Tag Archives: UK

A 1935 conversation between I.Stalin and Lord Keeper of the Seal of Great Britain, A.Eden

Posted on by
Reply

The documentary by Andrey Medvedev, “The Great Unknown War” mentions an episode taking place towards the end of the meeting between Iosif Stalin and Anthony Eden in Moscow on the 29th of March 1935, illustrating that the Soviet leadership were fully aware of who igniters of the coming war are, and the inevitability of a war in Europe, despite Soviet Union’s best efforts to prevent it.

The League of Nations.
The Geneva Lawyer: “Where do you see war? Which war? I have no war registered here.”

This 1932 caricature by the famous Soviet caricaturist Boris Yefimov illustrates the reservations regarding the potency of the League of Nations, that the reader will notice in the transcript of the entire meeting, which adds more eye-opening details of the British-German-Soviet relations. And ponder, how similar this is to the West turning a blind eye on Ukraine – with the OCSE “not noticing” the regular shelling of Donbass by Ukraine between 2014 and 2022. (This caricature is presented in our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”)

Stalin I.V. – Recording of a conversation with the Lord Keeper of the Seal of Great Britain A. Eden

March 29, 1935

The source: Stalin I.V. Works. – Vol. 18. – Tver: Information-publishing center “Soyuz”, 2006. pp. 86-91.

The visit took place in the Kremlin, in the office of comrade Molotov. Attended by: comrades Stalin, Molotov, Litvinov, Maysky, and from the British side – Eden, the British Ambassador, Chilston and the head of the League of Nations section in the British Foreign Office, Strang. The whole conversation lasted about an hour and a quarter.

After the first greetings, Eden began the conversation. He said something like this:

Continue reading →

The “Crimean” War misnomer – A bigger picture

Posted on by
Reply

What is known as The Crimean War was much larger and had far-reaching consequences not only for Russia but for many other states. In a way it is as much about Crimea as the “Caribbean Missile Crises” was about the Caribbeans. The theatres of war of 1853-1856 covered the Danube delta, the Baltic Sea, the Far East – the Kamchatka and Petropavlovsk-on-Amur that were under siege and partially captured during 1854-55.

While it is true, that one of the main battles happened in Crimea, it could better be described as the “Eastern War”. It was closer to a “world war”, and was definitely the second large “information war”.

The “Crimean” War – The Baltic Front, prevention of the British Navy assault at St.Petersburg

Telling are the stated goals of the warring parties.

Initially, it was a war that Russia initiated against the Ottoman Empire. Ideologically, it was started to liberate the Orthodox Christian people of the Duchy of Moldavia (Romania did not yet get created – that would happen after that war). The more pressing geopolitical goal of Russia was to secure the Southern flanks and get control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanells, and influence over the Balkans. That decision did not come out of the blue, and was not a simple whim of Nicolas I. The Ottoman Empire had moved a 50,000 strong army that included Polish and Hungarian revolutionaries to the border of Austria, while at the same time trying to conquer Chernogoria (known in the West as “Montenegro”).

The “Crimean” War – Danube Theatre

Russia had two military strategies – one assumed a large-scale assault along the Black Sea coast with landing parties deployed to the Turkish ports and to the straits. The other strategy was a limited “military operation” with crossing of the Danube, avoiding direct confrontation with the Turkish army, with the outlook that this limited display of force would lead to a favourable peace treaty with the Turks. The latter strategy was adopted. Drawing a historical parallel, it is similar to the peacekeeping operation in Georgia on the 8th of August 2008, when such strategy worked, or the start of the SMO in 2022, when it almost worked before the British forbade Ukraine to sign the peace treaty.

The same happened in 1853-54. The British used this opportunity to accuse Russia of aggression against Turkey, and build a coalition that fought with Russia on behalf of Turkey. France joined its not so recent adversary, Britain, partly for the sake of Poland and partly as a revenge for the 1814 defeat.

