On the issue of inclusion of Israel into the United States – Krokodil, 1967

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 7 minutes

The very much still current feuilleton, which appeared in the Soviet satirical magazine “Krokodil” issue №20 of 1967, is accompanied by a caricature by Yu.Fedotov, called “Control panel”.

The big lever on the machinery, operated by the US imperialist is “the lever of aggression”, while the sets of the switches and buttons on the panel read (from left to right, top to bottom): “racism”, “grabbing of oil”, “bombings”, “savagery”, “arsons”, “plundering”, “rapes”, “executions”. The the arrow button has the label “napalm”. And the three whitewashing arching arrows are for the main stream media: “excuses”, “lies”, “slander”.

👉 The material is from our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Sshieldmaiden”, where we are presenting a number of Soviet caricatures from 1967 and 1979, exposing the Israeli-Amrerican aggressions in the Middle East.

On the issue of inclusion into the United States

A letter of confidence to the US Congress

Ladies and gentlemen!

All patience comes to an end. Since the fifth of June, I, like many other readers around the world, have been opening the morning newspapers in the hope of seeing a message that you have finally made the long-awaited decision. As you can guess, I am referring to the incorporation of the State of Israel into the United States as the fifty-first state.

However, it’s been a month and a half now, and there’s still no news about it.

Naturally, I imagine that such a simple and natural idea as the idea of establishing the American state of Israel — especially after what has happened in the Middle East during this time — not to have visited your bright minds. The silence of the press on this issue probably means that the issue is still being discussed informally, behind the scenes, on the sidelines. Maybe even in a whisper.

Such caution, I assure you, is in vain. There is nothing vague about the issue of Israel’s inclusion into your States, either viewed as an internal matter of the United States, or in international terms. The situation is as clear as the sky over the Sinai Desert.

Let’s start with geography. The territory of Israel, admittedly, is not located within the American continent. But it doesn’t matter. Hawaii, for example, is an island, and moreover, it is by no means inhabited by the Anglo-Saxons, but you have included the Hawaiian Islands in the States. And you were by no means embarrassed by it. So, if Israel is equated to an island (almost according to the textbook: a part of the land surrounded on all sides by the outrage of the world community), then no amount of nitpicking will find any flaw.

Let’s move on to history. Israel has not yet turned twenty years old, which is quite a suitable age for adoption. And if we recall that the lively young man was fed from childhood with whole-dollar milk and with fatherly tenderness you gave his as presents long-range and rapid-fire “toys” with the label “Made in USA”, then of course there will be no misconceptions about the legality of such an adoption.
Continue reading →

Plasticine Crow and more – Soviet Animation, 1981

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: < 1 minute

As children, we all played with plasticine, creating figures or pictures, or just having fun. But what would happen if grown-ups stated playing with plasticine, like children?

On the New Year Eve of 2024, we presented a translation of “Last Year’s Snow Was Falling”, a plasticine animated film from 1983, directed by Alexander Tatarsky. That was, however not the first of his films using such animation technique.

In 1981, a series of three short animation films under the common title “Plasticine Crow”, came out to the delight of kids — both small and big.


Backup at Rumble.

Trivia!

👉 “Or maybe… or maybe…” is very (and we mean, very) loosely based on Ivan Krylov’s fable “The Crow and the Fox”.
👉 At 4:10, right at the start of “Or maybe… or maybe…”, a box of plasticine sold in the USSR can be seen in all its glory. Similar “stock” plasticine was used in the production of the animated film, though the creators had to mix in colour pigments to make the material more vibrant.
👉 The short film “About Paintings” uses drawings by children from the animation studio of the Central Republican Pioneers’ Palace of Kiev.

From our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”

Sergey Shahray: the first and main reason for the collapse of the USSR was the destruction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 24 minutes

The historiographic article you are about to read was written by Sergey Shahray for Interfax and published on December 7 2021 on the 30th anniversary of the destruction of the USSR. We have briefly touched upon this topic in the article One more redeeming factor for Yeltsin. Read also The referendum on the independence of Ukraine on December 1, 1991: how Kravchuk deceived Sevastopol and Crimea and Moving documentary about The All-Union Referendum on the Future of the USSR, which was held on March 17, 1991.

December 1991 was the last month of the Soviet Union’s existence. On December 1, Ukraine declared full state independence in a referendum, and on December 5, its Supreme Council denounced the Treaty establishing the USSR in 1922. Three days later, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed an agreement on the creation of the CIS, which was joined a week and a half later at a meeting in Alma Ata by other republics that were part of the USSR.

On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the CIS, Honoured Lawyer of Russia, Professor Sergey Shahray reflects on the reasons for the collapse of the Union in an article published on the pages of the Interfax project “30 years ago: chronicle of the last days of the USSR”.

The collapse of the USSR: only the facts

Thirty years have passed since the collapse of the USSR, which became not only a key geopolitical event of the late twentieth century, but also a huge personal tragedy for millions of Soviet citizens. The historiography of the “perestroika” and the disintegration of the USSR today has thousands of domestic and foreign publications. However, the key question remains the same: was the collapse of the USSR a historical accident that had no objective basis, or was the catastrophe natural and inevitable in the historical conditions prevailing at that time? As you know, diametrically opposed answers to this question were formulated back in the early 1990s, and so far neither scientific nor, especially, public consensus has been achieved.

Despite the fact that the history of the collapse of the Soviet Union itself goes further and further into the past, interest in this topic is growing. Today, when the world is constantly facing unexpected challenges and dramatic changes, the historical experience of managing large-scale socio-economic transformations, including the analysis of successes and disasters, as exemplified by the last years of the USSR, is of exceptional importance. The value of this kind of comparative research depends to a large extent on attention to documentary sources that demonstrate the relationship of the particularities of the decisions made with a specific historical context.

