and citizenship to Jews who renounced a childhood conversion when they reached maturity and want the law of return applied to their cases so that they can immigrate and obtain citizenship.

          42. Really!? says:

            So I thank you for the amusing discourse. You are an idiot. You actually do need a law defeee because you’ve made clear your inability to otherwise understand. Halacha does control in Israel. You continue to show your ignorance. I’ll make this simple. The law is clear, you insist otherwise. Show me ONE case where citizenship was granted to someone who had converted. Just one.

          43. RichardD says:

            You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve written. You have trouble conversing in grammatically correct English. And people are supposed to take your insane rantings seriously? When you’ve been proven wrong over and over again. I don’t think so.

            You’re the self proclaimed legal expert. Where’s you proof that the Israeli courts have denied citizenship in every case of a renounced conversion case? Your failure to provide one example, let alone blanket rejection of renounced conversion immigrant and citizenship applications exposes your inability to prove your points, because they’re lies. When I’ve repeatedly proven mine with judicial quality evidence because unlike you I’m a truther.

            You’re the pathological liar and head case, not me. The only thing that all of your false accusations prove is that you double down on the lies when they’re exposed.

          44. Really!? says:

            Nothing you’ve written makes sense. You quote wikipedia & NGOs as authoritative sources and when I point out the actual law you don’t even understand it. A “truther” what the hell is that – you think Obama wasn’t born in the US? The only think exposed is your inability to reason. We’re all amused.

          45. RichardD says:

            You’re falsely accusing me of what you’re guilty of to try to distract attention from your failures and mental issues. As Jews are wont to do like when Euro AshkeNAZI’s, which probably includes you, who have little if any Semitic DNA, accuse others of being anti Semitic against them when they’re not Semitic and are the planet’s biggest anti Semites as illustrated by their crimes against the Semitic Palestinians.

            What I’ve written makes a great deal of sense. You’re the one with repetitive mental breakdowns butchering the language routinely by spewing incoherent irrationality and spamming this thread with continuous lies.

            Your head is so messed up that you’re asking me what a truther is. When it’s self evident to any rational person what the term means. And you deny that there is judicial quality evidence when it’s used in the judicial system 24/7/365 worldwide. Are you really an attorney, or is that just one more of your lies?

          46. Really!? says:

            Sure what you’ve written makes a great deal of sense. To a mentally retarded inbred moron with 3 brain cells. Do you do anything more than write third grade level word salad ?

          47. occupybacon says:

            Judaism doesn’t resume at religion, it’s also a nationality

          48. Really!? says:

            No, Judea is a region in Israel (currently occupied by Arabs). It’s not an independent nation. Bless your heart for trying

          49. occupybacon says:

            Lol you made my day :P

          50. RichardD says:

            I’m guessing that you either don’t know what a bible is or have forgotten what’s in it.

            “the idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient Greece.[26] The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (modern-day Iran) has been described as “communistic” for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy; for criticizing the institution of private property; and for striving to create an egalitarian society.[27][28] At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[29] In the medieval Christian Church, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and their other property.”

            – Communism –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

          51. occupybacon says:

            Yeah, I’ve seen something like that to backwards trybes from Papua and Amazon, it could work at a small level, for a while, but not if you wat to go to the Moon… or have some decent people around.

          52. RichardD says:

            Communism far predated Marx and Lenin. Jews didn’t create it, they messed it up like ZIE says.

          53. occupybacon says:

            Yeah and also Hitler messed up Nazism, let’s give it another try

          54. RichardD says:

            Judging from what the ZioNATO combine has done with democracy I’m not impressed. Governments need to be judged by how good of a job they do, not by the political system they use. If they’re doing a good job with national socialism or communism that’s fine with me.

          55. occupybacon says:

            Not every country is lucky to have a great leader like Kim Jong Un

          56. RichardD says:

            No taxes works for me, everyone should try it.

          57. occupybacon says:

            And no internet. Don’t forget to clean your browser history before leaving.

          58. RichardD says:

            And no guns. What would the world be like without the ZioNATO forever war machinations constantly using their intel services to foment regime change? Would the regime change targets be more likely to expand rights and freedoms if they weren’t being abused by external forces?

          59. occupybacon says:

            Ohh wait, there are no guns in NK? Ore are you going directly on the IIS with SpaceX? Btw aren’t all those regimes you said with, using guns?

        3. Really!? says:

          you really are retarded. Do you do anything more than talk. Any balls behind the pretend tough guy online persona?

          1. RichardD says:

            Are you a retard or just act like one? Try debating the issues to illustrate that you’re not mentally challenged like Holms and Zion here.

        4. RichardD says:

          Universal basic income providing individual self sufficiency is becoming increasingly possible with technology and automation advances. Whether that’s socialism is a matter of definitions.

