Tag Archives: 1917

Occupation of Russia by the USA in 1918-1920. The “international intervention” during the post-revolutionary unrest.

Posted on by

Dividing the skin of a living bearA couple of months ago some Gunther Fehlinger, apparently a “Chair of European Committee for NATO Enlargement for Kosovo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Austria, Moldova, Ireland, Georgia, EU” (mostly concerning the places where trouble can be stirred) posted an X-Tweet with an image of a partitioned Russia, under a prettified title of “Why Russia must be Decolonised” and a link to a EuroMaidan article arguing that Russia is not a federation and it is thus an open season on dividing the skin of the not-yet-killed bear (as the Russian saying goes). It does not disconcert them that the exact same argument that they are making can be applied to the USA, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and quite a number of other candidates for “decolonisation NATO-style”.

Napoleonida

Napoleon’s plan for the division of the territory of the Ukraine (as of 1954-2014):
Grey – Give to Poland
Red – The Duchy of Poltava
Green – The Duchy of Chernigov
Yellow – The State of Napoleonida
Beige – Didn’t partition

This is not something new. The “Drang nach oesten” has been the lead tune in the various invasions of Russia by the Western vultures. We can, for example, recall that before the 1812 invasion, Napoleon had already designated Crimea as a new French Riviera, while partitioning the rest of Russia between France and Poland. We can recall how Germany and its Axis were establishing Reichskommissariats for their “new” territorial possessions.

More can be read in my prior articles Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? and Will Russia have to fend off NATO invasion too..?

The 20th century was the most abundant in the attempts to partition Russia/USSR. The map below is from the an American magazine «Look», published in the March of 1939 after the Munich Conspiracy of 1938 (covered in The Great Unknown War. A must-see documentary about the WWII prelude. By Andrei Medvedev), coupled with the “allies'” reluctance to open the second front until it was absolutely clear that the USSR was winning, shows that area of interest from the American perspective.

Next European War - 14th of March 1939, American Magazine

American magazine «Look», 14th of March 1939

Invasion of the USSR by the USA - October 27, 1951, Collier's magazine

Invasion of the USSR by the USA – the 27th of October 1951, Collier’s magazine

And just as the War was over, the USA did not stop dreaming of that piece of land for their own use, as can be seen from the cover of the “Collier’s” magazine from 1951. “Preview of the war we do not want” reads the hypocritical title while talking about “Russia’s defeat and occupation”. As we now know, if the USSR did not get the nuclear arsenal by that time, this was very much the plan the USA were nuturing. We can also see it from the USA’s own plans for the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR, as I described in two articles in the previous years: 204 A-Bombs Against 66 Cities: US Drew up First Plan to Nuke Russia Before WWII Was Even Over (RI repost) and USA’s plans for the nuclear annihilation of USSR (Russia) and China disclosed. Another declassified document from that post-War era points towards the same desire. I covered it in The Plan to Destroy Russia. Conceived and Started in 1948. Concluded in 1993? Or Not…

In 1993 the USA actually got a total colonial control over Russia without engaging in a hot war, and during that time Russia was also almost partitioned administratively. Luckily, the Americans saw Russia as defeated, what with the “end of history” and other such ideas, and did not bother to fire the control shot in the back of the country’s head, as such cold-blooded killers usually do.

But the first time when the West came closest to realising that wet dream of partitioning Russia and laying its hands on the Russian resource happened in the wake of the 1917 Revolution when Russia was plunged into the Civil War, while it had been weakened by WWI. The article that I translate below illustrates one of the areas where such partitioning almost happened.

Reading the article below, think also of the historical parallels with today, of the ongoing civil war in Ukraine and how the Western intervention is prolonging the conflict, making it more bloody, than it was initially shaping up to be.

The link to the original article on the site of Russian Information Agency (RIA) may not work, as the West, in its pursuit of the the purity (of the “freedom”) of speech, blocks RIA. You can alternatively view the WebArchived version of the original article.