The documents and facts prove that under the prevailing historical conditions, starting from the end of August 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable. However, this conclusion is at odds with the concept of conspiracy, which has become established in the minds of many contemporaries and those who have never lived in the Soviet era and look at the events of the past through the prism of myths, emotions, and free interpretations.

It is an absolutely amazing phenomenon, when documents that are accessible to everyone, necessary for a comprehensive view of the whole picture of historical events, remain out of sight year after year not only of the general public, but also of specialists. Even more surprising is the fact that in the course of the attempts to return to scientific and public discourse, many documents that are important for understanding the process of the collapse of the USSR sometimes cause rejection, since filling in the gaps inevitably forms other chains of causes and effects. And the logic that grows out of the documentary and factual basis, taken without exceptions and omissions, turns out to be inconvenient and uncomfortable for those who value the myths of alternative history.

What were the key reasons for the disintegration of the USSR?

The first and main reason is the destruction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).

It is necessary to clearly identify the “point of no return”, the moment after which it was impossible to preserve the Union of the USSR. Official documents and archival materials allow us to determine this milestone absolutely precisely – the end of August 1991: the attempted coup d’etat with the creation of the Emergency Committee (August 19 – 21, 1991), the withdrawal the General Secretary of the CPSU from the CPSU with a call to all honest communists to leave the CPSU, the decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to suspend the activities of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the proclamation on August 24, 1991 of the independence of Ukraine.

After that, the situation “crumbled” – the process of disintegration became avalanche-like and irreversible.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the backbone, the supporting structure and the real mechanism of exercising state power in the USSR, and that is why the collapse of the CPSU inevitably led to the collapse of the Soviet state.

As the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation subsequently established, “the governing structures of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR carried out state power functions in practice contrary to the existing constitutions”. That is why the growth of contradictions within the once monolithic party and its slow and then landslide disintegration were the main reason for the collapse of the union state and the central government.

Let’s consider this process and the trajectory of erroneous decisions of the supreme union state and party authorities in more detail.
Continue reading →

The first reunification of Donbass and Russia

Posted on by
3
Reading time: 18 minutes

Without understanding the history of Donbass in the early XX century, it is impossible to understand the civil war that is taking place in Ukraine now. We have raised this topic in a 2016 article “Short History of Creation of Ukraine and Donetsk-Krivorog Republics after the 1917 Revolution in Russia”. However, that article was not as systematic as the one you are about to read now – “The first reunification of Donbass and Russia”. It was published in Regnum on June 17, 2017.

After reading this article, we will have a solid foundation for understanding the topic of forced ukrainisation, which was taking place in 1920s, a topic which we wil return to in a later publication.

The problem of Donbass is not new to Russia. Few people know, but in the early twenties of the last century, Russia and Ukraine were already in a very serious conflict over this region. Moreover, the tensions around that territorial dispute were very high. It almost came to a direct military confrontation. It worked out that time. Russia won then. However, the conflict itself was hushed up for a very long time, for obvious reasons. But as they say, there are never permanently resolved conflicts, especially if these conflicts are linguistic and regional in nature. And perhaps, having read the history of the territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia over the Eastern Donbass, it will be easier to understand the processes taking place now in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

The signing of the Brest Peace by the Ukrainian Central Rada on February 9, 1918, according to which the territory of Ukraine (including Donbass) was to be occupied by German troops can be considered as a kind of a start to that conflict. In response, on February 12, 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic (DKR) was proclaimed in Harkov at the regional congress of Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, which declared its independence and, accordingly, did not recognise the Brest Peace. The government of the new republic included representatives of the all—Russian left-wing parties, while the DKR was headed by the Bolshevik comrade Artyom (Fyodor Sergeev). After the proclamation of the republic, he sent a telegram to the leader of Soviet Russia, Vladimir Lenin:

“The Regional Congress of Soviets adopted a resolution on the creation of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog basin as part of the All-Russian Federation of Soviets.”

According to the leadership of the new republic, it was created primarily based on the territorial and economic principle and was supposed to include the territories of three basins: coal, iron ore and salt. The coal basin (Donbass), divided in the imperial period of Russian history between several administrative units (Yekaterinoslav and Harkov provinces, as well as the Donskoy Army Region, also known as Don Host Region), according to the republican leadership, was supposed to become a single entity within one administrative unit. Therefore, not only Yekaterinoslav province (on the territory of which the Central or, as it was also called, Old Donbass was located) was included in the DKR, but also, as “comrade Artyom” wrote in a note to the heads of foreign states, describing the eastern borders of the DKR: “The Sea of Azov to Taganrog and the borders of the Soviet coal districts of the Don region along the railway line Rostov — Voronezh to Lihaya station.” And in the future, it is these “coal Soviet districts” that will become a stumbling block in the border dispute between the two Soviet republics.

German troops on the Sophia square in Kiev in April of 1918

However, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic could not cope with the German offensive, and by the end of May 1918, the Germans had occupied all of Ukraine (including Donbass) and part of the territory of the Donskoy Army Region. The Government of the DKR was forced to evacuate.