          I haven’t studied Marxism. And don’t have much interest in doing so given it’s Jew nexus. I’m assuming that it’s rife with AshkeNAZI Talmudic insanity and crimes against humanity shilling. If what was done in Russia and elsewhere in the name of Marxist socialism is any indication, that’s a correct assessment.

          “Karl Heinrich Marx[12] (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) … Born in Trier, Germany, Marx studied law and philosophy at university. …

          His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier’s rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx.”

          – Karl Marx –

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

    2. RichardD says:

      You raise many valid points, and the SCO and non aligned movement were doing exactly as you suggest when the planet was hit with the scamdemic. A case can be made that the SCO advances are what triggered the scamdemic in an effort to derail the SCO shutting down the ZioNATO forever war hegemony drive and wresting control of the direction that our planet was going from the ZioNATOists. Of ZioNATO Yinon plan perpetual war to SCO freedom, peace and prosperity.

      Bioterror was always a contingent security liability. And the ZioNATOists played that card. Which shows their desperation at their inability to compete with SCO successes. The jury is still out on Chinese complicity in the scamdemic. But at most it’s tangental, because the NATO countries willing imploded into an orgy of economic suicide based on scamdemic fraud of their own manufacture. Knowing that it would collapse the global economy and temporarily stop SCO advances in derailing their forever war hegemony drive.

  2. FlorianGeyer says:

    President Putin is the leading statesman of the entire world.

    1. occupybacon says:

      I bet you’d love to be locked in a room just with him.

    2. Zionism = EVIL says:

      I don’t think so. Putin is a slave to Jew oligarchs and Russians are fed up with his lack of clear leadership and personality cult as even SF accurate analysis occasionally points out.

      Putin’s rating is collapsing as anger grows in Russia

      Putin is losing popular support. Now Russians are going to take politics into their own hands.

      1. RichardD says:

        I don’t agree with his Jew tolerance. And Jews holding a vastly disproportionate amount of Russian wealth is a serious problem. Which is something that Putin inherited from Yeltsin. And has allowed to continue if they don’t cause to many problems.

        If he was a slave he wouldn’t have rolled back their regime change operation in Syria. And it looks like he’s getting on board with a regional coalition to clear them out of the occupied territories. Which may be why they fabricated the scamdemic as a diversion.

        1. Jens Holm says:

          If Jews are as You descriebe, its because You are nothing and insist.

      2. Ilya says:

        I think other than Syria, he’s pretty good on the Jewish issue. He took control of the oligarchs and the mafia (both primarily Jewish), and reestablished positive Christian faith within Russia, to some degree anyways – very hard for a post communist/atheist nation to move that way.

        Syria is still an open question, and it sure looks like a lot of mistakes have been made. I wonder how Russia will react when more of Palestine is annexed.

        He is not a Stalin, who executes those that disagree with him, as much as the West wants him to be that. He’s an Ivan IVth.. But Russia suffered after the death of both, so it will probably suffer after the end of Putin’s reign!

        1. RichardD says:

          The Syrian government coalition has been massively outspent in Syria. Russia has done better than anyone else would of under the circumstances. Considering that keeping NATO at bay has been a big part of the Syrian success story.

        2. Zionism = EVIL says:

          Both you and Richard have valid points, but the Zionist/Neocon cunts are pushing Russia daily, a Russian patrol was stopped in North Syria just a few hours ago. These tactics are meant to humiliate Russia, and unless there is no response, I am afraid Russian servicemen will die. Syria is a very important commitment for Russia and showing any signs of weakness will bring the CIA cunts and headchoppers to Russian soil. Northern Syria should have been declared a NO FLY ZONE early on and the S-400 used.

          1. RichardD says:

            Syria’s S-300s with satcom integration can run off of the S-400 radars and loaded with S-400 missiles. In that configuration they’re essentially S-400s. They haven’t been used against the IAF or NATO to avoid escalation management.

            I’m sure that Syria has rebuilt it’s air defense in Dier Ezzor. Which is probably why things have quieted down in Abu Kamal. And both Syria and Russia are almost certainly putting air defense capabilities in northern Syria east of the river after the Turk advance pushed the Kurds and NATO south.

            The momentum is moving in the right direction. What needs to be done is to get the US out of Iraq. Then the US will have no ground troops east of the river to protect. And is unlikely to risk losing aircraft just to protect the Kurds. Syria with Russia and Iran there isn’t Iraq after the Gulf war.

          2. Really!? says:

            Just to remind you Jews own you. The End

      3. Tudor Miron says:

        Your kind knows that Putin is the reason why Russia is still here and why it didn’t turn into blood bath. Deal with it.

