Newsflash: “The Great Unknown War” documentary with Andrei Medvedev to be aired on the 7th of May

Reading time: 2 minutes

The unknown and erased side of WWII brought to light in all its ugly detail in this upcoming documentary by Andrei Medvedev. I have previously translated his eye-opening investigative documentary about the history of Ukainisation, Project ‘Ukraine’. Documentary by Andrei Medvedev (with English subtitles), and I am intending to translate this WWII documentary some time after its release.

In the meantime, here is a translated summary and the complete untranslated film, as well as a fragment of the film at the official youTube channel of Vesti.

From VGTRK:

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.

Stalin’s Speech at the November 7th 1941 Parade on the Red Square

Reading time: 4 minutes

This historic speech was given by Iosif Stalin at the darkest hour, when the enemy was at the gates of Moscow. The speech and the parade marked the turning point of the war. In many ways it is prophetic, but it also has references to the immediate past, which are important to understand.

Knowing this text will be important for the context of two translations that I intend to publish on and after the Victory day.

The complete text in Russian can be read here.



Comrade fighters of the Red Army and the Red Navy, commanders and political instructors, labourers, collective farmers, workers of intellectual work, brothers and sisters in the rear of our enemy, temporarily fallen under the yoke of the German brigands, our glorious partisans, destroying the rear of the German invaders!

On behalf of the Soviet government and our Bolshevik party I greet and congratulate you on the 24th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

Comrades! It is in difficult conditions that we have to celebrate the 24th anniversary of the October revolution today. The treacherous attack of the German brigands and the war imposed on us have created a threat to our country. We temporarily lost a number of regions, and the enemy found themselves at the gates of Leningrad and Moscow. The enemy counted on the fact that after the first blow our army would be scattered, our country would be brought to its knees. But the enemy cruelly miscalculated. Despite temporary setbacks, our Army and our Navy are heroically repelling the enemy’s attacks throughout the entire front, inflicting heavy damage on them, and our country – our entire country – has organized itself into a single military camp in order to carry out the defeat of the German invaders together with our Army and our Navy.
Continue reading

The Salvation of Prague in May 1945 by the Soviet Troops

Reading time: 15 minutes

The liberation of Prague from the Nazi German occupation was brought about 75 years ago by the Soviet troops under the command of Marshal Ivan Konev. Seeing as the Czechs have recently decided to erase that particular page of their history, we must do all in our power to counterbalance the destruction of memory, by remembering the events of 5th through 12th of May 1945 in all the unaltered detail.

For those seeking to learn even more, I would highly recommend to also read Lada Ray’s in-depth article 75 Years Later, Nazism Won in Europe? Czechia Demolishes Monument to Russian Marshal Konev, Liberator of Auschwitz & Prague! (LADA RAY REPORT).

And now, let me present translations of two materials that shed light on the events, unfolding in Prague as the War was drawing to an end…

Liberation of Prague in May 1945 – The History Without Retouching

Written by Klim Podkova, 08.05.2018

Burning Prague

Who doesn’t know the history of the liberation of Prague? On May 5, 1945, Prague rose in revolt, Soviet troops came to the aid of the rebels, and on May 9, Prague was liberated.

But it happened not quite like that, or rather, it wasn’t like that at all. In May, parts of the German garrison were really conducting bloody battles in Prague. Only their main opponents were not the rebelling Czechs, but the fighters of the 1st division of the RLA (“Russian Liberation Army”, or Vlasovtsy [Translator note: The name Vlasov is synonymous to that of Quisling in Norway]).

Czech Republic – the reliable industrial rear of the Third Reich

Czechoslovakia as an independent state disappeared from the political map of Europe before the Second World War. First, in April 1938, under pressure from Britain, France and Italy, Czechoslovakia abandoned the Sudetenland in favour of Germany (the so-called Munich Conspiracy).

Continue reading

Prague’s Shame – Petty-minded Prague-6 mayor Ondřej Kolář erases the memory of Prague’s saviour, Marshal Ivan Konev

Reading time: 9 minutes

This year marks the 75th Anniversary of the Victory over the German Fascists, where Soviet Union played the decisive and definitive role in sealing that Victory. This role of USSR is like a thorn in the eye of the modern day revisionists and neo-Fascists, who over the past decades have been ferociously rewriting history and smearing Russia as the heir to the USSR. The history is remembered as long as there are physical manifestations of said history left in the world.