After the revolution in Germany, in the autumn of 1918, the Bolsheviks began the liberation of Ukraine from the German occupiers. At the end of January 1919, the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom) of Ukraine was established in liberated Harkov under the leadership of Christian Rakovsky. The Government of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic has also returned to Harkov. However, the Soviet leadership in Moscow decided that strategically, the existence of Soviet Ukraine is now more important than the existence of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic. Therefore, the Central Committee (CC) of the Bolshevik Party decided to annex the territory of the DKR to the territory of Ukraine (which at that time was understood by the majority of the population of the former Russian Empire as the Middle Dnieper and the Right Bank of the Dnieper). On February 17, 1919, Vladimir Lenin signed a decree: “Ask comrade Stalin, through the Bureau of the Central Committee, to carry out the decommissioning of Krivdonbass”. The leadership of the DKR, dominated by the Bolsheviks, albeit with a heavy heart, but obeyed the decision of the party. In March 1919, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) was proclaimed in Harkov. And since the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic became part of the Ukrainian SSR, the eastern border of the DKR automatically became the eastern border of Soviet Ukraine. To a certain extent, this came as a surprise to many residents of both Taganrog and Eastern Donbass (Alexandro-Hrushevsky (Shakhtinsky) and Yekaterinenskoe-Kamensky districts), who began to write mass appeals to the central authorities, opposing their annexation to the Ukrainian SSR. Because joining the Soviet Donbass was one thing, but joining Ukraine was quite another. After all, at that moment the Soviet Union had not yet been established. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and the Soviet Ukraine were de jure considered independent states, even if they entered into a military and economic alliance with each other.

At the same time, it is necessary to understand what processes were taking place inside Ukraine itself in order to understand why the residents of Eastern Donbass were far from enthusiastic about the prospect of becoming “Ukrainians”.
Continue reading →

“Situation in several European countries with the desecration and destruction of monuments dedicated to those who fought against Nazism during World War II” – Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s report

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 4 minutes

Read the full report at the site of the MFA!

Since the end of the World War II, approximately 4’000 monuments to Soviet soldiers have been erected in Europe. A total of more than one million Red Army soldiers are buried in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. In general, the peoples of the USSR and Europe paid a much higher price for the Victory over Nazism, measured in tens of millions of lives.

Vandalised Soviet soldier graves in Germany

The Soviet army liberated Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria (the eastern part of the country and Vienna), Romania, Yugoslavia and a number of other European countries from Nazism.

The majority of Soviet monuments were erected specifically in these countries. There are also monuments to the Soviet soldier in Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, and France.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many memorials ended up on the territory of states bordering Russia that emerged from the former Soviet republics. In several of these countries, the chosen course toward reviving Nazism and rewriting history has had a serious impact on the memorial legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

❌ Decommunisation, the destruction of monuments to our common history and culture, the desecration of the graves of fallen Soviet soldiers, neo-Nazi torch marches, the glorification of Nazis and their collaborators, the physical elimination of ideological opponents — many of these practices, and often all of them at once, have become commonplace in Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as in Poland, the Czech Republic and a number of other European countries.

These very countries are the focus of this report. Under the guise of “decommunisation” laws and by dismantling monuments to Soviet soldiers, the governments of these countries are attempting to “reinforce an anti-Russian front”.

At the same time, monuments to Nazi criminals are being erected, their protection is being enshrined in law, and rare acts of activists opposing Nazi memorials are harshly prosecuted. The key objective of such steps is the complete erasure of historical memory.

This report has been prepared as part of the Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s efforts to draw attention to the manifestations of various forms of Nazi glorification, neo-Nazism, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance in foreign countries.

The report focuses on the actions of certain countries, primarily the Baltic states, Poland, and Ukraine, which, using Russia’s special military operation aimed at denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, as well as the protection of the peaceful population of Donbass, as a pretext, have sharply escalated a long-standing practice of destroying Soviet, Russian, and often their own memorial heritage on their territories.

📄 Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s report on the “Situation in several European countries with the desecration and destruction of monuments dedicated to those who fought against Nazism during World War II” contains a detailed account of the unlawful actions by authorities of Ukraine, the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Moldova, Poland, Finland, Germany, and the Czech Republic, targeting Russian and Soviet monuments.

The report can also be downloaded as a PDF file.

The report is long, but should be read, or at least skimmed through, by all – including its 262 soure references!

👉 In July of 2023, documents were leaked from the NATO summit in Lithuania, where one of NATO’s action points was the targeted destruction of Soviet monuments. Tsargrad reported back then:

The destruction of monuments to Soviet soldiers and generals in Europe is not just the whim of individual Western politicians, but the official course of NATO. Hackers have declassified the alliance’s documents, revealing the conspiracy.

The hacker group “From Russia with Love” has gained access to documents collected by the organisers of the NATO summit, which is taking place in Vilnius these days.

It follows from them that the systematic destruction of monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators, which began before their time, is not the Russophobic manifestations of individual Young Europeans, but the official course of the West, adopted at the NATO level.

The documents say that the destruction of Soviet monuments is an extremely important job. This vandalism allows us to destroy the “Russian narrative” that Europe was freed from fascism thanks to Moscow.

In addition, the destruction of monuments, according to the NATO leadership, contributes to the international isolation of Russia.

“Gretchen” as a driving force and a personification of Nazi plundering, both then and now

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 10 minutes

In 2022, with the start of the SMO, the Ukrainian forces that moved into Donbass were on many occasions seen plundering homes of the residents they were supposedly protecting. The Ukrainian postal office was overworked with the parcels being sent from Donbass to the Western Ukraine, containing plundered goods. During the Ukrainian occupation of the small portion of Kursk region, a similar scenario unfolded, with plundered goods and abducted people being sent to the Ukraine.

That is nothing new, as the German Nazi occupiers were doing wholesale plundering of the Soviet land at all levels – taking away both material goods and people.