The American-style occupation. 100 Years Ago, the US Army Invaded Russia

Published: 08:00 15.08.2018 (Updated: 11:37 03.03.2020)

American troops during a parade in front of the headquarters of the Czechoslovak Legion in Vladivostok. 1918

American troops during a parade in front of the headquarters of the Czechoslovak Legion in Vladivostok. 1918

Continue reading →

Bahmut or Artyomovsk? A historical look at the name of the city

Posted on by

The battles for Bahmut/Artyomovsk have been raging for some time, the city becoming the focal point of defence the the Ukrainians were building up over the last 8 years, while hiding under the fig leaf of the Minsk peace accord. The Western/Ukrainian publications stick to the name Bahmut as a true “Ukrainian” one. (Incidentally, the name Bahmut has a Turkic sound to it.) The Russian side sticks with Artyomovsk. The article that I am going to translate below looks at the history of the name, and may be an eye-opened for both parties.

And so, the article in question, published in Deita.ru on the 26th of December 2022. Note that the names may alternatively be transliterated as Bakhmut and Artyomovsk.

Bahmut or Artyomovsk? What is wrong with the city’s name?

The conflict in Ukraine is being fought not only on the battlefield – with artillery and missiles, but also in the information space, where symbolism becomes the main weapon. The city of Bahmut, where fierce battles continue, has become a mini-field of a global information and semantic struggle. The Ukrainian modern name of the city is Bahmut, while Russian media and bloggers persistently use the Soviet toponym Artyomovsk.

This material of IA DEITA.RU is about where both names of the city came from, why the heated argument, and what is the problem with the position of our information attack.

Bahmut vs Artyomovsk

Continue reading →

Finland – Life after NATO

Posted on by

Finland votes to join NATO. Well, to each their own, and Finland choses to exchange a prosperous border trade with almost transparent border without any remotely significant number of troops stationed along it to a locked border with a heavy concentration of military hardware and Helsinki added to the nuclear deterrent target list. If Finland wants to have the longest NATO border with Russia with all the consequences it entails, so be it.

In this post I want to present to translations of articles, one looking back at the history of Finnish-Russian relations, which the Finns prefer not to remember (or, maybe, they do remember, and are afraid of retribution?), and one looking at the possible future consequences, including economic, of the Finnish choice.

Dedicated to the upcoming ascension of Finland into NATO….

Sergey Vasiliev on April 15, 13:45

In 1550, the Swedish king Gustav I Vasa, by his decree, resettled several hundred residents of the city of Borgo, in Finnish – Porvoo, at the mouth of the Vantaa River flowing into the Gulf of Finland, ordering the construction of a commercial port. The river with the local name Helsing had several rapids – in Swedish “fors”, which gave the name of the settlement – Helsingfors. By the time it became part of the Russian Empire under the Friedrichsham Peace Treaty, the city had only four thousand inhabitants. Quite a backwater.

The first thing that Russians always did when they came to the wild lands was to build furiously and selflessly. The poor, shabby former outskirts of Sweden did not escape this fate either. Emperor Alexander I made Helsingfors the capital of the Grand Duchy of Finland. Under Nicholas I, a university was transferred here from the capital, named by him in honour of his brother Alexandrovsky. Alexander II granted the Russian colony its own constitution and a set of rights and freedoms that no one else enjoyed in the metropolis. Finland did not know serfdom. Finns were not recruited into the army even during the World War. They did not pay taxes, but enjoyed all the rights of subjects of the Empire. Finland had schools and gymnasiums with instruction in the Finnish language, had its own parliament and court. Along with the rouble, the Finnish Marka issued by the Bank of Finland was in circulation. The internal market of the principality was protected by customs while Finnish goods crossed the border of the Empire duty-free.

According to the tsarist authorities, all these goodies were supposed to arise a sense of gratitude among the local population, awaken a burst of patriotism and firmly bind the Scandinavian outskirts to the Russian Empire. Everything happened the other way around. Spoiled by the unprecedented benefits and privileges that fell on them for who knows what merits, the Finnish population gradually began to look at the titular people of Russia with disdain, as losers who were not able to organize for themselves the same standard of living as the Scandinavians, basking in the warmth of the tsar.

The Grand Duchy of Finland paid nothing to the treasury of the Russian Empire. The welfare of the natives exceeded the average Russian level. Thanks to this, peasant day-workers came from nearby provinces streamed to the Finnish village. Newcomers in Finland have always been disliked, a rural policeman could detain them, rob them for no reason, simply out of a sense of personal hostility. Archival reports have preserved eyewitness accounts of how, long before the revolution, the robbed peddlers from the Russian villages had to flee from the Finnish “hospitality”, while local policemen shouted: “Kill the damned Russians, nothing will happen to you!”.