      4. Anthony Papagallo says:

        Check your tap water. If you live in the West its full of oestrogen put there by your governments to turn you gay.
        Look what its done in France to the Algerians and the Chechens, turned them into homos fighting over the bumming rights to teenage boys.

  3. Fog of War says:

    Putin is full of crap concerning Poland. The Bolsheviks already tried invading Poland in 1919 and got their ass handed to them. Stalin was more then happy to split Poland with the Germans as revenge for Stalin’s hurt ego. Why doesn’t Putin go into who actually financed the ” Russian ” revolution. I’m sure he ((( nose )))

    1. occupybacon says:

      He likes expensive gifts from those

      1. Trap Is Not Gay says:

        SHILL,

        Shut that fuck up, SHILL.

        That Jew’s bodyguard CIA-paid and forced stupid 4chan artificial smearing against president Putin doesn’t fly here, go back to the fifth world Israel-owned cannon fodder vassal state JewSA.

        You JewSA-sian Israel FUNDER delighted goyim SHILL are out of your Fox News-like controlled opposition spaces.

        Don’t like Jews? Stop funding Israel, don’t attack Russia and China! Go fuck yourself, SHILL.

        Also remember:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52279c554226258247029c0441a1081b895ef012f51c7f63409ebd029a7f2f6c.jpg

        1. Fog of War says:

          Porn is not banned in Russia fool.

          1. Icarus Tanović says:

            Yes, it is.

          2. Fog of War says:

            Go on a porn site and look up Russian porn then. let us know the results.

          3. Trap Is Not Gay says:

            American-made site in English that is about Russian women you mean – not “Russian”. Porn is banned in Russia and disencouraged, as it is in any serious country.

          4. Astar Roth says:

            Yes, that’s right.

        2. Aphelion says:

          In Russia, like in most countries, child pornography is banned. They also don’t allow distribution of gay pornography to minors and the law says the “illegal production” of porn is not allowed (although it doesn’t specifically say what constitutes legal production). Other than that, pornography has more or less the same legal status as in most Western countries – nothing illegal about possessing it, selling it, etc. It definitely is not “banned” as stated in that table.

          As for immigration: I don’t know what is meant with “closed borders”, but Russia is a major immigration destination in the region. As an example, there are more than 2.5 million Ukrainians living in Russia, more than 2 million from Uzbekistan and many more from other neighboring countries. There is also a lot of illegal immigrants in Russia and it is an issue that they are continuously dealing with. In fact, Russia has one of the largest foreign born populations in the world in absolute number terms (in percentage it is of course much lower than, for example, the UAE or Qatar).

          1. Jens Holm says:

            Much of that socalled emmigation is based on the many deportations by Stalin and Others, so they actually comes home.

          2. Trap Is Not Gay says:

            Way better than the JewSA.

            Look at France and the rest.

          3. Astar Roth says:

            In Russia, and so many other countries recently pornography is banned…In Russia for ever since…

          4. Really!? says:

            Yeah, falling apart & subject to islamofascism. GDP falling. Move there loser

        3. occupybacon says:

          Who said I don’t like Jews, I don’t like Billionaires in general. Putin lovers boast their Antisemitism, turning a blind eye to the Putin’s friends that are billionaire Jews that leach Russia. It’s the most resource-rich country in the world and if you look on Google Street photos in rural zones people are so poor it’s like after a war and Moscow is the city with the most billionaires in the world. Putin minions cry Soros, Rotschild, Rockefella, you have ~90 of these right in Moscow, and y’all are their bitches.

          1. Trap Is Not Gay says:

            Never happened.

            Projecting the USA bottom of the barrel reality onto Russia is NOT the truth.

            These lies may work on 4chan and shills like Adam Green (100% from Israel’s cannon fodder USA fake “Right-Wing” even declared Israel firsters), but not here.

            Go home watch Alex Jones with these lies about Putin and China.

            ,

          2. occupybacon says:

            Well, I’m home. I see that some bad people from 4chan upset you, how about go to bed?

    2. RichardD says:

      “Russian President Vladimir Putin said that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.

      “I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13”

      – Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish –

      https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-first-soviet-government-was-mostly-jewish/

    3. RichardD says:

      ” The Bolsheviks already tried invading Poland in 1919 and got their ass handed to them. Stalin was more then happy to split Poland with the Germans as revenge for Stalin’s hurt ego. Why doesn’t Putin go into who actually financed the ” Russian ” revolution. I’m sure he ((( nose )))”

      This may all be true. But it doesn’t change Putin’s point that if the USSR hadn’t taken half of Poland the Germans would have taken all of it. What he doesn’t address is that the USSR could have done more to support Poland resisting the Germans. But the disparity may have been so great that that may not have been a realistic option.