As such, the especially vicious battle has been wielded against the monuments commemorating the Soviet (and by that meaning all nationalities, not just Russian) soldiers and commanders on the post-Soviet space. Poland, Czech Republic, Romania and others started the trend as soon as the CIA assets took power in those countries. After 2014, once the neo-Fascits took hold of power in Ukraine with the help of the USA and EU, the demolition of the WWII memorials was put on the assembly line rate level, at the same tempo as the destruction of the Ukrainian economy that it inherited after the USSR.

Now, that the date of the 75th Anniversary is drawing ever nearer, the newest salvo in the war on the historical monuments was heard from Prague, Czech Republic, where the memorial to Marshal Ivan Konev – the saviour of Prague – was torn down. If not for Konev’s army and his decisive, yet careful actions, Prague would be looking like Dresden now. Albeit, not because of the American firebombing, but because of the demolition charges that the retreating German forces put all around the city. It is the remembrance of the salvation of such cities as Prague and Krakow – at great self-sacrificial cost on the part of the Soviet troops – that the CIA assets are eager to destroy.

Addendum Lada Ray published a very forceful article about the desecration of the memorial to Prague’s saviour on Patreon: 75 Years Later, Nazism Won in Europe? Czechia Demolishes Monument to Russian Marshal Konev, Liberator of Auschwitz & Prague! (LADA RAY REPORT)
Please read it, as it contains a much deeper historical perspective around the liberation of Prague, as wellanalysis of the situation with the war on monuments in particular and the state of the Western world in general.

Related article translation that I published 5 years ago, the the 70th Anniversary: Prague Winter. What is the Czechs’ attitude towards the coming 70th anniversary of the Victory?

Below is my speed-translation of an article from “Argumenty i Facty” from 09.04.2020, showing the shame of Prague district 6 in all its ignominious glory.


“Let’s return Marshal home!” Will the memorial to Ivan Konev come to Moscow from Prague?

Descendants of the Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev began collecting signatures for the transfer to Russia of the monument to the commander that was dismantled in Prague. The daughter of the Marshal, Natalia Koneva, hopes that the monument will be installed in Moscow.

“We have Marshal Konev street. And it will be natural if the monument would stand on it.”

Continue reading

“So many? Really?” Germans do not know how many Russians were killed by their ancestors

Reading time: 9 minutes

In 2015 I translated Georgy Zotov’s article Repentance of Berlin. After 70 years, the Germans have an unambiguous attitude towards the Soviet victory.

This year it elicited the following comment:

LaRock on March 6, 2019 at 19:50 said:
The war is over stop punishing Germany

To which I replied:

Stanislav on March 12, 2019 at 20:02 said:
This comment should be addressed to the USA, who are still occupying and punishing Germany. If you read the article, you’d see that it’s about remembrance and reconciliation.

However, a better reply would have been a translation of an even earlier article by Zotov, one from 2013. I am translating it below, followed by a translation of two reader comments from AiF and my thoughts on them and what Zotov wrote in one particular paragraph.

Today, with racism and calls to war and genocide being the norm on the pages of the Western MSM (“racism” is a common-root synonym of “russophobia”) and the number of the Western troops and war hardware right on the Russian border being the highest since the June of 1941, it is time to remember. For while the West is collectively shrugging off 1941-1945 as “just another invasion of Russia” and preparing for a new one, Russia remembers, watches closely and prepares to defend its land once more.

In this today’s context remembrance is the key to preventing another invasion of Russia by the West, and prevent this time hundreds of millions people being killed – both defenders, attackers and bystanders…

Continue reading

USA’s plans for the nuclear annihilation of USSR (Russia) and China disclosed

Reading time: 5 minutes

What does one call a country that plans to kill millions of people in a cold blooded first strike attack, and measures its level of success in the number of civilians killed and the percentage of the civilian infrastructure destroyed, reducing the attacked nation to a non-viable condition?

A rogue state?

A terrorist state?

Actually, it’s called USA.