Everyday nationalism, growing like a wild flower in the backyard of a Finnish village, as the local intelligentsia formed, successfully attached its root to the Russian treasury, flourished at the beginning of the twentieth century in the high society of the principality. In Finnish opposition newspapers, at first timidly, and then more and more insistently, appeals began to appear: “If we love our country, we need to learn to hate its enemies… Therefore, in the name of our honour and freedom, let our motto sound: “Hate and love! The death of “ryusya”! Or: “Russia has always been and will remain the enemy of humanity and humane development. Has there ever been a benefit from the existence of the Russian people for us? No!”.

Continue reading →

Agents of Revolution-2. How the Leaders of October Repaid their Debts to the Sponsors

Posted on by

Marking the centenary of the October Revolution, I am publishing translations of three articles from “Argumenty i Fakty”. The second article in a series of two from 18.04.2012, taking a look at how the Western funds invested into the revolution got repaid. The article is by a reputable historian and writer Nikolai Starikov. Read the translation of the first article to learn the role of Valdimir Uljanov / Lenin on the eve of the October Revolution.

Having declaring war on global capital, once in power, Lenin and Trotsky gave up enormous resources to the mercy of their enemies. Was it a repayment for the “sponsorship” assistance in organizing the revolution and the Civil war?

In the previous atricle we told about the adventures Vladimir Lenin and his comrades experienced 95 years ago (note: the article is from 2012) travelling from abroad to Russia, and who aided them in that.

Writer, historian Nikolai Starikov, author of the books “Chaos and revolution weapon of the dollar”, “1917. The answer is “Russian” revolution,” etc., says that the Bolsheviks did not forget their benefactors. And though they did not completed the “order” for the collapse of Russia, they, nevertheless, more than repaid the financial debts.

The Civil war was barely over, when the young Soviet government started showing serious interest in the production of the yellow metal. On the 14th of November 1925, the government of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), with a light hand of Trotsky (recall that this fiery Russian revolutionary of Jewish origin spent about 12 years of the early twentieth century in the West and even managed to obtain an American passport), transfers the rights to the development of the gold mines in Eastern Siberia to the company “Lena Goldfields Co., Ltd”. The very same, whose workers were shot in cold blood in 1912, when they were protesting against low wages. The famous Lena massacre gave at that time the Bolsheviks an excuse to denounce the autocratic rule in Russia. While now the Bolsheviks themselves transferred to a British consortium that owned “Lena Goldfields” the rights to mine gold in the basin of Lena river (and not only there) for 30 years! The area of the concession covered a huge territory from Yakutia to the Urals, and the interests of the Western company now went far beyond gold. They included silver, copper, lead, iron…

Under the agreement with the Soviets, a whole group of mining and metallurgical enterprises was handed over into disposition of “Lena Goldfields”. And what did the country receive in return? A measly 7% of the volume of the extracted metal.

Enormous wealth went overseas for virtually nothing. However, this blatant robbery of the country lasted for a relatively short period of time. On the 10th of February 1929 Leon Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union. And – what an amazing coincidence – in December of the same year “Lena Goldfields” was forced to cease its operations in Russia.

Swedish business

Someone will remark that the looting of the country was happening after the death of Lenin in January 1924. The debts for the sponsorship of the revolutionaries were seemingly returned only by Trotsky, who in spring 1917 arrived to Russia from New York with ten thousand dollars in his pocket? (By the way, not only he and Iljitch [patrimonial of Ulianov {Lenin}] returned to the country back then. Other “agents” came to the revolutionary Russia from the West: V. Antonov-Ovseenko, who later arrested the Provisional Government; the future head of the Petrograd Special Services, Moisey Uritsky, with whose murder starts the “red terror”; V. Volodarsky (Moisey Goldstein) and many others.)

In reality, the Bolshevik government entered into the shady deals with the West also during the life of Lenin. Perhaps the most notorious of these concerned the purchase of locomotives from the factory of the Swedish firm “Nidquist and Holm” (NoH AB).

The volume of the order is staggering – 1,000 locomotives to the price of 200 million gold roubles. It’s almost a quarter of the then gold reserves of the country! Note that until then, this firm could not afford a production of more than 40 locomotives per year. And then it was offered to make a thousand! The order was distributed over 5 years: in 1922, Russia was to receive 200 locomotives, and in 1923-1925 – 250 annually. Why would the Soviet country, in dire need of railway technology, want to buy them from this particular Swedish company and at highly inflated prices? Why would she agreed to wait for the delivery for 5 years, instead of having to buy the right product cheaper and immediately, but in a different place? The people’s Commissariat of Railways, headed in the early 1920s by Leon Trotsky, desired exactly these locomotives so much that not only did they make an advance payment of 7 million kronor, but also gave the Swedish company… an interest-free loan of 10 million kronor “for the construction of a mechanical workshop and boiler room”.

The Soviet magazine “The Economist” wrote about the peculiarities of this affair in early 1922. The author A. Frolov proposed to investigate: why was it necessary to order engines in Sweden? After all, for such money it was possible “to put in order our locomotive plants and feed theirs workers”. The Putilov factory had been producing more than 200 locomotives per year before the war. Why not issue a credit to them? And Lenin indeed sorted out the situation. After consulting with Trotsky, he asked Felix Dzerzhinsky to close down “The Economist” magazine (which also on previous occasions published articles unpleasant for the Soviets), stating: “the Staff of “The Economist” are the enemies of the most ruthless kind. All of them must be sent out of Russia”. The suspicious contract with the Swedes remained unchanged after the intervention of the leader.

So how did the Bolsheviks return the money to the foreign bankers? They obviously could not simply transfer them to the West and write in the “Purpose of payment” column: “Repayment for the Russian revolution and the victory in the Civil war”. A good excuse was needed. Such as to buy something in the West, for example those selfsame locomotives. Trotsky organizes the purchase, but Lenin, it seems, is aware of the transaction and does not prevent it. Otherwise this doubtful contract would have cost Trotsky his career.

In fact, many documents confirm, that the Swedish banking system was used to inject money for the revolution into Russia. And later it was also used to transfer money out. Already in the autumn of 1918 Isidore Gukovsky, deputy of the People’s Commissar of Finance in Soviet Russia, arrived in Stockholm. With him he had crates full of money and jewellry. The value of the goods was estimated at 40-60 million roubles. Millions of roubles were transferred to the Stockholm banks, including “Nya Banken” of Olof Aschberg, whose name often appears in the books on the financing of the Bolsheviks.

A Deal with the Devil

It is difficult to tell the exact number of contracts and concessions issued by the Soviet government to the American firms at the beginning of the construction of a new state. But this includes both $25 million of commissions to the American Industrialists for the period from July 1919 to January 1920, and the concession for the extraction of asbestos that was issued to Armand Hammer in 1921, and the lease agreement issued for 60-years to the Frank Vanderlip and its consortium, which provided for the exploitation of deposits of coal and oil, as well as fishing in the North-Siberian region, with an area of 600 thousand sq. km.

The return of funds allocated for the elimination of the Russian Empire, was obviously one of the agreements between the representatives of the Western governments and the Bolsheviks. And both Lenin and Trotsky carefully observed this agreement. However these new leaders did not meet the other Western hopes. Having been put at the helm of Russia to completely ruin it (and the initial aims of the West coincided with the revolutionary dreams of Lenin), Lenin started instead to put the torn apart country back together. To build a strong and independent state which again plays a key role in world politics.

However, the leader of the proletarians did not have long left to live. I do not exclude that the shot from SR member F. Kaplan, that precipitated his death, was a precautionary measure on the part of his former foreign guardians, so that he would not be getting full of himself. Trotsky, perhaps, was ready to continue to work for the West, but in 1929 Stalin sent him out, and then sent in pursuit an assassin R. Mercader, with an ice pick. As we know, no deal with the devil goes without repercussions.

Agents of Revolution-1. Was Lenin a Spy for Germany?

Posted on by

Marking the centenary of the October Revolution, I am publishing translations of three articles from “Argumenty i Fakty”. The first article in a series of two from 11.04.2012, taking a look at who was Valdimir Uljanov / Lenin. The article is by a reputable historian and writer Nikolai Starikov.

Vladimir Lenin’s journey with a group of friends in a “sealed train” starting from a quiet and well-to-do Switzerland, through Germany and into the revolutionary Russia, that took place exactly 95 years ago (the article is from 2012), gave rise to the rumours that Lenin was a German spy.

This trip that changed the course of the world history, still raises many questions. Chief among them: who helped Lenin to return home? In the spring of 1917 Germany was at war with Russia, and it would have benefited Germans to drop at the heart of the enemy a handful of Bolsheviks who preached the defeat of their government in the imperialist war. But not all is that simple, says the writer and historian Nikolai Starikov, author of the books “Chaos and revolution – weapon of the dollar”, “1917. The answer to “Russian” revolution,” etc.

– If Lenin was a German spy, he would have immediately begun to seek the return to Petrograd through Germany. And would, of course, immediately get a go-ahead. But reality was different. Let’s remember: tiny Switzerland, where Iljich lived, was surrounded by France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, locked in mortal combat.

There were two ways to leave Switzerland: through an Entente member country or through the territory of its opponents. Lenin initially selects the first option. On the 5th (18th) March (here and further the date in bracket is according to the new style. – Ed.) Inessa Armand receives from him the following telegram: “My Dear friend! We are dreaming about the trip… I would love to give You an assignment in England to learn quietly and surely, if I could pass through. I shake your hand. Yours V.U.”. Between the 2nd (15th) and 6th (19th) of March of 1917, Lenin telegraphs to his colleague Ganetsky in Stockholm, presenting a different plan: to travel to Russia under the guise of… a deaf-mute Swede. While on March the 6th, in a letter to V. A. Karpinsky he suggests: “Buy in your name papers for a journey to France and England, and I will use them to go through England (and Holland) to Russia. I can wear a wig”.

The first mention of Germany as a route appears in a telegram to Karpinsku from Lenin on the 7th (20th) of March – on the 4th day of the search for options. But soon he confesses in a letter to I. Armand: “It does not work out with Germany”. Isn’t it strange? Lenin could not agree with the “accomplices” – the Germans – on the passage through their territory and was for a long time inventing workarounds: either to “quietly” go through England, or in a wig with false documents through France, or to pretend to be deaf and dumb Swede…

Conspiracy of the “allies”

I am convinced that even if there had been some secret agreements between Lenin and the German authorities at that point, they were very vague. Otherwise there would initially be no difficulties with his delivery to Russia. The Germans did not expect a successful February revolution, they did not expect any revolution at all! Because, apparently, they were not preparing any revolution. Then who prepared the February of 1917? For me the answer is obvious: Western “allies” of Russia in the Entente. It is their agents who brought first the workers and then the soldiers out on the streets of Petrograd, while the British and French ambassadors were in charge of these events. It happened unexpectedly, not only for the Germans, but also for the Bolsheviks. Lenin and his comrades were not required until February, the “allied” intelligence agencies were able to organize labour unrest and military rebellion without their aid. But so as to bring the revolutionary process to fulfilment (i.e., the collapse of Russia, which would fully subordinate her to the will of the Atlantic powers), it was required to add fresh yeast to the boiler – in the form of Lenin.

There is every reason to believe that in March 1917 it was the “allied” intelligence that in separate negotiations with the Germans convinced them not to hinder the movement of the Russians-Bolsheviks (i.e. representatives of the enemy country, who, according to the law of war, should have been arrested and put in jail until the end of the war). And the Germans agreed to that.

General Erich Ludendorff wrote in his memoirs: “By sending Lenin to Russia our government assumed a special responsibility. From a military point of view his journey through Germany had its justification: Russia had to collapse into the abyss.” After learning the good news, Lenin was delighted. “You will maybe say that the Germans will not provide a carriage. Let’s bet that they will!” he writes on March the 19th (April 1st) to Inessa Armand. And later, also to her: “We have more money for the trip, than what I anticipated… our comrades in Stockholm helped a lot”. Less than two weeks passed between the two letters to his beloved (“Germany won’t let us pass” and “they’ll give [a carriage]”), and during that time, the United States, Britain and Germany decided the fate of Russia. The Americans provided the necessary for Russian radicals money (indirectly, through the selfsame Germans and Swedes), while the British provided the non-interference from the Provisional Government, which they controlled. In Stockholm – where Lenin and his companions arrived after a long journey by train through Germany, and then by a ferry to Sweden – they easily got a group visa to Russia at the Russian Consulate. Moreover, the Provisional Government even paid for their tickets home from Stockholm! The revolutionaries were met by a guard of honour at the Finland railway station in Petrograd on the 3rd (16th) of April. Lenin gave a speech, which concluded with the words: “Long live the socialist revolution!” But the new government of Russia did not even think of arresting him…

The bucks at his bosom

Another fiery revolutionary, Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), was preparing for a journey home from the United States during those same March days. Like Vladimir Lenin, Lev Davidovich received all the documents from the Russian Consul in New York. On the 14th (27th) of March Trotsky departed with his family from New York on the ship “Kristianiafjord”. However, upon arrival to Canada, he and several of his associates were briefly taken ashore. But soon they were allowed to continue – at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, Pavel Miliukov. An amazing request, isn’t it? Not in the least, if you consider that Milyukov was a personal friend of Jacob Schiff, an American magnate, “chief sponsor” of several Russian revolutions. During the arrest, by the way, it turned out that Trotsky was a U.S. citizen travelling on British transit visa and a visa for entry to Russia.

Additionally, ten thousand dollars were found in his possession – a huge amount at that time, which he could hardly have earned only from the fees for newspaper articles. If that, however, was money for the Russian revolution, then it was only a negligible part. Principal amounts from the American bankers were transferred to the correct accounts of verified people. This was nothing new for Schiff and other financiers of the United States. They allocated funds to the Social Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats in 1905, and also helped those who prepared the February. And now came the time to help the most “hard core” revolutionaries. By the way, in the case of Trotsky, this assistance was almost a family affair: the wife of Lev Davidovich, nee Sedova, was the daughter of a wealthy banker Zhivotovsky – companion of Warburg bankers, and those in turn were companions and relatives of Jacob Schiff.

The second part of the article is called Agents of Revolution-2. How the Leaders of October Repaid their Debts to the Sponsors

100 Year Anniversary of the October Revolution of 1917

Posted on by

This 7th of October 2017 marks the 100 year anniversary of the October (old style) Russian Revolution of 1917.

The event itself was both a curse and a blessing for Russia, a great tragedy and a salvation. Like so many times before and after, Russia rose from the ashes, stronger than what her ill-wishers could possibly imagine. Many controversies are floating around the subject of the Revolution, and many inaccuracies.

Let us start with the first – there were two revolutions. One in February, which actually depose Tzar Nikolai II, and one in October. The February revolution carried all the traits of a colour revolution – from the public unrest (justified, but externally directed), to removal of the current order in the country. There is evidence that the abdication note from Nikolai II is forged. After the February revolution, the temporary government did not have any real power, the country was plunged in a state power vacuum, which was ultimately filled in October/November 1917.

From a bird’s eye view perspective, one can argue that the foundation for the revolution (or what one would call nowadays with the ignomous term of Maidan) were laid much earlier – with the first attempt in 1905. Later, creation of the pretext of WWI, dragging of Russia in to World War (despite Nikolai II’s attempts to avoid it), the October revolution, the Versailles Treaty wich basically made WWII inevitable, and ultimately WWII itself were beads of a string of one single event.

WWI laid the foundations putting for economic strain, and thus social unrest on the pre-WWI economically blossoming Russia. WWI gave Britain hope to weaken and do away with Russia, and for Germany to get “lebensraum” (yes, that term was not coined by Hitler, but prior to WWI, and later adopted by him).

By 1917 Germany badly needed Russia to exit WWI as it overstrained itself, Britain still needed Russia destroyed. Lenin gave promises to both sides, thus getting financing from Britain and free passage from Germany. He also delivered on most, but not all of the promises, ultimately saving Russia from destruction.

British king George V, while granting asylum to a jeweller Carl Faberge, refused such courtesy to cousin of Nikolai II. Britain did not need any legitimate continuity of rule in Russi, it need Russia weakened and dismembered, and Lenin was the demolition man, though luckily for Russia he did not prove as cooperative as Britain had hoped, once in power.

There is an enlightening article at RT, Why didn’t Britain’s king save deposed Russian cousin after revolution? with this photo. Can you tell George V from Nikolai II?

Lada Ray conveyed the above and more in her post What is the Truth about 1917 Bolshevik Revolution? Striking Festival of Light in St. Petersburg, as well as in her informative Webinar INVERTED COLLAPSE USSR’S PAST – WEST’S FUTURE.

I planning on translating three articles from Aigumenty i Fakty pertaining to the financing, ties and movement of Lenin in 1917. Stay tunes.

When Rouble Was Golden – Russia that we lost in the ashes of WWI and the coup d’etats of 1914-1917

Posted on by

On the 6th of March (21st of February by the old style) 1917, the colour “bread” revolution was started, which heralded a great disaster, spanning a century…

In the years before Russia got drawn into WWI, it was displaying fabulous growth, both socially and economically. WWI, also known as the “War of 4 cousins” – as all heads of the warring states were blood relatives – was a disaster for Russia, and weakened it sufficiently to facilitate the second – internal – disaster of 1917, which all but destroyed it.

One of the contemporary writers said that “Pity that we have Nikolai the Second, and not the second Nikolai”, referring to the strong in the will Nikolai I. Nikolai II, while being praised by the Western (British) powers, delivered Russia on a platter, and then was dumped by the Brits to be executed by the followers of their agent – Lenin. There was only one other Russian ruler, who was praised as highly by the West – Yeltsin, who caused destruction of Russia almost to the point of no return in the “Wild 90s”.

In November 1914 the Austrian Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold wrote: “Our main goal in this war lies in the long-term weakening of Russia.” Oh, how well they succeeded!

What did Russia lose? Marking the coming 100th anniversary of the two coup d’etats of 1917, Russian weekly “Argumenty and Fakty” publishes in 2016 a series of articles – “When Rouble was Golden” – showing some key points of Russian life before WWI. Here I want to present the translation of the entire series.

Contents:

Publication of 03.02.2016, regarding the foundations of the Russian economics.


Harvest. Urals, 1907

What was the country, that was lost forever? What was the foundation of its economy, when oil was not the main article of Russian exports nor the main source of state revenues? Argumenty i Fakty got at its disposal a unique booklet, first published in 1958 in New York City in 8 thousand copies. Edited by B. Brazol, it compiled statistics showing that over the last 15-20 years before the First World War, Russia made giant steps forward both in the economy, and in the development of the social and educational systems.

“AiF” starts a series of articles in which we will talk about how our country developed in the early twentieth century. In this edition we will focus on the golden rouble and gold reserves, revenues and expenditures of the state budget, taxes and savings.

Continue reading →

And what about the restoration of the territorial integrity of Russia..?

Posted on by

A few days ago, after having been insultingly absent from the memorial Parade in Moscow commemorating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism, Frau Merkel again started saying something about restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

With this in mind, I want to address in this article a large pink trumpeting elephant in the room, that all but a few Western politicians are studiously ignoring:

What about the restoration of the territorial integrity of Russia?

Ron Paul noticed in one of his articles that whenever forces are set in motion to split off a bit of Russia, these forces are hailed as democratic (like it happened in the 90’s with NATO-armed Islamic terrorist insurgency in Chechen Republic), and conversely, whenever peoples try to join Russia, they get vilified and demonised. As it happened with 2.4 million Crimeans, who for their democratic choice were put under sanctions, disconnected from international payment systems, and Apple and Google closed accounts of those that have some on-line data or development.

Over the last century, Russia’s territorial integrity was violated both illegally and illegitimately on many occasions – in the North, West and South of Russia. In this article I touch upon only three cases pertaining the state, still known today as Ukraine.

In 1917 a violent coup d’etat happened in Russia. It carried many of the characteristics of what later became known as “colour revolutions” – a small minority group, financed largely from the West, carried out a “red” revolution. As the result of this coup Russia became fragmented, large chunks of it being split off. Some, like Finland and Latvia had only lose affinity to Russia (and yet, Finland chose a Russian navy flag from the time of Peter the Great as a template for their own national flag). Other, like Georgia, joined Russia of their own accord to protect themselves and enjoyed centuries of such protection, while remaining largely self-governed. And then there were integral parts of Russia, part of its heartland – Belorussia, Malorossia, Novorossia, Crimea.

Continue reading →

Denouncing everything Soviet? Then return the territories.

Posted on by

Below is my translation from Russian of an article, published in “Argumenty i Fakty” on the 15th of April 2015, written by Alexander Kolesnichenko and Ekaterina Mirnaja.

Not only the TV series “Seventeen Moments of Spring” were banned in Ukraine, but also the medals and orders of the veterans of Great Patriotic War. Incidentally, it is now also impossible to call this war in this terms.

The new authorities threaten to send to jail all those who do not agree to equate communism and Nazism.

A Blow to the Veterans

The Supreme Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) approved a package of laws, which equates Soviet symbolism to the symbols of Nazi Germany. You can go to jail for 5 years for the public performance of the Anthem of the USSR or for marching under the red flag with the hammer and sickle. The country must remove all monuments to Soviet leaders and completely abandon the Soviet toponymy up to and including renaming of cities. That is, Dnepropetrovsk, Kirovograd, Dneprodzerzhinsk – all may sound in new ways. Renaming and removal of the monuments will affect primarily the unstable south-eastern regions. Including, for example, Artiomovsk, which is located 30 km from the front line. Even though there was recently conducted a referendum in the city, in which the citizens decided to leave the city’s name. “In the event of a change of names, people will need to renew passports and documents for real estate. Who will pay for it? – angrily demands Andrew Zolotarev, a political analyst in Kiev, and also draws attention to the fact that the symbolism will have to be chiselled down from hundreds of buildings. – Who will pay for the repair of façades?!”

But worse than wasting of any money, is the slap in the face, received by the Ukrainian veterans. Not only did Rada equate nationalists from the OUN and UPA, that is, those who worked during the war with the Nazis, to the veterans of the Great Patriotic War. Now it is not clear whether the elderly, who saved the world from fascism, are allowed to put on their medals on May the 9th – or if they’ll get thrown into prisons for 5 years for “Soviet propaganda”? “This is cynicism of the highest degree – to prevent the veterans to wear their orders the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Victory. The Victory Banner, too appears to be a symbol of the communist regime? – political analyst Mikhail Pogrebinsky told AiF. – I can not imagine how with such ideological line they are going to keep the country at least in its current borders.”


(Lenin’s present of 1922 included the following oblasts [counties] Harkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhje, Herson, Nikolaev, Odessa; Stalin’s present of 1939-1940,1945 included Lvov, Ternopol, Zakarpatie [Transcarpathia], Ivano-Frankovsk, Chernovick. [It should be remembered that it was Lenin that after 1917 revolution in Russia separated Ukraine into a separate state])

However, there indeed may be questions with the borders. Rada decided: from 1917 to 1991 a “criminal totalitarian regime” reigned in the country. But during the time when the Communists were “rampaging” in Ukraine, its territory markedly increased (see. Map). So the attempt to tear itself away from the Soviet past, casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Ukraine as a state. Because it actually was created by the Communists, with whom until recently many of those, who today denounce the Soviet regime, identified themselves. “For example, Turchynov was head of the department for propaganda, Poroshenko was a member of the Communist Party, Nalivaychenko was a KGB agent. Whoever you take, they were all members of the party! Even Yatsenyuk was one of the activists of the Young Communist League, and his father – the head of the Party cell,” – says political analyst Yuri Gorodnenko.

On All Fronts

The new Ukrainian laws, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, are not just an attempt to “erase from the memory of millions of Ukrainians the true pages of the history of Ukraine of the XX century”, all is more dangerous and more serious: “Against the backdrop of a declared combat on the supposedly totalitarian past, Kiev introduced a truly totalitarian methods to eliminate unwanted parties and non-governmental organizations… Sets rigid censorship of political thought for compliance, perverted notions of good and evil… While hiding behind the rhetoric of the civil rights and liberties, Ukrainian lawmakers in fact passed acts that directly restrict the exercise of rights to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and expression.” It is no coincidence that this decision was preceded by the expulsion of the Communist Party of Ukraine from the Parliament, along with the attempts to ban it and prosecute its leaders.

Meanwhile, this week marks one year of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation” (ATO) in the south-eastern Ukraine. Sad anniversary was marked by fire from tanks near Mariupol and Donetsk. The “economic war” with Donbass continues: a Ukrainian Foreign Ministry confirmed that Kiev would not give a single hrivna to people living in DNR and LNR. Pensions and benefits are accrued to the accounts of citizens, but it is impossible to get them while Ukraine has no control over these territories. It is interesting: do Kiev “fighters with the past” seriously expect to regain control of millions of people whom they continue to exterminate by shellings, blockade, and, now, with the ideological taboos?