Presenting an extended article from the publication at our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

On Friday, November 13, 1942, in issue №267 of the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), Ilya Ehrenburg published an article simply called “Gretchen”, telling about the driving force and the psyche of such plundering.

The original print of Ilya Ehrenburg’s «Gretchen» in Красная Звезда. Source

⭐️ Red Star is the newspaper of the armed forces of the USSR and now, Russia. During the Great Patriotic War, it reached the soldiers at the fronts with the field post, thus binding together the whole fighting Soviet Union and contributing to building a united spiritual front.

Ilya Ehrenburg as well as many other gifted Soviet writers such as Konstantin Simonov, Mihail Sholohov, Aleksey Tolstoy, Andrey Platonov, Iosif Grossman worked as war correspondents embedded with the troops at the fronts.

After the war, the most significant of Ehrenburg’s articles and pieces were published in the book Война (War). It was translated to many languages and published under different titles.

«War» contains shocking testimony of atrocities committed by the fascists in the USSR and of the strength and endurance of the Soviet peoples. It is a warning to the future; a soul-wrecking imperative to all anti-fascists!

«Gretchen will no longer receive parcels»
The 1943 drawing by Yulij Ganf may have been inspired by the article «Gretchen».
This poster is one of many on the display at the digital exhibition of the Nekrasov library, “The Artists of Victory”

Gretchen

I’ve seen a lot of Fritz’ wallets. In one section there are naked girls and addresses of brothels, in the other (Fritz is careful, he will not confuse) there is a photo of a blonde German woman with round porcelain eyes. This is Fritz’s wife, Frau Muller or Frau Schmidt. Sometimes Fritz has a bride instead of a wife. This bride may have half a dozen children, but since Fritz did not marry her, he calls her “the bride.”
Continue reading →

Moldova – the sad results of 33 years of independence

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 7 minutes

This translation concludes for now our series of articles about the Moldavian/Romanian conundrum, taking a look at the newest history of and the state of affairs in Moldavia. The article appeared on August 28, 2024 in the “Rythm of Eurazia” Dzen blog, written by Ilya Kiselyov.

Moldova – the sad results of 33 years of independence

Drawing by A. Gorbarukov

Every year in August, a kind of “independence parade” takes place in the post–Soviet space – states that have been formed for more than 30 years celebrate the dates of their declaration of independence. At the same time, for some reason, all these dates are given a festive character, although not all of the post-Soviet countries have been able to demonstrate progress in their development over the past years, and a number of them can be safely described as in a state of decline and even degradation.

It is noteworthy that the latter primarily include those post-Soviet states that have chosen the Western direction in their geopolitical orientation. These countries lost their independence, which they gained in 1991, joining the EU and NATO like the Baltic republics. As a result, they had to pay for this not only by obeying the decisions that are made outside of their the countries, in Brussels, but also by actually abandoning their own economy, inherited from the USSR.

Similar processes are taking place in those post-Soviet states that have not yet “earned” the right to join the EU, but whose authorities are very eager to do so. One of these post-Soviet states is the small Republic of Moldova, which celebrates Independence Day on August 27. Its current authorities, led by President Maia Sandu, are doing everything to drag their country into the EU.

The active stage of renunciation of sovereignty in Moldova began in 2009, when a coalition of pro-Western parties came to power in the republic, proclaiming a course towards “European integration” and joining the EU. Today, this process is being promoted by the head of state, as well as the PAS party as the parliamentary majority forming the government of the country. At the same time, blasphemously, “independent” Moldova is governed by people who have in their pocket a passport from neighbouring Romania. It’s hard to believe, but these includes absolutely all the top officials of the country: the president, the Prime Minister and members of the government, the Speaker and members of Parliament, the head of the Constitutional Court, most other judges, employees of ministries, law enforcement agencies and special services.
Continue reading →

The atrocities of the Romanians shocked even the Germans: what was the Nazi occupation of Moldavia like

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 7 minutes

Continuing the topic of Romania and Moldavia, we present a translation of an article by Maxim Kemerrer, which was published in RuBaltic on July 17, 2022.

The atrocities of the Romanians shocked even the Germans: what was the Nazi occupation of Moldavia like

81 years have passed since the entry of Romanian troops into the capital of the Moldavian SSR, Chisinau. Today’s leaders in Chisinau and Bucharest call the events of the initial stage of the Great Patriotic War for another reunification of Romania and Moldavia. In fact, it was another occupation of Moldavia by Romania, which resulted in the terror of the civilian population and the destruction of the peoples of the multinational Moldavian SSR by the Romanian occupiers.

The state of Romania arose largely due to the support of Britain and France, who sought to create their own vassal near the southern borders of the Russian Empire, which could be used against Russia. (BATS note: yet, as we saw from the publication How Russia created Romania, it was done at the expense of Russia, and with Russian arms.) From the very beginning of its existence, Romania began to fulfil precisely this task, making territorial claims to Bessarabia.

However, it never wanted to go to war with Russia, and therefore, at that time, limited itself to cultural and ideological expansion, declaring that one people lived on the two banks of the Prut.

At the same time, the fact that the population of Bessarabia has always been multinational, with a certain dominance of Moldavians, was completely ignored.

Besides them, Malorossians lived compactly in the north and east of this territory, a significant part of the south of Bessarabia was compactly populated by Gagauz and Bulgarians, and the introduction of the pale of settlement in the Russian Empire led to a large number of Jews coming to Bessarabia. Thus, according to the census results of the late 19th century, Jews made up up to a third of the population of Chisinau, and many county centers of the country were simply large Jewish townships.