      1. Fog of War says:

        I Strongly disagree, it was welcome revenge move, among other goals. This simple fact can be deduced from the brutality the Soviets meted out to the Polish population. I was told first hand from a Polish survivor of that war, with absolutely no bias in her opinion. She could not stand the sight of a Nazi uniform and would leave the room if that came on the TV. However, she told me the Soviets were absolutely more brutal and horrific. She hated them more then the Nazis.

        Yes the Soviets defeated the Nazis, no argument. Yes the Soviet people were extremely brave and heroic, no argument, but behind every Soviet platoon was a political officer with a pistol. Also remember , the soviets and communists never left Poland after the war, and both continued to subjugate the Polish people. However, like you mentioned the Polish and Soviet leadership at that time was mainly Jewish.

        By glorying the Soviet past, and by being oblivious to why the Polish people might not like that, is silly on his part. He needs to stop trying to shift the blame. He might actually get Poland into Russian orbit eventually. They’re both Slavic nations.

        1. RichardD says:

          None of that changes the fact that without intervention the Germans left unchecked would have been on the Soviet border rather than stopped halfway through Poland.

          An argument can be made that the Soviets should have supported the Polish military instead of invading. But as I pointed out. Given the imbalance of forces it’s unlikely that that would have been successful. And the Soviets would have ended up deploying significant forces anyway to halt the German advance.

          What would you have done in the circumstances, allowed the Germans to advance to the Soviet border unchecked?

          1. Fog of War says:

            Don’t be disingenuous and totally ignore Soviet brutality. The Soviets and Germans had a pact to divide Poland, there was no threat of an impending German invasion of Soviet borders. In fact, if you search you’ll find plenty of photos of German and Soviet troops meeting in the middle of Poland after they split the country in two. The photos are all smiles, handshakes, and hugs. Nano need to rewrite history, the Soviets were brutal bastards.

          2. RichardD says:

            The Germans invaded soon thereafter, so obviously there was a threat. And stopping the German advance halfway through Poland created a buffer zone against the invasion. These are simple historical facts. You can claim that there was no threat. But events prove you wrong.

  4. occupybacon says:

    “Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR“ what a moron! How could anyone not like it?!

  5. RichardD says:

    I learned some things from this well written essay. It hasn’t changed my perspective on WW2.

    What Mr. Putin partially left out was that western Europeans, and to a lesser extent Americans, had watched the Bolshevik Jew horror story in the Soviet Union for 20 years as tens of millions were genocided. That the Jews and their collaborators were attempting to do the same thing in Germany. And that Hitler and the Nazis prevented it.

    This doesn’t exonerate the Nazis from their crimes, which were many. But it does explain the west’s reluctance to get overly involved in helping the Soviets. Only American backing could insure that both the Soviets and Nazis could be contained.

    This doesn’t lessen the Soviet’s contribution to defeating the Nazis. But it does explain western duplicity in playing the Nazis and Soviets off against each other.

    It’s worth noting that the Soviets dejudified 95% of the pre war population of Jews after WW2. With most going to the west and Israel. Where they have wrought great havoc.

    The Europeans should support and participate in a regional military coalition clearing the IDF out of the occupied territories. To split NATO on the issue. So that the US will be less inclined to intervene on Israel’s behalf. As well as supporting a UN convention abolishing Judaism similar to what’s been done with torture and slavery. So that Judaism can be made extinct, the planet can become Jew free for the betterment of humanity, and former Jews freed of this evil cult can get on with their lives without it.

  6. cechas vodobenikov says:

    the American stupidity and racism is fully displayed in comments below….the fascist Americans supported the Nazis and had zero to do w USSR defeat of Nazi Germany….despite that less than 20% of the lying amerikan lend lease loans never were received, more than 80% of German casualties occurred at the eastern front where not 1 insecure cowardly amerikan soldier existed—even the idiot solzenitzhen described amerikan as “cowards”….the problem w amerikans is amerikans, not Jews—they would have no culture without them—as Baudrilliard wrote 2 decades ago, “the banality of amerce—the radical absence of culture”…as Historians—William Appleman Williams, Richard Hofstadter(The Paranoid Style in amerikan politics), Daniel Boorstin, Morris Berman, Christopher Lasch etc and sociologists from Riesman, Slater, Sennet, Gorer have all observed amerikans always blame others for their own failures and defects—a nation of insecure children

    1. RichardD says:

      Without 6 million Jews here the US wouldn’t have wasted $10 to $15 Trillion on completely fabricated and unnecessary Yinon plan wars for Israel. If you claim otherwise, you’re either politically ignorant or lying.

      The sooner that there are no more American Jews, the better that it will be for America and the world.