In the recently-declassified documents, the US military details such plans of an all-out nuclear first strike against the USSR and China. I have written before about the American plans to drops 204 A-bombs onto the 66 of the largest Soviet cities, including Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev… The plans below are shown to go to an even greater detail in actually measuring the level of “success” such an attack would have, in the magnitude of the CIVILIAN casualties.

Continue reading

“The Great Gas Game” – An Excellent Documentary from Vesti

Reading time: < 1 minute

The Gas Wars are continuing. Starting well during the time of USSR, when the USA tried to stop the supply of the Russian gas to Europe by the means of sanctions and provocations, through the Ukrainian gas machinations, when Ukraine was used as a patsy to sabotage and undermine Russian supplier reputation, while at the same time blackmailing Russia for cheap under-market-priced gas, which I wrote about in a 2014 article The Third Gas War: EU and US must pay for their “successes” in Ukraine.

Now the USA are trying to sabotage Nord Stream 2 by blackmailing Germany. This follows the successful blackmailing and sabotage of Bulgaria, which stopped the construction of the South Stream and depriving Bulgaria of about $700.000.000 and $800.000.000 per year over a span of 50 years – USA and EU successfully stole from Bulgaria about $37.500.000.000

And before that, USA/NATO invaded and bombed Yugoslavia, bombing into oblivion the gas refinery in the Serbian town of Pacevo in 1999.

All this recent, and not so recent, history is very well chronicled in the new English-subtitled documentary from Vesti: “The Great Gas Game”

UPDATE 2022: Since YouTube applied the “freedom of speech” principle and removed all speech that does not conform to the American directive on freedom, i.e. all Russian channels, including the one from the VGTRK that hosted the documentary, I re-uploaded a backup copy, which I happened to have, to Odysee.

Russian FM Lavrov’s speech at UNGA is akin to Cat Leopold teaching mice good manners

Reading time: 2 minutes

There is an iconic Soviet children’s cartoon series “The Adventures of Cat Leopold”, where a kind, friendly cat is attempting to teach two misbehaving and downright evil mice to behave and to live in peace. “Guys, let’s live in friendship” is the cue of Cat Leopold. Whatever he tries to do to teach those mice – good example, showing them the errors of their ways, nothing helps. They are soon back to their old ways of making Leopold’s life a living hell. More often than not the mice fall victim of their own traps and provocations, thus illustrating the Russian proverb: “Don’t dig a hole for someone – you’ll end up falling into it yourself”.

In one episode, the ever-kind and balanced Leopold gets prescribed a medicine, “Wilderine”, to make him act more like a raging leopard. That seems to get the mice’s attention for awhile. Yet, at the end of the episode Leopold is back to his kind ways, enticing the mice to “live in friendship”.

Here is the episode in question: “The Revenge of Cat Leopold”

And here is a collection of several other Cat Leopold cartoons:

Why am I writing this? Because Soviet and now Russian actions, trying to make the West behave in a peaceful and well-mannered way are akin to Leopold’s attempts to make the mice behave.

And I am afraid that today’s excellent speech by the Russian FM Lavrov at UNGA is yet another such attempt, falling on deaf ears.

UPDATE 2023: In a bout of enforcing the freedom of speech and democracy, in 2022 YouTube removed the RT channel, while the West blocked the RT site. The link below is update to an uncensored mirror of RT.

Drop the diktats, try diplomacy: Major takeaways from Lavrov’s UN speech

“But history didn’t teach us anything,” Lavrov said, adding that allegations “based on the notorious ‘highly likely’ thing are sufficient for some Western counterparts to pin the blame on anyone.”

“We do remember how often these unfounded claims were used to justify interventions and ignite wars, such the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2011 intervention in Libya.”

“Colonial-era diktat and coercion should be sent into the archive or the dustbin of history.”

Moscow believes constructive dialogue can meet any challenges that arise in world affairs, according to Lavrov.

“If you have any questions or claims to anyone, then sit down and talk, show facts, listen to your counterpart’s arguments, try to balance your interests.”