Romania’s desire to seise Bessarabia came true only in 1918, when the Moldavian People’s Republic was established after the Great October Socialist Revolution. On December 7, 1917, under the pretext of purchasing food, two regiments of the Romanian army crossed the Prut River, occupied Leovo and several border villages. Soon, on March 27, 1918, the parliament, called the Sfatul Tserii (Council of the Country), surrounded by Romanian soldiers with machine guns, voted for the “annexation” of Bessarabia to Romania; representatives of the Romanian military command were also present in the voting hall. After that, the parliament was dispersed by the Romanian military.

A commentary

A commentary from Moldavian parliament deputy from Beltsy, Alexander Nesterovsky, published in Bloknot Moldova. The commentary was made in 2018 with regard to the initiative from the Moladvian “Party of National Unity” to organise the so-caleld “Day of unity” in Beltsy:

“In the very first days after the Romanian troops entered the territory of the Moldavian Democratic Republic, the punishers shot 45 peasant delegates of the 3rd Bessarabian Provincial Peasant Congress, held in Chisinau. Then 58 members of the Sfatul Tserii, who opposed the annexation of Bessarabia to Romania, were arrested. Some of them were shot. Their place in the hall was taken by supporters of the Romanian authorities. The decision of Sfatul Tserii to join Romania on April 9, 1918, was made at gunpoint, but even after that, almost half of the delegates – 47% – voted against joining.”

As a result, Bessarabia was under Romanian occupation until June 28, 1940; throughout this period, the territory between the Dniester and the Prut remained in fact in the status of a colony and was the region of Romania with the lowest standard of living.

During the 22 years of the Romanian occupation, Bessarabia took the first place in Europe in terms of population mortality, over 500,000 people left it, tens of thousands of local residents who opposed the occupation were shot, and about 200,000 died of starvation.

The Romanian occupation ended in 1940, when Soviet troops occupied Bessarabia. By this time, the Moldavian Autonomous Republic (MASSR) had already existed in the USSR for 16 years, established on the lands of the Ukrainian SSR and the Left Bank of the Dniester (modern Transnistria).

Unfortunately, the period after the liberation of Bessarabia was short — less than a year later, on June 22, 1941, the Great Patriotic War began, in which Romania became an ally of Hitler, and on July 16, Romanian occupation forces again entered the territory of Bessarabia.
Continue reading →

How Russia created Romania

Posted on by
1
Reading time: 7 minutes

Now that the “correct” president was selected for the Romanian, while the point of “the last Ukrainian” is quickly approaching, the time has come to take a closer look at that country, as well as its neighbouring, far order Moldavia. Below is a translation of an historiographic article from New Izvestiya, taking a quick tour into the very short history of Roimania.

A certain historical parallel to Finland emerges, where in both cases Russia played the key role in creating the statehood of these states, yet, the states turned on their creator with a rabidly russophobic/racist hatred.

In the context of this article, read also our recent translation The text of Hitler’s statement on the extermination of Slavic peoples has been published in Russia for the first time.

How Russia created Romania

Once upon a time, during the early Middle Ages, Romanians, like Russians, became Christian – Orthodox Christians. However, at that time Romania, as a country bearing such name, did not exist: there were disparate principalities united only by faith.

Even then, our peoples were linked by a common past: Romanians had long used Church Slavonic in worship and Cyrillic for communication and writing texts.

The Prut Campaign of 1711. Peter I and Gospodar of Moldavia, Dmitry Cantemir in the battle for Moldavia against the Turks and Tatars, 1911. Painter: Victor Arseni.

So how did Romania appear on the world map?

The Gospodars (rulers) of Wallachia and Moldavia (on the territory of the present-day Romania) have long sought friendship and protection from the Russian monarchs. The rulers, Orthodox Christians, were burdened by the fate of the vassals of the Muslim Ottoman Empire. They also did not like the need to leave their children and loved ones hostage in Istanbul, where many of them, and sometimes the rulers themselves, were martyred at the hands of the sultans. The poll tax, which all non-Muslim subjects had to pay to the sultan, was also a heavy burden, and on top of that, there were numerous levies and tributes that had to be collected annually and sent to the Ottoman Turks. Already in the 18th century, the gospodars and boyars saw Russia as a patron and protector. Fleeing from the Turks, many found shelter and fame at the royal court. In 1711, Dmitry Cantemir, the exiled ruler of Moldavia, arrived at the court of Peter the Great with a thousand boyars. He became the most serene Knyaz of Russia, along with illustrious comrade of Peter’s, Alexander Danilovich Menshikov. His son, the first Russian satirical poet Antioh Dmitrievich Cantemir, was Russian ambassador to England and France.

The map depicts the borders of the Principality of Moldavia, Principality of Wallachia before the Union (orange lines).
After 1711, the part of the Principality of Moldavia residing between rivers Dniester and Prut came under Russian protection, while what remained under the Ottoman Empire, formed a Union of Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (light-green area with the black border).
Ater 1866 this union began to be called “Romania”.

The historical task of Russia

Russia considered it its historical task to get rid of the Turkish threat, and saw itself as a defender of the rights and freedoms of the Christian peoples who lived under Turkish rule. The power of the latter gradually weakened, and the Romanians sought to get out from under its influence. In the 19th century, the Russian Empire took a direct part in the liberation of Orthodox Romania. A significant part of the territory of the future Romania, at the insistence of Russia, was transferred by the Turks to Russian protection following the war of 1828-1829. The first constitutions of Moldavia and Wallachia were adopted, allowing the future Romanian lands to develop in the same way as other European countries of that time. Romanians were becoming really Romanians, and not just residents of villages and towns of different territories. Schools with native language teaching were opened. Historians have praised these laws: “The first Romanian constitutions that introduced fixed and stable laws that replaced momentary and arbitrary decisions.”