Continue reading →

“Gauleiter” for Ukraine. The West revived the practise of the Nazis under Hitler

Posted on by

On the 12th of February 2024 “Argumenty i Facty” published an article, drawing the reader’s attention to the clear parallel between the Nazi position of the Gauleiter in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine and the proposed “special representative”.

A few days later, on the 15th of February, KM.RU in an article titled simply “Ukraine: The Return of the Gauleiter”, further revealed who may become the candidate for this noose-promising title:

Stoltenberg in Kiev


The whole performance is reminiscent of the fascist practice of Gauleiters in Ukraine. This is not surprising. According to the forecasts of many historians, Europe was doomed to return to its terrible historical past.

The other day, the director of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, said that the West wants to appoint a “viceroy” in Ukraine “in order to strengthen the mechanism of external control of the territory controlled by the Kiev regime.”

According to the SVR, it is planned to appoint Jens Stoltenberg – who currently holds the position of NATO Secretary General – to the post of special envoy for Ukraine. His mandate expires on the 1st of October 2024. “It is assumed that he will have constant access to President Vladimir Zelensky and know about all his plans,” Naryshkin explained. The tasks of the special envoy will include blocking decisions of the Ukrainian leadership that are not coordinated with the United States and Great Britain. Instead, Stoltenberg will propose the “right” steps, from the point of view of the Anglo-Saxons.

And now, the the article from “Argumenty i Facty”:

The “Viceroy” will be coming. The West revived in Ukraine the idea of Nazis under Hitler

Reichskommissar Ukraine, Erich Koch (right) and Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Alfred Rosenberg (center) surveying Kiev Lavra.

The West’s intention to appoint its collective special representative in Ukraine is “an attempt to strengthen the enslavement of the people close to Russia,” said Sergei Naryshkin, head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) on February 12. “Such practices were introduced by the leader of the German Nazis, Adolf Hitler, and all his ‘viceroys’ the Candidate of Historical Sciences, Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Oleg Ivannikov told aif.ru. Ukrainians are capable of kicking this “special representative” out of the country along with President Vladimir Zelensky, the expert believes.

The West intends to appoint its “special representative” in Ukraine, who should oversee the Kiev regime. According to Naryshkin, when discussing this forgotten idea, “such conditions were factored in, as an increasingly difficult situation at the front, difficulties with mobilization and hitches in obtaining Western military assistance, when many Ukrainians began to realize the inevitability of Moscow achieving the goals of a special military operation.”

“This yet another crude attempt by the West to strengthen the enslavement of the Ukrainian people, who are close to us, cannot but cause concern. At the same time, there is a high probability that the implementation of the idea with the appointment of a “viceroy” in Ukraine will not lead to the results desired by the United States and Great Britain,” the head of the SVR believes.

Continue reading →

The British government imposes sanctions on own citizen – Graham Phillips – for giving the people of Donbass a voice

Posted on by

There was a great British novelist and humanist for whom I have great respect, Terri Pratchett, who in his work “The Wee Free Men” put these important words in the mouth of one of his heroines:

“Them as can do has to do for them as can’t. And someone has to speak up for them as has no voices.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men

Graham Phillips, a British independent journalist for whom I have a great respect as well, has done just that ever since the ukro-Nazi regime in Kiev took power though the Western-backed coup in 2014 and started oppressing and conducting the genocide against the Russian population of the eastern Ukraine. Graham gave the voice to the people of Donbass, which the Western Main stream Media denied them by first pretending for 8 years that the conflict was not happening and that Kiev was not shelling the people of Donbass on a daily basis

And in 2022 he he once again gave the Western audience a glimpse into the life and hopes of people of the now-former Eastern Ukraine as it became liberated from the Nazi occupation, seeing as the Western MSM went on a complete perversion of truth, and blocking any access to the views of the locals that could have been told by the outlets like RT and Sputnik News. Now he also helps organise and distribute the humanitarian aid among the population of Donbass, who were left in dire straits following the “scorched earth” retreat technique applied by the Ukrainian Army under the NATO tutelage.