World Cup 2018 in Russia – A Welcoming Echo of the Olympics 1980

Reading time: 3 minutes

Back in 1980 Russia welcomed sports enthusiasts from all over the world for the Olympics. Watching the welcoming and uplifting reports from all over Russia now, during the World cup 2018, I have the theme tune of the Olympics ’80 playing in my mind. It’s the same message of friendship and inclusiveness. See, for example, a collection of video at Russia insider in the articles Moscow Is Basically a Giant Street Party Right Now #WorldCup (Video) and How Many People Are Rocking the World Cup From Which Countries? – Russia Breaks Records

The Olympics ’80 song was written by R. Rozhdestvenskij, with music by D. Tuhmanov and is sung by Tõnis Mägi, a pupolar in USSR Estonian singer. He, alas, betrayed the spirit of this song later in 2014, when he initiated boycott of Steven Seagal, who performed in Sevastopol after Crimea’s democratic reunification with Russia.

Still, whatever his present views and actions are, that is no reason to boycott him or write him out of history. And so, the excellent Olympics ’80 anthem, performed by Tõnis Mägi, with my translation of the lyrics to English below the video frame.

Unfurling high above and calling to us is this golden Olympic flame.
The Earth shall be happy and young!
We must do everything so that the Olympic flame is not extinguished forever,
The Sun is starting into the sky, as if for the first time.
Реет в вышине и зовёт олимпийский огонь золотой.
Будет Земля счастливой и молодой!
Нужно сделать всё, чтоб вовек олимпийский огонь не погас,
Солнце стартует в небе, как в первый раз.

Continue reading

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

Reading time: 5 minutes

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.

204 A-Bombs Against 66 Cities: US Drew up First Plan to Nuke Russia Before WWII Was Even Over – Reblog

Reading time: 8 minutes

We’ve written about it before, how USA was planning to annihilate USSR (read – Russia) just as WWII was drawing to a close. You can read that first article USA declassifies its plans to nuke 1/3 of planet Earth.

But it’s never too seldom to repeat this, and today’s publication in Russia Insider 204 A-Bombs Against 66 Cities: US Drew up First Plan to Nuke Russia Before WWII Was Even Over does just that.

UPDATE May 2, 2025: the original of the RI article disappeared, so the link is updated with the version stored at the WebArchive. We also update this post to include the complete copy of the article, with all the image. The article at Russia Insider was in turn re-published from South Front, here at the new address.

Our reader, JMF, found two more articles of interest on this topic: From 1945-49 the US and UK planned to bomb Russia into the Stone Age and The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945).


“Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”: Planned US Nuclear Attack against USSR

This video from South Front is based on the research of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Below is the full text of Professor Chossudovsky’ article published by Global Research

According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.

All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.

Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.

The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.
Continue reading

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

Reading time: 6 minutes

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?

Reading time: 6 minutes

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

Reading time: 3 minutes

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.

Washington’s Political Propaganda Tool – “Golodomor” (famine) in Ukraine

Reading time: 9 minutes

In this article I want to cover the topic of the so-called “Golodomor” (death by starvation), the term which was coined by the US Congress in 1988 as a tool targeting USSR, so as to foment discord and chip away the borderlands – Ukraine. The period of starvation in USSR of 1930s did indeed happen, but it was not exclusive to Ukraine and did not have such a scale, as claimed by the followers of the Washington directive.

To put that into personal perspective, my great-grandmother on maternal line died of famine, and he family lived in Southern Siberia (Altai Krai), one of the most fertile regions of Russia.

In 2014 Lada Ray wrote an extensive in-depth article The Real Truth About USSR: Golodomor and Collectivization in Ukraine, which I strongly recommend everyone to read, including the comments, and Lada’s replies to them. Here is a short fragment:

Back to collectivization and golodomor (= death from starvation): it took place in the early 1930s. It happened for several reasons: 1. Peasants sometimes didn’t care for fields and cattle that they felt wasn’t theirs after it was taken into kolkhozes. 2. Sabotage, burning and poisoning of cattle and fields by foreign agents. 3. Mistakes of authorities, both central and local. 4. Several bad years of drought and poor harvest in parts of Russia and Ukraine.

This is very important! Collectivization and golodomor were NOT Ukraine-specific phenomenons. Same exact results from collectivization happened in rich agricultural areas of Russia, such as Povolzhie and Kuban. In fact, the real hunger was in Povolzhie (the Volga region). Golodomor is a Russian word, not Ukrainian. Everyone suffered. So, making this into a Ukraine-specific issue is clearly a disgusting propaganda ploy.

There was never a secret made of golodomor in Russia – as a child I studied it in my Soviet history books. Perhaps, Russians were a little too self-punishing about it. The overall cost of golodomor was probably two hundred thousand lives, and it was a huge tragedy. I doubt more than 20,000 died in Ukraine. Much, much more died in Russia.

3 years have passed since that publication, but Washington is loath to abandon the propaganda line that brought so many dividends, and so this card is being played in the US, with the latest development of the State of Washington passing a “Golodomor” resolution… Below I am presenting a translation of an article by Ukrainian historian and political analyst in exile Rostislav Ishchenko with the title “Washington’s Genocide: USA speculates on the topic of starvation in Ukraine”.

But before we embark on reading of this article, let us keep in mind the developments in the United States of 1932-1933. During these years – the years of Great Depression – 7,5 million Americans died of hunger, while at the same time Roosevelt’s government destroyed crops and stock so as not to allow further depression of the prices on the foods market. Try to find demographic statistics for USA for 1932 – you will not be able to, as data for that year is mysteriously missing. So here we have another example of projection, so actively used in the American politics, or, simply put, a case of a teapot calling a kettle…

Incidentally, in many Ukrainianophilic publications you will see the Ukrainised term “holodomor”, which sounds stupid to the Slavic ear – “holod” means “cold”, so the derived term becomes “death from freezing”…


The Ukrainian Embassy in the USA can be congratulated with another large necrophiliac “victory.” The Senate of the State of Washington (located on the Pacific coast, not to be confused with the U.S. capital Washington, D.C. located on the Potomac river, near its confluence with the Atlantic ocean) adopted a resolution recognizing the so-called Golodomor (ukr.: Holodomor) as “genocide orchestrated by Joseph Stalin and the Soviet regime against the Ukrainian people”.

Until now a resolution which called Golodomor for a “man-made famines” was passed on 19 August 2016 by the Assembly of the State of California. There are still 48 “unstarved” States remaining and therefore, another 48 potential “victories” of Ukrainian diplomacy.

This, however, cannot change the official U.S. view on this issue. The fact is that in 1984, actively fighting against the USSR, Ronald Reagan created a Commission to study the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine (Mace Commission, named after its President, James Mace). The Commission predictably concluded that “Stalin and his entourage committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933”.

US still occasionally refers to the opinion of the Mace Commission, but they are yet to dare to officially legalize its findings at the Federal level. Moreover, the James Mace complained that after the Commission’s findings were made public, the doors of the academic institutions in the United States became closed to him.

This reaction of the American scientific community is natural. In the 80-ies of the last century, politicians in Washington still did not have a monopoly on truth, and scientists valued their reputation. It is therefore not surprising that attempts to confirm the findings of the Mace Commission failed. The International commission created in 1988 by the initiative of the “world Congress of free Ukrainians” with the goal of investigating the famine, upset their customers, finding no evidence neither of the artificial nature of the famine nor of the intention to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

It was actually after this that the theme of famine stalled for several years. It was too difficult, without losing objectivity, to explain why in the course of the famine, ostensibly aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainians, the greatest losses were in the rural population of Kazakhstan (nearly 31% of the total) and the Volga region (23% of the total). While in the Ukraine and the Caucasus (where famine was also raging) the losses amounted to 20.5% and 20.4% respectively of the total rural population.

There is no accurate data on the victims of the Great famine of 1932-1933 in the USSR. The range of researchers’ estimates is extremely large: from 2-2.5 million to 7-8 million people in the whole Soviet Union. the figure of 6-7 million seems to be closest to reality, because, according to the official data, only on the territory of the RSFSR, excluding Ukraine and Kazakhstan, 2.5 million people died of hunger. The number of famine victims in Ukraine is estimated by the conscientious researchers to be 2-3 million (the lower limit being 1.5 million).

As we can see, the numbers are comparable. In addition, Ukraine of the 1930s was a multinational republic. Much more multinational than it is now. It is enough to note that the proportion of the Jewish population of Ukraine in the pre-war years amounted to 5-6% percent, while now it less than 0.5% of the total population. In Ukraine (in addition to the returned Crimean Tatars [translator note: here Ishchenko makes a mistake – in the 1930s of which the article is about, Crimea was not in Ukraine, so the Tatar population should be counted towards RSFSR or USSR total]) there also lived a later expelled (but never returned) large Greek, Armenian and German communities. The famine decimated all without asking nationality and not checking the passport data.