      1. Jens Holm says:

        Its not wasted. It still piss You off:)

      2. <> says:

        Imbacile.

        1. Fog of War says:

          Learn to spell. ( imbecile )

          1. <> says:

            You got my point. Richard is a son of a bitch, can only cry about Jews all day like a cunt.

          2. RichardD says:

            You and Holm should get over your hatred of truth.

          3. Really!? says:

            you should step up or shut up

          4. RichardD says:

            That’s a dodge. You’re an intellectual coward afraid to debate the issues because you know that you’ll be made a fool and liar of. Just like I’ve done to Iron Zion many times. Which is why both of you degenerate into non sensical stupidity instead. 2

          5. Jens Holm says:

            It seemes I hate less people then You do. I also try to explain accidents like You and hope You are no twin:)

          6. RichardD says:

            – America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars –

            https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/

          7. Jens Holm says:

            According to Yuorself they are rich and good taxpayers, so they pay themselves. You dont decide what american taxpayers pay tax for or against.

            You are an illusionist of the worst kind.

          1. Jens Holm says:

            When no oil was produced there the estimated numbers of Iraqians was abut 5 millions. Lets go back to that. 25 million extra living there seemes to be a minus.

            You also ignore that the many get their food be the English Irrigation programs, where You even griw rice.

            And where is the Brittish Queen as well as the Voman which decided the liberated Osman areas should have kings in Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

            As too often most things are not there, when You write

        2. Astar Roth says:

          Looks who’s talking…

      3. Really!? says:

        you planning on stepping up any time soon, tough guy?

        1. RichardD says:

          That’s a dodge. You’re an intellectual coward afraid to debate the issues because you know that you’ll be made a fool and liar of. Just like I’ve done to Iron Zion many times. Which is why both of you degenerate into non sensical stupidity instead.

          1. Really!? says:

            I’ll debate you any day of the week, but you’re the one making specious claims & implicit threats. But we can start with you naming one war the US fight for our at the request of Israel. On the other hand can you name any wars where the US imposed on Israel’s right to defend itself?

          2. RichardD says:

            Just as I thought. Your English is in the Jens Holm dysfunctional category. I refrain from debating learning impaired retards. Because it’s a waste of time. I rarely even read their comments once they’ve identified themselves as being in the idiot class. Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think that you’re a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

          3. Really!? says:

            So you allude to violence and when Challenged, you back down claiming intellectual superiority. So when challenged in facts you default to ad hominems because you lack any substance. Proving you are both intellectually and physically inferior. It may be that you’re really full of self loathing and it’s easy, if not intellectually lazy to jump on the Jew hating bandwagon. Clearly, you’re not worth the effort.

          4. RichardD says:

            “So you allude to violence and when Challenged”

            You evidently have as much trouble reading the English language as you do writing it. Which further puts you in the learning impaired retard category with Holm. Or else you’re making false allegations. Which is it? He’s both a liar and a retard. You probably are also.

            There is no allusion to violence in my post that you responded to. If you disagree then copy and paste what I’ve written that constitutes alluding to violence and explain how it is one. And we can all laugh at your lies and or stupidity. Which will further illustrate my point that trying to engage in a fact and evidence based rational debate with a moron like you is a waste of time. Because you can’t have one with someone unable or unwilling to engage in one.

          5. Really!? says:

            1. Let’s start with the premise that I’ve been arguing with people for a living for 20 years, so you’re poor attempt at flowery writing won’t make a substantive difference. 2. Your paragraph- “ The US would be a much different and better place without Jews. The sooner that there are no more American Jews, the better that it will be for America and the world.”. Since we know that Jews have called these shores home since 1492 when Luis de Torres arrived in Cuba with Christopher Columbus (as recognized by your fellow Jew hater, Henry Ford). So Jews will not leave any time soon or by their own volition. Therefore one can only assume that your reference to the joyous utopia you claim the US would be without Jews (incidentally a fact proven false by the decline of every country post Jewish expulsion) could be accomplished only by force. How or why else Would we leave?

            Now, you’ll attempt to obfuscate the obviousness of that point by claiming it’s not true, it was o my wishful thinking but you’ll actually avoid the precursor to your judenfreund dreamland which is HOW you achieve it. One does not simply say, I want steak for dinner without contemplating whether to grill or broil it. So, back to you And your insistence that you’re so smart and everyone else is stupid. In the meantime, you can prove your intelligence and success by disclosing your job and bet worth. I assume you must be a CEO worth millions, I mean, what else could you be with such a rarefied intellect

          6. RichardD says:

            That’s a dodge. You didn’t answer the question as to what I wrote the was an allusion to violence. Because you don’t want to make a bigger liar and fool out of yourself than you already have.