For this, on the 26th of July 2022, the British government placed sanctions on the British journalist and froze (stole) all his assets at home without any due legal process. It bears reminding that the German government did a similar thing against the German independent journalist in Donbass, Alina Lipp. Below are two Telegram posts, one linking to an article in The Telegraph, and the other is Graham’s response to the news, of which he learned from his subscribers – the government did not official inform him of this extrajudicial decision!

The conclusion to Navalny’s farce (for now). A stopped Western-sponsored coup d’etat in Russia

Posted on by

The continuation of the farce that Navalny’s handlers started with his fake poisoning and the subsequent staged return Russia with the fake “palace” video in his arsenal (outlined in my previous post The Navalny’s Palace – Fake Documentary from Fake Opposition (with a list of past crimes)) has come to the logical conclusion with the much-welcome imprisonment of the fraudster.

Navalny got his remaining 2.8 years of suspended sentence for defrauding of two companies converted into a real term. This was the outcome which Russians hoped for. Should the court have caved in to the Western pressure and release Navalny, that would have given a clear signal that he is above the Law and that Law does not apply to fraudsters in the employ of the foreign secret services. The reactions that I read on the Russian internet could be summed up as: “Why so little?!” Well, this is just one past conviction for one of his crimes. (By the way, Navalny has already got away with too much – he’s the only Russian citizen who managed to have two suspended convictions for fraud!)

There is still the case of defamation of WWII veteran, and the case of defrauding donors to his organisation (with the donated money spent on luxury and vacations). These cases were open and, coupled with the suspended sentence, were grounds for not letting Navalny out of the country in the first place. It was actually President Putin’s request that allowed Navalny to be transported to Germany, where he spent almost 2 months after his recovery on skipping his parole and on creation of the film targeting to defame Putin.

And there are strong calls to open a new case – this time for high treason due to Navalnys NGO direct appeal to Biden to impose sanctions on Russia. Seeing as sanctions qualify as an act of war, these people were calling on a foreign power to start a war on the country that they are citizens of.

The pressure on the Court of Justice was immense, including from the foreign diplomats, who amassed there to intimidate the judges and influence the course of a civil court by their presence. The hall of shame includes the diplomats from the following countries:

USA, UK, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Finland, Japan, Austria, Czechia and Bulgaria.

EDIT: 05.02.2021 – Good to see Russia acting in accordance with the international norms and also showing backbone – Russia expels diplomats from Germany, Poland and Sweden for alleged participation in pro-Navalny protests. If only Yanukovich did the same with Biden and Nuland back in 2014, Ukraine would most probably not be a Nazi-infested impoverished and depopulated basket-case right now…

Continue reading →

The Great Unknown War. A must-see documentary about the WWII prelude. By Andrei Medvedev

Posted on by

UPDATE: Please read the very relevant to this documentary, poignant, and important insights in President Vladimir Putin’s article The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II, published in The National Interest on the 18th of June 2020.

UPDATE 16.03.2022: After YouTube censored the Russian-language channel Rossia24, where the official untranslated video of the documentary was hosted, I am uploading the film with embedded subtitles to Odysee platform. The YT-related portion of the text is moved to the bottom of this article for historic reference.

These days mark 71 year since the start of the Great Patriotic war of the USSR against the invading Nazi horde, and 75 years since this horde was defeated. And it is of utmost importance to understand how this horde came to be, who nurtured it. Andrei Medvedev’s documentary “The Great Unknown War” does just that.

It is assumed in our historiography that the USSR and its allies – the United States, Britain and France – fought with Nazi Germany, which was supported by its allies – Hungary, Romania, Italy, and Japan. And the Soviet Union won this unbearably difficult war.

But it is very important to understand whether our allies were really sincere, on whose side were the so-called neutral countries, and why the war on the Eastern front was so violent with mass destruction of the population.

Without understanding who brought Hitler to power, who financed him, who earned money from the war, we will never realize the greatness of the feat of the Soviet people.