A series of wars and final independence

Even then, the Romanians’ dream of independence was being “crippled” by the Western European powers, who did not want Turkey to weaken as as counterweight to Russia. It all started with Napoleon, who encouraged the Romanians to “limit Russian expansion”. After the Crimean War, Romanians came under the influence of Western powers, which did not aim to liberate Romania from the Ottoman yoke: the principalities continued to pay exhausting tribute to the Ottoman Empire.

Romania appeared as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars, and became a sovereign country by the will of Russia in 1877-1878, after the final liberation of Romania from the Turkish–Ottoman rule, which had lasted from the 16th century. Russian losses in this war amounted to 16,000 killed and 7,000 dead from wounds (there are other estimates – up to 36,500 killed and 81,000 dead from wounds and diseases). These figures of losses are huge in themselves, but it is worth considering that, for example, 71 thousand people lived in Yaroslavl at the end of the 19th century, that is, either a quarter or half of the inhabitants of a large Russian city died in this war. Romanians, allied with the Russians, lost 1.5 thousand people. Yes, Romanian troops then took a direct part in the fighting – of course, on the side of Russia. Russian-Romanian troops participated together in the siege of Bulgarian Plevna, during the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish rule, and the first Romanian king even became marshal of the united Russian-Romanian troops.
Continue reading →

Lend-Lease: how much did the USSR pay for the help of the Allies in the Great Patriotic War

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 8 minutes

We present in this article several materials about the WWII Lend-Lease program. The materials are comprised of publications from a friendly channel, our translation of a Russian article, Marshal Zhukov’s memoirs, and our closing thoughts on solidarity.

Lend-Lease

Today is a good opportunity to dispel another myth: the myth of the US Lend-Lease Act during World War II and the idea that it was precisely this aid that enabled the Soviet Union to defeat the German Reich.

In fact, this aid from the United States—which also went to Great Britain—accounted for only four to ten percent of the Red Army’s total materiel during World War II. The USSR produced 90 to 96 percent of its weapons, equipment, and supplies itself.

In addition, there was also a reverse lend-lease relationship: the USSR supplied raw materials such as manganese, platinum, chromium, asbestos, leather and even gold to the USA to support the production of those relief supplies that were later sent back to the Soviet front via the Arctic convoy.

The USSR – and later Russia – repaid $722 million to the US Treasury for this aid.

Lend-Lease: how much did the USSR pay for the help of the Allies in the Great Patriotic War

– translated from a Dzen article, 18.10.2018

Lend-lease is a program of “crediting” of the US allies during the Second World War. The supplies included military equipment, food, equipment and raw materials. How long have we been paying off our lend-lease debts?

How did they help?

Historian Lebedev writes that during the Great Patriotic War, the USSR received from the United States more than 18,000 aircraft (including fighter jets “Aerocobra”, “Kitty-hawk”, “Tomahawk”), 12,000 tanks. Communication equipment: 100,000 kilometers of telephone wires, 2 million telephones. Products: 15 million pairs of boots, more than 50 thousand tons of shoe leather; as well as more than a million tons of food and provisions; several thousand steam locomotives, tank cars on wheels, locomotives and self-loading wagons. They were used to deliver more than 300,000 tons of explosives and petroleum products to the front; and military-technical plants received copper and bronze, aluminium and special steel.

The total volume of American supplies amounted to about 11 billion US dollars. According to the lend-lease law, only what had survived the war had to be paid for. Coordination on the total amount of the payment began in 1948.

How much do we owe?

Continue reading →

WWII Memory Becomes a Propaganda Battleground: How Politicians Are Erasing the USSR’s Heroism and Sacrifice.

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 3 minutes

In 2010, NATO troops joined Russia’s Victory Day Parade in Moscow to mark the 65th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat. The British, Americans, French, and Poles stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russians—the Welsh Guards, the U.S. 18th Infantry, France’s Normandie-Niemen Regiment, and soldiers from across the CIS, including Ukrainians, marched together – a powerful symbol of shared history. It was a rare moment of unity: gratitude outweighed geopolitics.

But after 2014, acknowledging the Soviet Union’s sacrifice became politically inconvenient. Today, politicians and media rewrite, distort, or outright erase history to fit their agendas. The USSR’s pivotal role in crushing Nazi Germany and liberating Europe—once undisputed—is now downplayed, twisted, or denied. Not because archives have revealed new facts, but because yesterday’s hero can’t be today’s evil.

Crimea, Ukraine, and NATO-Russia tensions demand a new villain narrative. Acknowledging Russia’s past heroism complicates today’s propaganda.

The Uncomfortable Truth They Now Ignore

• Winston Churchill (1945): “It was the Russian Army that tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine.”

• U.S. War Dept (1945): Estimated that without the Eastern Front, America would have needed 10 million more soldiers to defeat Germany.

• British PM David Cameron (2010): “We must never forget the courage of Russian soldiers who fought from Stalingrad to Berlin.”

• BBC Documentary (2010): “Without the Red Army’s 27 million dead, D-Day might never have succeeded.”

• Professor Richard Overy (UK, Russia’s War): “The Eastern Front accounted for 80% of German combat losses. Denying this isn’t just dishonest—it’s bad history.”