Moreover, hunger was particularly rampant in the Left-bank Ukraine, that is in regions with a high share, and even with the predominance of the Russian population. While the most vocal about the famine Western Ukraine was at that time actually a part of the Polish state, so if anyone organized an artificial famine on its territory, it not the Bolsheviks, but the civilized Europeans.

Nevertheless, after Ukraine gained its independence, starting in the mid 90-ies, the topic of the famine-genocide became more and more actively used by the Kiev authorities as political – especially international – trump card. Moreover, the subject was immediately given a Russophobic nature, even though Kiev initially denied this fact.

It is clear that if there actually was a genocide, it would imply that there was a customer (beneficiary) of this genocide, and the goal was specifically in the destruction of the nation. That is, Ukraine initially stressed that the famine was organized by Moscow and directed against Ukrainians as a nation, though in fact it mowed down peasants of all nationalities. And the reasons for it were known. It was a mix of both the “dizziness from success” in the collective construction, and crop failure, and overestimated grain procurement plans, and the inadequacy of local leadership, which for the sake of implementation of the plan, removed from the peasants even the seeding grain (as a result, the main impact of the famine came in 1933, when in some places the bread could not even be sown).

So as to prove the theory of Golodomor genocide, Kiev began to arbitrarily increase the number of famine victims in Ukraine. This was done in order to make Ukraine seemed the most affected in comparison with other localities of the USSR. Thus first appeared the figure of 6-7 million victims of the famine in Ukraine. The same political “researchers” lowered the figure for the rest of the Soviet Union down to 2.5 million.

And then Yushchenko came to power. This is where it all took off. Viktor Andrrevich Yushchenko was not satisfied with the already existing fraud. He immediately declared that Holodomor is the Ukrainian Holocaust. But by the end of the first year of his reign, Yushchenko claimed that the famine scale was greater than that of the Holocaust, and estimated the number of victims in 10 million people. A year later, Yushchenko already spoke of 10-15 million.

They had to stop at that, because the world ceased to pity Ukraine and began to laugh at her. It is easy to calculate that with 1932-1933 UkSSR’s population of 31-32 million people, every second or third inhabitant of the Republic had to die according to Yushchenko. Since the famine covered the territory unevenly, a significant portion of UkSSR would have to become a desert with abandoned cities and ghost villages. But painting up the atrocities of the Communist regime, Yushchenko did not stop at that and argued that up to ten million Ukrainians were dispossessed, exiled to Siberia where most perished.

That is, the Republic should have actually been losing population. It is unclear who then fought in the Great Patriotic War, which really killed seven or eight million inhabitants of pre-war UkSSR of all nationalities.

Currently Kiev does not operate with any approved (not even speaking of proven) number of famine victims, but voiced figures are never reduced below six or seven million, periodically returning to Yushchenko’s exorbitant eight to ten million.

In general, the history of the Ukrainian genocide is akin to the history of test-tube, which Colin Powers was shaking at the meeting of the UN Security Council, demanding international legalisation of the American invasion of Iraq. But in its extreme manifestations it is even more absurd and cynical. Bringing the number of victims to the point of absurdity in a futile attempt to prove genocide, the Ukrainian politicians and “scientists” relegated the real tragedy of millions of people to the grotesque. While the attempt to present Ukrainians as the sole victims of the famine, denying the millions of Kazakhs, Russians, representatives of the peoples of the Caucasus, who in those same years suffered this painful death, the right to memory and sympathy is beyond the bounds of morality and common sense.

Resolutions akin to that adopted by the Senate of the State of Washington are of short-term political nature. This is evidenced by the fact that of the 18 (including Ukraine) countries that recognized Golodomor as genocide of the Ukrainian people, 9 did so before the Supreme Rada of Ukraine itself enacted it as a law on 28 November 2006. Moreover, Estonia and Australia recognized Golodomor as genocide in October 1993 (13 years before Kiev). They knew better than the Ukrainians themselves.

One can be happy on behalf of the Ukrainian diplomacy, which has a virtually unlimited space for further “victories”. If they actively work with Lesotho, Swaziland, Island States of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, the number of countries, professionally recognising Golodomor as genocide, can double.