Without a deep understanding of the causes of the war and an analysis of diplomatic agreements, we will not see that the attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was the result of a serious geopolitical process.

An important question is: who was behind Hitler, who in Europe needed such a Germany and why? Aggressive, militarized, anti-Bolshevik and anti-Russian.

What would Germany be without American loans? Without investment from American companies? Germany could not have fought in the East without receiving for free the top-notch factories of Czechoslovakia, which it gained by the Munich Conspiracy of 1938, when England and France gave up the whole country to Hitler. What for? What were the Western politicians planning?

Why did the allies take so long to open a Second front and what is the Bank for International Settlements? Why did its participants meet every month throughout the Second World War?

How many foreigners fought in the SS, and who defended the Reich Chancellery in May 1945? For whom in Europe were Hitler’s ideas so dear: nationalism, anti-Semitism and living space in the East.

The film “The Great Unknown War” is a story about what the Soviet Union actually faced. And the terrible cost at which we won a war that we were not supposed to win.

As promised a month ago, I have now translated the entire documentary to English. White writing this translation, a lot of background checks were done, and every date and name were verified. Most quotes of the Western politicians are re-translations from Russian, except for a few, where open original sources were available. The links to the sources are added both to the transcript further down the page and the downloadable subtitles (as comments).

The Great Unknown War. A documentary by Andrei Medvedev, 2020 (English subtitiles)

While watching the documentary, I could not shake off the feeling of the stark parallel of how the Nazi Germany was propped up, and how, in much the same way, the Nazi Ukraine is being propped up now. One example: just replace the name of Henri Deterding of the British-Dutch “Shell” with that of Biden Jr. to see the present-day play of interests. Or replace “Bank for International Settlements” (BIS) with the International Monetary Fund. But there are big differences, too. While Germany was heavily invested into, to make it into a battering ram against Russia, Ukraine is being turned into an ideological battering ram, while at the same time being plundered of its last Soviet industrial legacy.

However, the target was always Russia, and WWII was just a fifth act in a war that lasted for several hundred years, dotted by a few armistices. Here is a list of those wars (with some documentaries in Russian):

  1. The Napoleonic Wars of 1812
  2. World War 0 of 1853-1856, mis-nomered as “The Crimean War”, when that was but one of many battles. Just think of one simple fact: if Russia lost the Crimean War, why did Russia retain Crimea?
  3. The war with Japan and the first attempt to conduct a coup d’etat in Russia in 1905
  4. World War I, which was a suicide for Europe, started in 1914, and culminated in the capitalistic coup d’etat in Russia in February of 1917.
  5. World War II and the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945…
  6. …immediately followed by the Cold War, which was planned to not be that cold. Even before it started Winston Churchill ordered development of the “Plan Unthinkable”, the goal of which was to strike the USSR in July of 1945. I am not quoting The Guardian often, if ever, but this article from 2002 is worth the read: The Soviet threat was a myth
  7. This “Cold War” lead to another coup d’etat in Russia and a forced instalment of the bloody Yeltsin regime in November of 1993, the Wild 90’s that took the lives of over 30 million Russian and Soviet people over the course of 7 years of oligarchic rule; and the destruction of the Yugoslavia by NATO in the process.

It is all intertwined. But now, let as zoom in on the developments between WWI and WWII.

One other parallel that sprung to mind is how the German Weimar Republic and its achievements were appropriated and privatised by the Anglo-Saxon (or, rather, “Naglo-Saxon” West), while the Republic itself became demonised once West-sponsored Hitler took power. The same happened to the great legacy of the Soviet Union now, after the West-sponsored Yeltsin took power in Russia. For example, IG Farben Industries, which gave to humanity fertilisers, magnetic tape and magnetophones and many other things during the Weimar Republic, but once it got taken over by the Nazi state and developed the murderous gas “Zyklon B”, that’s all that remained, while origins of the prior works were earased and ascribed to the “victors” after WWII. More about it in the article “IG Farben – the main weapon of the XX-th century“.

Continue reading →

Another NATO Lie Exposed – Not a Step Eastwards Were Empty Words

Posted on by

Last week saw another major newsworthy event that had the honour of being completely and silently ignored by the Western MSM. And that is no wonder. For one, the news item reaffirmed what was said before, and vehemently denied by USNATO: the reassurance given to Gorbachev that the block would not be expanding Eastwards of the Eastern Germany’s Border once the West (read: USA) got control of the whole of Germany.

The extensive report from the National security Archive, titled “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard” demonstrates that assurances were, indeed, given from various NATO politicians and military top brass.

However, not even 10 years passed when the military block, having seen no repercussions for invading, bombing and demolishing the sovereign state of Yugoslavia – in breach of the international law, set its course Eastwards, creeping ever closer to the Russian borders, all the while increasing the demonising rhetoric aimed at Russia. You can see the dynamics of the expansion on the map below:

And so, the news, as published in RT:

Gorbachev WAS promised NATO would not expand east – declassified docs

In 1990, Western politicians repeatedly assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t expand east of Germany’s borders, but broke that promise less than a decade later, say insider archives from both sides of negotiations following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

Researchers from the respected George Washington University-based National Security Archive, which specializes in obtaining key declassified information from the government, have put together 30 crucial documents that clearly show several top Western officials vowing to Gorbachev in unison that NATO would not expand eastward. Some of these have been publicly available for several years, others have been revealed as a result of Freedom of Information requests for the study.

…

Other free and independent media published their own articles and commentary to the revelation. Here is an article from Russia Insider, republishing the article from National Interest:

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev WAS PROMISED Numerous Times NATO Wouldn’t Move Past East German Border

Just take a look at the number of assurances given!

The West lied to Moscow and then lied about the lying. It can’t lie any longer.

Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from:

    James Baker,
    President George H.W. Bush,
    West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
    West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl,
    the CIA Director Robert Gates,
    French President Francois Mitterrand,
    British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,
    British foreign minister Douglas Hurd,
    British Prime Minister John Major,
    and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

One very chilling fragment is the quotation of a prophetic interview of the American diplomat George F. Kennan:

“Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era,” Kennan wrote on February 5, 1997 in a New York Times op-ed. “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

Kennan’s sage advice was ignored, and the exact scenario he warned about has today come to pass. More than 25 years after the end of the Cold War, relations between Moscow and Washington are at their lowest point since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed, some have suggested that the United States and Russia are entering into a new cold war of sorts.

USA surely shot itself in the foot there, but, in a way, that was a positive move to awaken Russia from its self-destructive complacency.

Lada Ray offers some more insight in her expanded commentary to the Rt article in:

New Documents Prove US Lied to Gorbachev and Broke Promise of NATO Eastward Non-Expansion

The evidence presented in the video above shows without a shadow of a doubt that US/Germany/EU/NATO lied and swindled Russia and the USSR. The temporary weakness of Russia was used as an excuse to break promises. Moreover, Germany never paid in full the agreed upon compensation for the withdrawal of Soviet troops, and we are talking billions of euros (plus close to 30 years worth of intrest!). This Germany denies as well, but I’m sure the documents to that effect will also come to light in due course. By the way, I have discussed this issue in Earth Shift Webinar 6: THE PUTIN ENIGMA.

EDIT:
Today Russia Insider published a follow-up article by Eric Magrolis, someone who was there as the historical move and the historical lie happened:
‘Sorry Chump, You Didn’t Have it in Writing’

The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro. Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow was open.

All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, ‘well, there was no official written promise.’ This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit watches.

By the way, consider this paragraph, and dwell on the numbers:

Gorbachev was a humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe. I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany, HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks and sent them home at lightening speed.

Soviet Union was not prepared to take that large a number of servicemen back – there was no local infrastructure, no prepared dislocation settlements. All this put a huge additional economic strain on the already ailing economy of the USSR, and was one of the many blows, dealt to it by the West.

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

Britain Re-asserts Its Support for Neo-Nazism in Ukraine. And the Rise of Malorossian Phoenix!

Posted on by

Graham Philips publish today a news article, which in effect highlights Britain’s re-asserted support for neo-Nazism in Ukraine, a regime that the West installed there in 2014 and which has been committing crimes against humanity and war crimes in Donbass ever since!

Rank Injustice, Hypocrisy in the UK – The Case of Ben Stimson and Chris Garrett

I’ve written, and made about this case extensively, and for some time. Now, with the imprisonment of Ben Stimson, and media exposure of that, it’s come to wider attention –

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4697734/Benjamin-Stimson-joined-pro-Russian-militia-jailed.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/british-man-pro-russian-forces-ukraine-jailed-terrorism-benjamin-stimson-a7842521.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40612229

Interesting that here, the BBC didn’t mention one of the key reasons Ben was sent down, was the BBC’s framing of him –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV-iJ50GxJ8

And in the BBC article, this quote –

Det Ch Supt Russ Jackson, head of the North West Counter-Terrorism Unit, said: “The images of him holding a rifle and wearing military clothing are deeply concerning.

“He has been jailed for the role he played in a violent conflict and I hope his conviction will send a message to all those who are even considering joining conflicts.”

‘Deeply concerning’. It’s interesting that no-one in UK authority finds Chris Garrett, from the Isle of Man, and his actions in the Ukraine conflict ‘deeply concerning’. Chris, joining a neo-Nazi battalion, and killing in its name, troubles no one in British officialdom.

So, while Ben is now doing over 5 years in Strangeways prison, for, as even the police admit, effectively just posing with a weapon. Chris is over on Ukrainian territory, doing much more than posing with weapons. The fates of the 2 men contrast sharply –

In other monumental news, the Federal State of Malorossiya is created and rising from the Western sponsored Ukro-Nazi destroyed remains of the former Ukraine:

Alexander Zakharchenko announces creation of new state

Today, on July 18, the capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic held a historic event – the signing of a political declaration on the creation of a new state, which will become the legal successor of ‘Ukraine’. The new state formation will consist of 19 regions of the former Ukraine and be called Malorossiya with the center of the new state in Donetsk. Kiev remains a historical and cultural center without the status of the capital city.

“All of us here are going to talk about the future. We propose a plan for the reintegration of the country through the law and the Constitution. We must build a new country in which the concepts of conscience and honour are not forgotten. We offer the citizens of Ukraine a peaceful way out of the difficult situation, without war. This is our last offer not only to the Ukrainians, but also to all countries that supported the civil war in Donbass. I am convinced that we will do everything possible and impossible,” said the Head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko.”

…

“Malorossiya is a federal state with wide autonomy of the regions. The right of regional languages is guaranteed to be preserved, the flag of Bogdan Khmelnitsky is recognized as the national flag,” Alexander Timofeyev cited the constitutional act.

“The state “Ukraine” showed itself as a failed state and demonstrated the inability to provide its inhabitants with a peaceful and prosperous present and future,” one of the points of the political declaration emphasizes.”

Black myths about Rus – From Ivan the Formidable until our time

Posted on by

The documentary below is important is understanding how the negative perception of Russia was formed in the West throughout centuries. It is so much more important in these days, when spreading of new black myths, defamation and fear-mongering targeting Russia is reaching new heights. The English newspaper’s headlines of late is a vivid testimonial – “Putin’s Missile”, eh?

The reader will notice that I used “Ivan the Formidable” instead of the English “Ivan the Terrible”. The reason for it will become apparent below (at about 10:46).

EDIT from 2020: I noticed that someone else published a different English-subtitled version of the film, that would be easier to watch. Still, my transcript below is useful for the documentary reference.

The documentary below is in Russian. Below you will find a complete English transcript of the film in-lined with a few of my notes.

Continue reading →