          7. Really!? says:

            Dummy, it was practically my entire response. But since you’re slow, I’ll repost. Ok, corky?

            Your paragraph- “ The US would be a much different and better place without Jews. The sooner that there are no more American Jews, the better that it will be for America and the world.”. Since we know that Jews have called these shores home since 1492 when Luis de Torres arrived in Cuba with Christopher Columbus (as recognized by your fellow Jew hater, Henry Ford). So Jews will not leave any time soon or by their own volition. Therefore one can only assume that your reference to the joyous utopia you claim the US would be without Jews (incidentally a fact proven false by the decline of every country post Jewish expulsion) could be accomplished only by force. How or why else Would we leave?

            Now, you’ll attempt to obfuscate the obviousness of that point by claiming it’s not true, it was o my wishful thinking but you’ll actually avoid the precursor to your judenfreund dreamland which is HOW you achieve it. One does not simply say, I want steak for dinner without contemplating whether to grill or broil it. So, back to you And your insistence that you’re so smart and everyone else is stupid. In the meantime, you can prove your intelligence and success by disclosing your job and bet worth. I assume you must be a CEO worth millions, I mean, what else could you be with such a rarefied intellect

          8. RichardD says:

            For starters that’s not a quote from my post that you replied to that I asked you to quote from. And you didn’t quote anything from my other comment that alludes to violence either.

            “could be accomplished only by force.”

            More lies. Your claim was violence, not force. There are a lot of ways to accomplish it short of violence.

          9. Really!? says:

            That’s the post where you suggest violence and that’s what I was referring to. Thanks for proving me right. That you’d attempt to obfuscate by denying the reference. Force is violence. How would force Jews out without violence. Since there are too many Jewish lawyers, members of government at the federal & state level, you couldnt use force of law. Please regale is with your genius

          10. RichardD says:

            You’re a habitual liar. You haven’t provided a quote where I suggest violence.

            As far as law goes, demonstrating your ignorance of it only proves that you’re ignorant.

            Jews rape, infect with venereal disease, and murder 1,000 children worldwide every week with their vile blood sucking rituals.

            “metzitzah b’peh — requires a mohel, the person performing the circumcision, to suck blood from the incision on an infant’s penis. …

            24 cases of herpes have been linked to circumcision since 2000. Two of the infants died and two others suffered brain damage.”

            – New case of neonatal herpes caused by Jewish circumcision –

            https://nypost.com/2017/03/08/new-case-of-neonatal-herpes-caused-by-jewish-circumcision/

            “as with any right, the freedom of religion can be abridged if its exercise would infringe on the rights of others.

            several groups have been made into recognized criminal organizations. … typically after a cult group has been involved with a criminal enterprise. These cults have generally been involved with activities like murder, abduction, statutory rape, or other serious crimes. Often, they hold an illegal activity to be a primary focus of their religious teachings, making adherence to the group’s beliefs a virtual guarantee of grossly illegal activity directly harming others.”

            – Are cults legal –

            https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/are-cults-legal-35055

          11. Really!? says:

            Iron Zion is right, you’re an imbecile. I’ve proven you wrong on every issue. You try to divert each time I point that out. There’s no arguing with you. When you decide to grow a brain or balls you can come back. Loser.

          12. RichardD says:

            You’re a habitual liar and a truth hater. The vermin Jew rape 1,000 children worldwide every week with blood sucking Jew pedophile cannibal prostitutes, infect them with venereal disease and murder them. It’s indisputable fact. Judaism needs to be abolished. Your shilling for this evil pedophile mass rape cult shows what type of depraved miscreant you are.

            – Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Says Oral Suction at Circumcision Is Preferred –

            https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/oral-suction-at-bris-is-better-say-rabbis-1.5239533

          13. Really!? says:

            And there you go. You can’t compete intellectually. You’ve been challenged on your suggestion of violence and, like most you’ve backtracked so you resort to making insulting comments on the most minor and insignificant group representing the smallest portion of Jews. Now, to quote a trash bag like you “come at me bro”

          14. RichardD says:

            What you claim and lie about and can prove are two different things. You never provided a quote of my alluding violence. You are the one who keeps making that inference, not me. All that I said was that Judaism should be outlawed.

            Raping 1,000 children worldwide every week, infecting them with venereal disease and murdering them with Israel’s leading clerics cheerleading the depravity is hardly a minor insignificant group.

            I told you when you started that it’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think that you’re a fool than open it and remove all doubt. You’ve now done that in spades with your lies, stupidity and fanatical shilling for an evil pedophile mass rape cult that needs to be abolished.