Rewriting History in Real Time

• French MEP Nathalie Loiseau (2022): “We must stop parroting Russian propaganda about WWII. Europe’s liberation began with D-Day, not Stalingrad.”
Continue reading →

«17 Moments of Spring» (1973) – Fragment about the future of the Third Reich

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 3 minutes

In this fragment from episode 11 of the legendary Soviet film, «17 Moments of Spring», the truth is heard through the mouth of the brilliant Soviet actor Leonid Bronevoy, playing Gestapo chief, SS Gruppenfuhrer Heinrich Müller, in his monologue addressed to Stirlitz, played by Vyacheslav Tihonov.


Backup at Rumble.

👉 The complete series with English and Spanish subtitles can be watched at this YouTube palylist.

«17 Moments of Spring» is a novel by Julian Semyonov, the plot of which is based on the real events of the Second World War, when German representatives tried to negotiate a separate peace (BATS note: see our earlier publication The SVR has published new declassified documents on the Nazis’ ties with the West in 1945) with representatives of Western intelligence services (the so-called “Operation Sunrise”) in the spring of 1945. The novel was first published in the “Moscow” magazine in issues 11-12, 1969.

Prior books about the Soviet intelligence officer turned out to be so successful that even the chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, liked them, and personally contacted Semyonov praising his work. The gratitude turned out to be not only verbal: Andropov gave the writer permission to visit the KGB archives, and also initiated the film adaptation of the novels.

The events described in the novel are based on the memoirs of Brigadefuhrer Walter Schellenberg. This man held the position of chief of intelligence of the Third Reich. According to the verdict of the Nuremberg trials, he received a rather short sentence, given his position. He later wrote a memoir, which was published in Europe after Schellenberg’s death. The book ended up in the Soviet Union and was kept in a closed KGB archive until Semyonov managed to read it. So the writer had a ready-made plot with real characters in his hands, which only needed to be finalised and add the sharpness of a political detective story.

Julian Semyonov did a tremendous job writing the book. In addition to working for hours with archives, he personally interviewed several SS leaders — among them, Paul Blum, an employee of the Bern residency of A. Dulles — and representatives of the Third Reich as a correspondent, and also participated in the search for Hitler’s henchmen.

In 1973, a 12-episode film adaptation of the novel directed by Tatiana Lioznova premiered.
Continue reading →

25.05.2014 – The last day of peace in Donetsk

Posted on by
2
Reading time: 4 minutes

The remembrance post on Russell ‘Texas’ Bentley’s Telegram channel, written by his widow, Lyudmila Bentley.

May 25, 2014 was the last peaceful day for the residents of Donetsk. The last day when residents and guests of the city walked, strolled quietly along the streets and airplanes flew. On this day it was possible. And tomorrow…

Donetsk residents consider May 26, 2014 as the line behind which the former Ukraine, which we loved, does not exist any more for us. On this day 10 years ago, Ukrainian helicopters and bombers, formally subordinate to the SBU, raided Donetsk International Airport and the suburbs of Donetsk itself. As a result, 40 people were killed and 31 were wounded.

Our city was attacked by Ukrainian warplanes. Su-25s, MiG-29s and Mi-24s shelled Donetsk.

From the memoirs of Setlana Saf: “Passers-by on the streets were shot from helicopters. The way to and from the airport turned out to be the ‘road of death’. For more than a week it was strewn with people killed in their cars, people killed near their cars, people shot in ambulances, people fleeing in the direction of the tree line not far from them… Those who were vacationing with their children near the reservoir of the Avdeyevka coking plant also came under fire from the helicopters. On the square near the railway station – killed… And the airport… It’s gone. Who will be responsible for that?”

“It was HELL! “The ‘non-brothers’ started killing us!!! To this day, at the sound of any flying object, be it a helicopter or an airplane, there is a feeling of fear and a desire to hide, to take cover. And this is despite the fact that I now live in the so-called safe zone… And this state will haunt those who lived through those terrible days for a long time. When will this nightmare finally end…? And who will be responsible for all this?” – Natalia Trofimenko.

“I remember everything like yesterday. Everything in front of my eyes… Airplanes, heat traps, hum, helicopters, horror, tears, misunderstanding, rejection…” – Galina Abramova.

“I remember how the helicopters flew over the schools and kindergartens of Oktyabrsky settlement. I remember the frightened eyes of the children – and not a single Ukrainian news bulletin reported it…” – Irina Chinkina.

“To this day, when I remember that day, I am gripped with fear and shaking, and tears are streaming from my eyes… How I was screaming then! I frightened my granddaughter, she ran after me, and in search of a hiding place I threw myself from side to side, until we hid behind the sofa in the hall… She clung to me trembling body and begged me to protect her. And the helicopters were circling over our house… A neighbor who lived three houses away from us was looking for her son for a long time, and then she couldn’t get him murdered out of the car for a few days … It was pretty hot, and the killed ones were laying on the road, shelled by snipers from all sides, for several days…” – Irina Isayenko.

In those days, I was in my native Petrovsky district. Being quite far from politics, I remember my incomprehensible thoughts: “What is going on? Who are those people? Why are the airplanes bombing us?”

Russell told me, he was at home in the U.S. at the time, closely following what was going on the Internet, and his heart was bleeding because he had known since Maidan that his government was behind it all. He knew and was tormented that he had to do something about it, not just watch. He will make the final decision to go to Donbass to protect civilians on June 2, 2014 after the Ukrainian Air Force air strike on the peaceful administration of Lugansk.

– Lyudmila Bentley

Genocide: Justice Will Prevail – RT Documentary. Thoughts by Zotov on “Generalplan Ost”

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 5 minutes

The Third Reich war against USSR was never just about territory or resources.


Video at Rumble.

It was a campaign to clear ‘living space’. Under the Hunger Plan, grain would be stripped from southern Soviet lands, condemning 30 million people to starvation.

Mass killings of civilians was a part of Nazi strategy. Under the guise of ‘anti-partisan operations’, the Nazis wiped entire villages off the map across Soviet lands. They set up brutal death camps for POWs. Over 380,000 people were murdered in Rostov Region, while in Pskov Region, more than 600,000 civilians were exterminated.

One of the most horrifying episodes in this genocide was the siege of Leningrad. For 872 days, citizens endured unimaginable hunger, cold, and suffering. Recent estimates place the death toll at over 1,093,000 people.

Our film brings together historians, search teams, prosecutors, and forensic experts to reveal the scale of Nazi atrocities across the country: mass executions at a brick factory in Salsk, the murder of 54 children in a sanatorium in Teberda… These are just a few chapters in one vast, systematic crime called ‘genocide’.

The word ‘genocide’ didn’t even enter international law until 1948, after the main Nuremberg trials had already ended. At Nuremberg, Nazi crimes against civilians were recognised as crimes against humanity, and the guilt of the accused was firmly established.

But today, 80 years later, there are efforts in the West to rewrite that history and deny the scale of suffering inflicted on the Soviet people. That’s why it’s become necessary to formally and legally establish the full extent of Nazi crimes.

Over the past 5 years, Russian courts have reviewed archival records, examined new evidence, conducted modern forensic investigations, and gathered testimony from witnesses. Based on the total body of evidence, the courts have concluded: the Nazis’ actions constituted genocide.

🎦 Watch the new film by Vitaly (https://rtdoc.tv/author/70-vitaly-buzuev) Buzuev and Ekaterina (https://en.rtdoc.tv/author/205-ekaterina-kitaitseva) Kitaytseva ‘Genocide: Justice Will Prevail’.

Source: MTdocumentary

‼️ Read also our newly-translated article The European Genocide of the Russian People

Following is a Telegram post by Georgy Zotov, translated by “Siberian Matrëshka”:

Once upon a time, Germany developed a master plan called “Ost” (“East”)

It was initiated in 1940 by Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler. At first, Jews and Poles were taken into account, but after June 22, 1941, the main focus became the fate of the Soviet Union and the Slavic nationalities inhabiting it.
Continue reading →

The Jubilation of the Victory – word to Georgy Zhukov

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 3 minutes

From Georgy Zhukov’s memoirs “Reflections and Recollection”, volume 2, pages 400-402.

Berlin. Germany. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signing the unconditional surrender of the German forces. (Photo ITAR-TASS)

After signing the act, Keitel rose and put on his right glove, making another attempt to show his military bearing. But nothing came of it and he went over slowly to his table.

At zero hours 43 minutes, May 9, 1945, the signing of the instrument of unconditional surrender was finished. I asked the German delegation to leave the hall.

Keitel, Friedeburg and Stumpff rose, bowed and left the hall, their heads bent. Their staff officers followed them.

On behalf of the Soviet Supreme Command, I cordially congratulated everybody present on the long-awaited victory. Incredible commotion broke out in the hall. Everybody was congratulating one another and shaking hands. Many had tears of joy in their eyes. I was surrounded by my comrades-in- arms: V. D. Sokolovsky, M. S. Malinin, K. F. Telegin, N. A. Antipenko, V. Ya. Kolpakchi, V. I. Kuznetsov, S. I. Bogdanov, N. E. Berzarin, F. Ye. Bokov, P. A. Belov, A. V. Gorbatov and others.

“Dear friends,” I said to my comrades-in-arms, “a great honour has been accorded us. In the final battle the people, the Party and Government entrusted us to lead the valiant Soviet troops in the storm of Berlin. The Soviet troops, and you, those who headed the troops in the battle of Berlin have justified this trust. It is sad that many of our comrades are no more among us. How happy they would have been to see this long-awaited victory for which they gave their lives without hesitation.”

Remembering their friends and comrades-in-arms who were not to live to see this happy day, these people who were used to looking death in the eye without fear, could not keep back the tears.

At zero hours 50 minutes, May 9, 1945, the meeting at which the unconditional surrender of the German troops was signed came to a close.

After that a big reception was given. It passed off in an atmosphere of great enthusiasm. Opening the banquet I toasted the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition over Nazi Germany. The next toast was given by Marshal Arthur Tedder; he was followed by de Lattre de Tassigny and General Spaatz. It was then the turn of the Soviet generals. Each spoke of what was in his heart after all these hard years. I remember people speaking sincerely and in the most heartfelt manner. A great desire was expressed to consolidate for ever friendly relations between the countries of the anti-fascist coalition. This was stressed by the Soviet generals, by the Americans, the French and the British, and all of us then wanted to believe it would be that way.

The banquet ended in the morning with singing and dancing. The Soviet generals were unrivalled as far as dancing went. Even I could not restrain myself and, remembering my youth, did the Russkaya dance. We left the banquet hall to the accompaniment of a cannonade from all types of weapons on the occasion of the victory. The shooting went on in all parts of Berlin and its suburbs. Although shots were fired into the air, fragments from mines and shells, and bullets fell on the ground and it was not quite so safe to walk in the open on the morning of May 9. But how different it was from the danger to which we had grown accustomed during the long years of the war!

On the morning of May 9, 1945, the Act of Unconditional Surrender was brought to the Supreme Command Headquarters.

The first clause of the Act read as follows:

“1. We, the undersigned, acting on behalf of the German High Command, agree to the unconditional surrender of all our armed forces on land, at sea and in the air and also all forces which are at present under the German Command, to the Supreme Command of the Red Army and simultaneously to the Supreme Command of the Allied Expeditionary Force.”


Backup at Rumble.