          15. Really!? says:

            1. Posted your veiled threats 2x. I appreciate your walking it back, whether out of cowardice or whatever. 2. Not rape. 3. You can try to bob and weave and avoid the truth, that literally every post you’ve made has been countered most often by using the same source you used in the first place. You can keep trying and failing but everyone is laughing at you.

          16. RichardD says:

            I didn’t walk anything back. Characterising calling for outlawing a criminal organization a veiled threat of violence is a misrepresentation and an inversion by you of what I wrote by implying that characterising that law enforcement will be initiating the violence. When they will seek to avoid it and you are the one implying a threat of violence by the criminal suspect’s violent rejection of the law. In which case it’s the suspects, and those shilling for them like you, who are alluding to the threat of violence. Not people like myself calling for outlawing an evil cult committing mass crime against children.

          17. Really!? says:

            Sure you did, you have mentioned many times that Jews will have to leave the US without quantifying how that will happen. I provided an analysis where the ONLY way is under threat of violence. You’ve failed to respond which is an assent under the law. Again, too many Jews in positions of law & government and so laws making Judaism illegal or otherwise will never happen. Grant tried that and he was crushed for it. Try again loser.

          18. RichardD says:

            More lies from a habitual Jew liar.

            Fact

            I never said that anyone had to leave the US.

            Fact

            You are the one alluding to violence against Jews, not I.

            Fact

            I responded multiple times to your allusions to violence accusations, including in the post that you responded to.

            You’re repetitive ignoring of obvious realities and twisted false accusations just illustrates the depth of your irrationality and pathological lying.

          19. Really!? says:

            1. Fact, you did, read what you wrote
            2. Fact, you statement literally makes no sense.
            3. Fact, see fact 1
            4. Your repetitive ignoring of obvious realities and twisted false accusations just illustrates the depth of your irrationality and pathological lying.

          20. RichardD says:

            You’re a habitual pathological liar. Nowhere on this thread did I ever say that anyone has to leave the US as part of outlawing Judaism.

            My statements make perfect sense. Your lies, stupidity and obfusification are what’s nonsensical. Plagiarizing my criticism of your mental and behavioral issues just adds to them.

          21. RichardD says:

            Now you’re denying that Jew parents endangering the welfare of their children don’t pay to have their children raped by cannibal prostitutes. You really are a very sick and twisted pervert. Felony oral copulation with a minor is statutory rape.

            “Oral copulation is defined as any contact—no matter how slight—between the mouth of one person, and the sexual organ or anus of another. Neither penetration nor ejaculation/orgasm is required.11

            For males, the sexual organ includes both the penis and the scrotum. …

            Oral copulation with a minor is necessarily a felony if both of the following are true:

            The “victim” was younger than sixteen (16) at the time of the alleged sex act; AND
            The defendant was older than twenty-one (21) at the time of the alleged sex act.20
            The potential penalties in this sort of case are the felony penalties listed in Section 2.1 above.

            2.3. Victim under 14
            The penalties for felony PC 288a oral copulation with a minor are increased if both of the following are true:

            The victim was younger than fourteen (14) at the time of the alleged oral copulation; AND
            The defendant is more than ten (10) years older than the victim.21
            If both of these things are true, then the potential state prison sentence for oral copulation on a minor increases to three (3), six (6) or eight (8) years.”

            – Penal Code 288a PC – Oral Copulation with a Minor –

            https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/288a/

          22. Really!? says:

            Thanks for the extensive recitation in make sexuality & child rape. It’s clear your familiarity is personal. It explains, well, everything.

          23. RichardD says:

            You’re the one shilling for the pedophiles, not me, so who’s familiarity is personal? It looks like from the available evidence that you’re the Jew pedophile rape cult member and practitioner making false accusations trying to divert attention from your own depravity that is clearly evident to any rational observer.

          24. Really!? says:

            But I’m not a bigot. Still waiting for you to man up. Cute you trying to be a lawyer. Let me help. You’re not. Law school would destroy you.

          25. RichardD says:

            You’re the one shilling for an evil cult that rapes babies. I’m trying to get rid of these evil baby rapers. What does that say about you dirt bag?

          26. RichardD says:

            You can’t be serious. Russia under the Bolshevik Jews was a genocidal hell hole. Getting rid of 95% of them has put Russia at the pinnacle of world power they need to finish the job.

            As far as how to go about it. The Chinese outlawed it. That works for me.

          27. Really!? says:

            Listen, it’s getting embarrassing. Can you at least fact check some of the stupid things you write BEFORE you post them. I mean, the Chinese outlawed them. If you’re talking about Bolsheviks, whatever – good. Any kind of socialism is a failure that should be banned, but I assume your referring to Judaism. Jews in China go back to the 8th century and there’s still a small but vibrant community of about 2,500. It’s not outlawed & there are Synagogues, schools, etc. where do you get this stuff??? https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/about/communities/CN

            And Russia is the pinnacle ? Of what? You are just too stupid

          28. RichardD says:

            Embarrassing for you.

            “The state recognizes five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Daoism, Islam, and Protestantism. The practice of any other faith is formally prohibited”

            – Religion in China –

            https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/religion-china#:~:text=The%20state%20recognizes%20five%20religions,case%20of%20traditional%20Chinese%20beliefs.

            From your own link:

            “There is currently no Jewish community representative body in China”

          29. Really!? says:

            Embarrassing for me? Sorry the council on foreign relations isn’t as authoritative as, well, the Chinese government when it comes to Chinese laws.

            The regulation is formulated with the goal of protecting citizens’ freedom of religious belief, maintaining religious and social harmony and regulating the management of religious affairs.

            It specified that citizens are entitled to the right of freedom of religion.

            http://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2017/09/07/content_281475842719170.htm

            It’s late. I’m bored with correcting you and proving your wrong. It’s not even a challenge. Maybe get some sleep and try again tomorrow. Too easy.

          30. RichardD says:

            Freedom of approved religions, of which Judaism is not one:

            “Freedom of religion in China is provided for in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China,[1] with an important caveat: the government protects what it calls “normal religious activity,” defined in practice as activities that take place within government-sanctioned religious organizations and registered places of worship. …

            The law affords protection to five officially sanctioned religions: the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.”

            – Freedom of religion in China –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_China

          31. Really!? says:

            Yes, Wikipedia is a much more authoritative source than the actual Chinese government itself. Moron

          32. RichardD says:

            That’s a dodge. You haven’t disproven anything that I’ve posted.

  7. Jens Holm says:

    They day of Neocolonialisme all they way to Berling. Hip Hip.

  8. SOF says:

    This speech should be made into a compulsory reading in history classes worldwide.

  9. Benjamine Hausmuller says:

    I don’t think that eliminating the buffer states between Germany and USSR was a defensive action. When we analyze these events today it looks like opening the European Highways for a Great Soviet Liberation of Europe and establishment of Global Soviet State over the world.

    1. Jens Holm says:

      Thats no buffer states. Before WW1 as well as after WW2 it was Russians Neocolonialisme of the worst kind against independent states.

      The same goes for the ones in Asia. All are taken by force in military or political pressure.

      The political past in those matters are and was not about states but about Empires fighting each other all over the world. They all expanded and too often took things, which gave minus. Their own systems didnt adapt they grew as well.

      So therefore they all (maybee apart from China and USA(india)) collapsed helping themselves to collapse too.

      So using buffer about Eastern urope to me is thinking old days.

      Newer days also has problems. We see EU as some result of the collapse of the Empores having its problems too even in a less demanding context.

      Denmark up to WW2 had very good relations to all around the Baltic Sea. We often was friends agains Sweden with Russia and the last Tzar Queen was Danish. So the relations was all the way from Filnland to Poland and included Russia.

      It has been like a part of the Danish body that USSR closed that area for us. We even named the Estonia Capitol as Tallin saying “The town by danes”.

      I could understand some of it if The Russian Empore had done well. But no one see that. Only few things was doing well and mainly weapons against us as if we are and were enemies.

      I will remind You that highways are both ways. That was a very big problem, when Gorbatjov and Jeltzin was not there. Western Companies as well as local Russian ones as well as others acted like robbers of the worst kind.

      It wopuld have been much better USSR in a controlled declining could have replaced bad parts with good ones. In the other hand all was so infected by siff Engels Economy of the worst kind. You cant expect Leading Economist and others to change much being bound in that much rotten rope.

  10. Nod says:

    fuck the rich…

    1. Really!? says:

      You say that only because you’re not. Loser

      1. Nod says:

        No, I say that because I am not stupid as you are…Desperate are you not? chasing me around threads to lash out at me because I know all about you…Dull, dumb, racist, confused, genocidal, and dickless…

        1. Really!? says:

          Sure you are, you are that dumb because you’re not rich and you hate people who have more than you. I think it’s a consequence of your repressed homosexuality. Embrace the gayity. I’m sure if you lubricated more it wouldn’t hurt as much.

        2. Really!? says:

          Still focused on my manhood. Wow, your desperation is endless

        3. Really!? says:

          You suggest I’m desperate but you’re the one constantly referring to my manhood. You sure you’re not projecting? Silly girl

        4. Really!? says:

          It’s late, I’m bored. Following you and humiliating you, proving what an impotent loser you are on many threads is entertaining. But clearly you’re upset about it. Do you need a tissue sweetie, it’s ok for big girls like you to cry

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *