Farage vs. Corbyn – Richie Allen and Gilad Atzmon delve into the post-political condition

May 24, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Richie is joined by the musician, author and political commentator Gilad Atzmon. In a provocative and insightful article on gilad.co.uk this week, Gilad writes; “How it is that once again a right wing populist has won the minds and hearts of working people? How is it possible that Jeremy Corbyn, who was perceived by many of us as the greatest hope in Western politics, has managed, in less than three years, to make himself an irrelevant passing phase? How is it possible that the Right consistently wins when the conditions exist for a textbook socialist revolution? Nigel Farage, Britain’s Donald Trump character, is by far the most significant man in British politics. Farage stood up against the entire political establishment, including the media and the commercial elites and has promised to change British politics once and for all. So far, it seems he is winning on all fronts.” This is a must-listen interview.

Support The Richie Allen Show by donating at www.richieallen.co.uk Richie has been producing and presenting television and radio programs for the best part of twenty years. The Richie Allen Show airs Monday – Thursday at 5 PM GMT and at 11 AM UK Time each Sunday.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

Advertisements

The Lies About World War II

 • MAY 13, 2019

In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/09/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .

Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.

In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.

Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.

Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.

This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.

World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.

In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.

From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.

Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3

Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.

Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.

It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”

So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

The plan of Marcks, the Barbarossa Directive, and Banderism in WWII

May 10, 2019

By Rostislav Ishchenko

Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with 
https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-plan-of-marcks-the-barbarossa-directive-and-banderism-in-wwii/

source: https://ukraina.ru/history/20190509/1023546752.html

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:576a68edc36188751f8b45c8.jpg

There is a false opinion that is popular in narrow circles of Rezun adherents that the “unfortunate peaceable” Fuhrer, having suddenly learned that the USSR concentrated too many troops in the Western Military Districts, scratched around, and with the incidental divisions found near at hand was forced to urgently attack the USSR in order to not be attacked himself.

In practice Hitler gave the order to prepare an attack on the USSR already on July 31st 1940 (France capitulated on June 22nd of the same year).

He motivated his position not at all by the fact that the USSR was preparing to attack him, but by saying that the disappearance of the last major (alternative to German) military force in Europe will deprive Great Britain of hope for a result of war that is positive for it, and London will agree to make peace on the terms of Berlin. I.e., Hitler planned to “heal” the war that was already launched by him via a new war only because his calculations on the tractability of England after the defeat of France failed.

Directive No. 21, which approved the “Barbarossa Option”, appeared only on December 18th 1940. It became the development of the “Ost” plan elaborated by the General Erich Marcks, who was considered to be the best specialist of the OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres) on Russia. Marcks presented his reasons in August, but they did not satisfy Hitler, and the “Ost” plan was improved on the basis of the instructions of the Fuhrer by the group under the leadership of the well-known in Russia – thanks to the Battle of Stalingrad – General Friedrich Paulus.

Here it is necessary to make the reservation of the rather personal qualities of General Paulus. All of his colleagues recognised him as a well educated officer who was brilliantly prepared for staff work. But at the same time they nevertheless noted his obedience. Paulus always unconditionally obeyed the person with a stronger character irrespective of whether the latter occupied in relation to him a leading position (like Hitler) or a subordinated position (like the chief of his headquarters in the 6th army Major General Arthur Schmidt). Paulus executed orders irrespective of whether he considered them to be correct or nhttp://thesaker.is/ending-a-cultural-revolution-can-only-be-counter-revolutionary-7-8/ot. Thanks to this quality of Paulus, the deployment of troops within the framework of the “Barbarossa Directive” happened as a part of three groups of armies, and not two, as General Marcks proposed.

The matter is that Erich Marcks, apparently, was not only a great expert on Russia, but also a sensible staff officer who perfectly acquired the principles of the adventurous strategy of blitzkrieg, which allowed Germany to win at the first stages of World War II. Blitzkrieg assumed a victory by the smaller forces of a stronger opponent due to a concentration of troops (including all mobile formations) in strategic directions unexpected for it. The created local superiority materialised into deep breaches. The mobile formations supported by aircraft destroyed the rear, provided a loss by the highest headquarters of the leadership of troops, after which the front units found themselves in numerous cauldrons, catastrophically losing their fighting capacity, the organised defence of the country collapsing, and the fighting was turning into an operation to clean up the area from the remains of troops of the opponent, already demoralised and incapable of resistance.

This approach justified itself in Poland, in France, and at the beginning (in 1941) in the USSR. In 1942 the success of German troops on the Eastern front was local and didn’t have such a catastrophic character for the USSR. In general in 1942, despite large-scale defeats on the Southern flank, the Staff of the General Headquarters retained control over the situation.

The strategy of blitzkrieg was dictated by the general weakness of Germany in comparison with its opponents. Without going on adventures that were dangerous and fraught with instant defeat, Germany could not count on victories. But an adventure on the verge of catastrophic defeat, if it was successful, led to a just as catastrophic defeat of the opponent. This method is expressed in a proverb today: “He who takes no chances drinks no champagne”.

In full compliance with the strategy of blitzkrieg, General Marcks made a plan that was extremely adventurous, but in the event it was triumphant it promised absolute success. The deployment of “Ost” was supposed to be carried out within the framework of two groups of armies operating to the North of the Polesia swamps. In the South, Romania and Hungary didn’t have to enter the war, which provided the impossibility of an attack of Soviet troops through their territory. And in order to defend the Carpathian passes leading to Poland, there were rather enough small forces. The Polesia swamps, extending from the border to Bryansk, had to cover the open Southern flank of the attacking group. It was supposed to control them also by rather small forces.

Thus, the Soviet troops concentrated in Ukraine (40% of all potential and 50% of mobile formations) had to switch-off from active fighting until the attacking German army appeared on the outskirts of Moscow, in the deep rear of the Ukrainian group of Soviet troops. At the second stage (after capturing Moscow and Leningrad) it was supposed to drive the Soviet troops concentrated in the South towards the Black Sea and the Caucasian ridge and to destroy them with the assistance of the Turkish army, which had to strike them in the rear.

It is unknown whether they would have succeeded to implement this plan, but specific battles of 1941 show that, despite all its adventurousness, it could’ve been realised in the condition of strict fulfilment. During this period of war the Soviet troops proved to be good in passive defence, but no so good at deep and difficult offensive operations, and the command was catastrophically late to react to the actions of the enemy. That’s why the isolation of the large group of Soviet troops in Ukraine in the specific conditions of 1941 is not something unreal.

However, Hitler, who was always much more careful than his Generals, stated that he cannot fight without Ukrainian bread, coal, and metal, etc. He demanded the development of an operation taking into account the need to occupy Ukraine. Conscientious Paulus developed the “Barbarossa” plan, within the framework of which over 30% of German military power as a part of the “South” army groups had to operate to the South of the Polesia swamps (in Ukraine). At the same time, expeditious collaboration between the “Centre” and “South” army groups would be achieved only after arriving at the Smolensk-Chernigov line. This would reduce (although it didn’t completely remove) the general operational risk, but would also sharply reduce the chances of success.

The specific peripeteias of fighting in the Great Patriotic War were repeatedly parsed. The critical, on the verge of a Soviet defeat, situation of 1941 came to an end with the victorious battle of Moscow, after which it was a question only of what year, with what forces, and with what losses will the USSR crush Germany. But for us the transformation of the “Ost” plan into the “Barbarossa” plan is important due to the fact that if it wasn’t for the German occupation of Ukraine, we would not face such a phenomenon as civil war during the Great Patriotic War.

Traitors and collaborators were everywhere (in Western and Eastern Europe, in different regions of the USSR). On Russian territories there was a “Lokot republic” of Kaminsky, and besides Vlasov’s Russian Liberation Army, the 15th SS Cossack Cavalry Corps of Lieutenant General Helmuth von Pannwitz worked in the structure of the German army, and there was also the Baltic and Caucasian “SS legions”, even in Belarus there were its own homegrown henchmen, although the most part had to be sent from Ukraine and from the Baltics. However, in any region, including the Baltics, the amount of the local population that was at war as a part of the Red Army exceeded (some by orders of magnitude, and some by percentage, but all the same exceeded) the number of those who went to serve the enemy.

In Ukraine there was a cardinally different situation. In its central and its Southeast regions the picture was approximately the same as the average for the Union. But the Western regions, generally Galicia, were on the side of the enemy almost in full strength. It’s not a coincidence that after war the USSR couldn’t cope with banderism for a long time. UPA enjoyed the support of the local population. Even Banderist terror would be impracticable if it wasn’t for the support of the local population.

During the war about 1,200,000 Soviet citizens served in different military and auxiliary formations of the Wehrmacht, the SS, and police. From them, according to the data of the German command, 400,000 were Russians and 250,000 were Ukrainians. However, according to the same data, over half a million (nearly a half) from all collaborators lived on the territory of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic before the war. The Germans simply considered as Ukrainians mainly Galicia residents or those people who officially adopted the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism.

Moreover, as was said above, collaborators from Ukraine and from the Baltics alone (three small republics gave in total 230,000 collaborators) were used to maintain order in other regions (in the regions of Belarus, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and Eastern Ukraine, where their own collaborators were lacking in numbers). There was one essential difference between the Ukrainian and Baltic collaborators. A considerable part of the latter indeed fought at the front. The former mainly committed atrocities in the rear. The actions of Baltic police battalions outside the actual territory of the Baltics aren’t as known (there are several cases in Belarus). But the Ukrainian (Galician) punishers “glorified themselves” for both Khatyn and atrocities committed while interrogating members of the Young Guard in Krasnodon. Henchmen from Galicia were brought to Kiev, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Donbass, as well as to the regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic bordering with Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Rostov, Belgorod), and also to Belarus.

I draw your attention to the fact that in the area of actions of Galician collaborators, 2/3rds of spaces are occupied by the Southeast and central regions of Ukraine, where their own collaborators were lacking in numbers. It is precisely this that grants us the right to say that during the Great Patriotic War the occupied territory of Ukraine became the arena of civil war between the Russian population of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (which became partisans) and the Galician collaborators. Banderism, suppressed after war, only went underground. In new conditions, with the collapse of the USSR, this civil war resumed, and rather quickly went through a cold stage and since 2014 has acquired open character.

However, there is also an even more important detail. During the Great Patriotic War the Ukrainian collaborators, performing punitive functions on the territories of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, already tried to transfer civil war beyond the border of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic – to set fire to all the USSR. Now, by talking about their “war” with Russia and about their readiness to carry out saboteur work against it, trying to establish ties with Russian marginal opposition and to create a terrorist underground on its foundations, modern Banderists again try to solve a problem that was not solved by their predecessors – to transfer civil war from the territory of Ukraine to Russia and to destroy the Russian State.

The defeat of Germany in war became a condition for a victory over banderism after the Great Patriotic War. The condition of a victory over modern banderism is a victory in the hybrid war launched by the US against Russia and now also China.

74TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR – THE EASTERN FRONT OF WORLD WAR 2

South Front

09.05.2019

Related Videos

RELATED NEWS

Expose´: The Labour Party Treats Palestinian Supporters as Mental Cases

May 07, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Dear mrs Northam.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

If you need further evidence that the Labour Party is a dark political force that doesn’t deserve the light of day, the following will supply the confirmation you need.

Mrs. Marianne Northam (74) joined the Labour Party so she could cast a vote in favour of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership as she believed him to be “a man with integrity and principles.”

As a true humanist of Left orientation, Mrs. Northam opposes bankers and is largely disgusted by Israel’s institutional racism and barbarism. It seems that such political inclinations are no longer welcome in Corbyn’s Labour Party.  Mrs. Northam was informed by the Party that she was suspended and subject to investigation. She was warned not to share “the information she received from the Party identifying the name of the person who has made the complaint against her, any witnesses, the allegations and the names of Party staff dealing with the matter.” Mrs. Northam was threatened that if she failed to follow their instructions, “the Party reserves the right to take action to protect confidentiality, and you may be liable to disciplinary action for breach of the Party’s rules.”

In the official letter that the Party sends to its hundreds of suspended members, it advises the member to contact their GP to seek help for their mental condition. “You can contact your GP who can help you access support for your mental health and wellbeing.” As if opposing Israel, Jewish politics or banking is a matter of mental illness.  And if you do not want to have the NHS involved, our ‘opposition’ party provides an alternative: “The Samaritans are available 24/7 – They offer a safe place for anyone to talk any time they like, in their own way – about whatever’s getting to them. Telephone 116 123.” 

Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 08.45.31.png

For those who do not know, The Samaritans is a registered charity aimed at providing emotional support to anyone in emotional distress, struggling to cope, or at risk of suicide throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland, often through their telephone helpline.

 Let us examine what Mrs. Northam did that earned her both a suspension from the Labour Partly and the ‘need’ for the support of mental health specialists.

 The Labour Party questioned Mrs. Northam about some FB posts.

Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 08.46.57.png

 I watched the video. It is critical of one banking family and its vast influence. The video doesn’t refer to the Rothschilds as Jews or Semites. It produces an argument that deserves attention, discussion and maybe refutation. But this is hardly the approach taken by our so-called ‘opposition.’  Corbyn’s Labour is against all bankers except  one specific family of oligarchs.  Here is what  the Labour inquisitor wrote to Mrs. Northam:

 “Do you agree with the sentiments expressed in this video?

Do you recognise that the Rothschilds/New World Order is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?”

Labour is supposed to be against prejudice. Simply on the basis of the above question the NEC (Labour’s National Executive Committee) Board must be suspended from the Labour Party  for prejudice in favour of one Jewish banking family that is apparently beyond criticism.

 Video: Watch Lord Rothschild Discusses How His Family Created Israel orchestrating the Balfour Declaration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ZWU3ALYkY

 Mrs. Northam’s ultimate crime was being a FB friend of yours truly. It seems one wannabe musician named Steve Cooke was really upset by Mrs. Northam circulating my writing as the following screenshot provided by the Labour Party reveals:

steve cook.png

Let’s examine what are my ‘antisemitic’ views:

gilad.png

Apparently Mrs. Northam posted to her FB page an article I wrote in 2013 titled, Holocaust Day Backfired.   Labour’s inquisitor interrogates Mrs Northam as follows: “Do you agree with the comment in this article, ‘In the context of the Holocaust Memorial Day, the verdict is clear – the Israelis learned something in Auschwitz, but apparently not the most obvious ethical lesson.’

 Do you agree with the comment in the article, ‘I guess that those British Jews who came to their senses probably realised by now that imposing a Holocaust Memorial Day on the British people was a grave mistake. However, I am delighted with this commemoration day. It is indeed a very special opportunity we should all cherish.  Every year we will use this commemoration to remind Israel and its Lobby what we think of the Jewish State, its politics and its repellent operators in our midst.’

 In a recent paper I provided a detailed explanation why the contemporary Left is dead in the water and why the Labour Party has been reduced into an assortment of those with limited intellectual and mental abilities. A person with a working brain would see that my comment argues that Israelis and Jews should demand that their Jewish State implement the universal moral of the Holocaust. I do often raise the question of how it is possible that Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz.  I ask, how is it possible that The Jewish State put into place racist immigration laws just 5 years after the defeat of Nazi Germany?  I argue that the Jews should be amongst the first to apply the lesson of the Holocaust. Instead the Jewish state is, unfortunately, the most racist country in the world. And it enjoys the institutional support of Jews around the world as well as Corbyn’s Labour.

 The Labour inquisitor writes to Mrs. Northam

 “The Chakrabarti Report states:

  1. ‘Excuse for, denial, approval or minimisation of the Holocaust and attempts to blur responsibility for it, have no place in the Labour Party’ Do you think your posts are against the spirit of this?

  1. ‘Racial or religious tropes and stereotypes about any group of people should have no place in our modern Labour Party’ – Do you think your posts are against the spirit of this?”

 I would like a Labour representative or Mrs. Chakrabarti herself (the next time she pays a visit to one of my concerts) to point to where the denial, approval or minimization of the Holocaust appears in my article. In fact, my argument relies on the opposite conclusion. I demand that Jews and Israelis be subject to scrutiny based on the moral lesson of the Holocaust. I guess that someone in the Labour’s NEC must believe that Jews and Israel are beyond criticism. Maybe before they preach to us about discrimination, they should look in the mirror.

The Labour inquisitor continues: “ Rule 2.I.8 in the Party’s rulebook states:

‘No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party.’”

This Kafkaesque statement alone provides ample reason for Mrs. Northam to show the Labour party the finger as by now every Brit should do. But I will address the Labour inquisitor’s question.

By rejecting the idea that the Jewish State apply the moral lesson of the Holocaust and by censuring such an ethical message as “detrimental to the party,” the Party is admitting that it is a discriminatory institution that is removed from universal ethical thinking. The Labour Party is now openly racist and should be dissolved immediately in accordance with its own anti prejudice rules!

 The Labour inquisitor: “The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “treat all people with dignity and respect. This applies…..offline and online’ – Do you think the posts in this pack are consistent with this policy?”

And I answer, how is it disrespectful to demand that the Jewish State be subject to the same rules as anyone else? In fact, it is Zionist to the core, as Early Zionism promised to make Jews people like all others.

The Labour Party is institutionally bigoted. It discriminates in favour of a racist criminal state. It terrorises and harasses anyone who questions the criminal and genocidal conduct of that state. The Labour Party has little or nothing to do with Labour values let alone Left principles. It is a disgusting occupied body.

The Labour inquisitor ends his letter to Mrs. Northam: “Looking back at the evidence supplied with this letter, do you regret posting or sharing any of this content? Do you intend to post content of this nature in the future?”

It seems that Mrs. Northam has made up her mind. She has closed the door on this repellent compromised party, and every thinking Brit should follow her. The Labour Party in its current form is an authoritarian Israeli Hasbara unit. It may be the most dangerous party in Europe as it is deliberately endangers our most elementary human rights: The right to speak and think freely, the right to explore ethical and universal thinking and the need to criticize that which needs criticism.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

DONATE

 

No Ukronazis amongst the Ukronazis? Look again!

 

No Ukronazis amongst the Ukronazis?  Look again!

May 03, 2019

Translated and subtitled  by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard, cross posted with The Stalker Zone:

Military officers of the press service of the DPR people’s militia managed to film a Nazi flag flying over the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donetsk.
DPR militia correspondent Dmitry Astrakhan said that the Kiev junta transferred the “Azov” regiment to the position of the 24th brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Maryinka.

Of course, Kiev and its western masters will say that it is “fake news” or that the DPR militia planted it there themselves. But this is okay, because on the Internet (including here on Stalker Zone!) there is a whole plethora of evidence that testifies to the Ukrainian Army’s love for Uncle Adolf and his loyal servants like Stepan Bandera.

 

How was it possible for a Jewish candidate to win the 2019 Ukrainian presidential bid if Ukraine is a rigidly nationalist country?

by George Eliason, Special Correspondent for the Saker Blog in Novorussia

How was it possible for a Jewish candidate to win the 2019 Ukrainian presidential bid if Ukraine is a rigidly nationalist country?

How was it possible for a Jewish candidate to win the 2019 Ukrainian presidential bid if Ukraine is a rigidly nationalist country?

Although the investigation isn’t complete, I have uncovered all the working parts that make an impossible story not only plausible but show the election results as the only logical conclusion.

As I was sorting through all the information about the election, I came across the one person whose presence on Zelensky’s team as a spokesman told me worlds about what was really going on with the election.

He represented groups responsible for millions of Holocaust deaths in WWII. These groups also killed millions of their own people who were fellow Ukrainians with abandon. According to their own words, they have been waiting to do this again since 2003 when they figured out they cannot convert most families that suffered torture under nationalists to become part of them.

The Russian perspective on passports

Giving foreign passports to Ukrainians isn’t a new or controversial thing. It’s been going on since 2015 when Hungary decided to protect the rights of ethnic Hungarians living in Ukraine. According to EA DAILY, Poland handed out Polish Cards which simplifies immigration by identifying the holder as a Pole. And Romania is offering the same easy passports for Ukrainians.

For the last 4 years, indignation has been in short supply though. The same can be said about secession talk from the same ethnic groups in those regions. Even Galicia, the birthplace of Ukrainian nationalism wants to get away from Kiev these days. Once again, western indignation is on vacation for the holidays.

On April 25th, 2019 Russia offered passports to the people of Lugansk People’s Republic (LNR) and DNR. I contacted Dmitry Polanskiy, the Russian Federation’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN about the passports and who can possess one.

Ambassador Polanskiy, without getting too far ahead, is the passport separate from Russian citizenship? I don’t understand how but it would make sense.

Ambassador Polanskiy– In a nutshell – the process lasted some time and ended with President signing this document. No specific timing. And they don’t have to denounce their UA citizenship, so in principle, it changes nothing for UA. If they chose additional RU passport they will get things that they didn’t have for five yrs – social payments, medical service, etc.

As for Zelenskiy – we need to see. There have been so many conflicting signals during the election campaign. He (Zelensky) will be judged by his actions.

The passport is the same. But in other cases applicants have to denounce their citizenship if they apply for a Russian one.

Ambassador, how do you plan on dealing with the foreigners in the region that have LDNR passports? Are they exclusion from this?

Ambassador Polanskiy– It is stipulated that the decree applies only to Ukrainian citizens living in LDNR.

Following this is the RF’s decision to possibly expand the offer of Russian passports to every Ukrainian that wants one. As you’ll soon see, the implied protections may go beyond what anyone is thinking right now.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy winning the 2019 Ukrainian election is equivalent to a Jew whose family was marked for death becoming Fuehrer in a Nazi Germany within 100 years of Adolf Hitler, providing Hitler won the Great War, of course.

When you consider the unlikelihood of this, Barrack Obama comes to mind. He became the US president within 143 years of African Americans being bought and sold and killed almost at will.

In Zelenskiy’s case, the real Ukrainian nationalist Politik has finally kicked in and the neo-nationalists are about to get an abject lesson in the stark realities of OUN politics.

What’s really interesting is that any Jewish leader that takes issue with these statements is in danger of being rightfully labeled a Holocaust denier. From 2014 on, Jewish leaders have been enamored with Waffen SS Galizien and deny the significance the OUN, UPA, police, and citizen battalions have in the Holocaust.

The only fair thing to say is the Ukrainians have been open about all of this since 1918. Remember that date. It was when the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) was declared by the revolutionary Rada located in the Teacher’s House, in Kyiv. The importance of the Teacher’s House is that it is where Ukrainian and Diaspora nationalist leaders go to renew and celebrate their commitments to Fascist Chauvinistic Nationalist politic.

Since that’s the case, going forward Ukraine’s Nazi political parties will clearly explain why Ukraine has always been a fascist chauvinistic nationalism in their own words. Many of the proof documents are in Ukrainian. The pages can be translated here.

The short summary is in 1991 Ukraine declared independence. The last president of the Ukrainian Government in Exile (UNR), Mykola Plavyuk, decided the form of government the modern state of Ukraine would have. He transferred the UNR powers and symbols of state to the new Ukrainian government.

When Ukraine failed to live up to its end of the bargain, in August 2004, Plavyuk and the other OUN nationalist Diaspora leaders expressed their dissatisfaction by creating the Orange revolution in November 2004.

The problem with it was it wasn’t violent and earthshaking. No real changes were made and within a few months, no one cared.

Plavyuk, who founded the Ukrainian World Congress and was the current OUNm world leader moved to Ukraine. He was the leader of CYM Ukrainian scouting. Both CYM and PLAST were used to develop children into nationalist terrorist operatives from the time of the 1918 failed government all the way through the Cold War. PLAST was opened in W. Ukraine and CYM in Central and East Ukraine to develop the operatives that would eventually pull off a violent revolutionary coup against the same elected president they prevented from sitting in 2004- Victor Yanukovych ten years later.

In 2018, the current Ukrainian nationalist Diaspora leaders declared the Orange Revolutionaries failed again. This time it was after the violent and earthshaking coup that was supposed to bring in the OUN’s government. After the coup, all the current leaders under Poroshenko’s watch did was enrich themselves and take half measures. The verdict from the OUN was in long before the 2019 election happened.

“These people have had a chance to become Ukrainian George Washingtons and they’ve wasted it”

The 2019 Ukrainian election highlights the danger when an overt chauvinistic nationalism that fails to destroy local opposition is never dealt with decisively. Because the overt part was soundly rejected by the majority population, Ukraine needed a new rapprochement with OUNb, OUNm, and OUNz nationalist groups and signatory groups like the UCCA (Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America) or UWC (Ukrainian World Congress).

In 1991, if given an option, the rabidly nationalist Ukrainian Diaspora would have opted to support the Soviet Union for a few more years because they were totally unprepared to set up the government they preserved in the Diaspora for over 70 years on Ukrainian soil. In all that time, the Diaspora had next to no impact on the lives of people in Ukraine who only knew them as Hitler’s thugs and murderers.

Understood in this light, the civil war in Ukraine can only make sense. In 2019, the average Ukrainian voter wasn’t voting for Zelenskiy who never bothered to make a campaign appearance or voice a position on anything indicating he was running. It was a vote against overt nationalism and Poroshenko’s EuroMaidan inaugurated government that brought in the beginning of the Ukrainian Diaspora’s trademark nationalism.

Regardless of who won the election, it was to the people of Ukraine that were lied to in 1991, 2004, 2014, and yet again given hope only to watch it smashed.

Why do Ukrainian Diaspora nationalists hold this much weight?

The government of Ukraine belongs to the UNR and politicians in Ukraine live and die at its discretion. Below, both the Diaspora and current Ukrainian leaders tell that story in their own words.

There were terms and conditions attached to receiving the symbols of the UNR in 1991. One of them was the type of government would conform to the model Simon Petliura’s government left the UNR. This is the model the Diaspora carried from 1919-1992. This is the only model for Ukraine and the combined OUN delivered this.

If the government stepped away or signaled it might go against the UNR, labeling the leadership pro-Soviet or post 1991, pro-Russian is a death sentence for the traitor who fails on nationalist chauvinist grounds.

Volodomyr Zelenskiy -Ukrainian Nationalism’s 1st Jewish Nazi Leader?

This is the year of Stepan Bandera OUNb leader and the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) in Ukraine. Monuments are going up all over to commemorate Waffen SS soldiers and death camp lever pullers as well as mass murder events the OUN and UPA committed across Ukraine.

This is the Ukraine Zelenskiy is in charge of and he sees Stepan Bandera as a cool hero for Ukrainians.

The Jerusalem section (Jewish quarter) of Vinnitsya, one of Ukraine’s larger cities, is where Ukrainian leaders decided to commemorate Simon Petliura. He was the leader of the failed 1918 UNR government. Petliura murdered about 100,000 Jews in one year during continuous pogroms in Ukraine while failing to establish his government.

It isn’t known how many more Christian Ukrainians the nationalists murdered. Will Zelenskiy follow this example?

With a civil war Zelenskiy has no intention of stopping ready to flare up, the idea that rabid Diaspora nationalists in the OUN groups UCCA and UWC have this much control over a Ukraine where they consider the people to be waste or worse, as ex-Soviets; should have the world in an uproar.

These groups have no natural ties to the Ukrainian people. In fact, the Lvov region is as close as most of their leaders ever got and it was in Poland at the time. Most WWII and Cold War Ukrainian nationalist leaders and people are Polish. Ukrainian was a political membership at the time, not a nationality.

What makes Volodomyr Zelensky dangerous is that no one is willing to see a Jewish president acting on behalf of a Stepan Bandera, Simon Petliura, or Roman Shukehvych coming. Poroshenko reeks of corruption and it’s obvious he doesn’t care about his country or people. It’s easy to see that disaster coming.

The people behind the Zelenskiy government see all non-nationalist Ukrainians as people that tortured their own parents. The Ukrainians that want power were told to look at all non-OUN families this way.

If you had the chance for revenge on someone that you were told tortured or murdered your family and you didn’t have to worry about any legal or social fallout, what would you do?

These WWII Nazi leftovers live to see every person related to the Allies of WWII that isn’t a nationalist tortured, murdered, or relocated.

This is why Russia’s offer of passports in Donbass and Ukraine is important to protect civilians. The following proofs are given in list form from different major sources that shaped the policies described above.

Ukraine- All OUN Nationalist Groups Agree on that Ukraine Started In 1918

The first few accounts show precise agreement describing what Ukraine is. Ukraine is the continuation of Simon Petliura’s fascist chauvinist regime. The last account which contains parts of an interview with the last UNR president about the transfer of state and how Ukrainian leaders disappointed the OUN and Diaspora is chilling. He’s angry the cleansing hasn’t started in Ukraine yet and then threatens them if they don’t make things right.

Bogdan Chervak is the world leader of OUNm or Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Melnyk).

“The UNR had its own army, currency, public administration bodies, flag, emblem, and was recognized internationally. It was a full-fledged state which we, unfortunately, failed to preserve. And our enemies know this. This is why the propaganda of the so-called ‘Russian World’ is aimed at convincing the world that Ukraine has never been a state and what is going on today is temporary. But the history of the Ukrainian Revolution, particularly of the UNR, shatters these stereotypes. It shows that Ukrainians had a state of their own as far back as the early 20th century. We proclaimed and took up arms for it, but we lost it due to Russian aggression. In 1991, we in fact restored Ukraine’s independence that dates back to the UNR times.

The events in Russia aimed to preserve the empire by modernizing it a little. At the same time, the goal of the Ukrainian Revolution was to establish a Ukrainian state. While in the 1st Universal the Central Rada declared its political goal to gain autonomy for Ukraine as part of a democratic federative Russian republic, it proclaimed the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) in the 3rd Universal.”

Ukrainian presidential continuity through the Diaspora 1917-2005

But after the Bolsheviks strangled Ukrainian independence, the struggle for its restoration extended beyond the borders of Ukraine by the State Center of the UPR in the exile, which for 72 years (!) Continuously represented the Ukrainian Republic at the international level. State independence of Ukraine was restored on August 24, 1991. Solemnly constituting its powers on August 22, 1992, the State Center of the UPR in exile led by the last President of the UPR, Mykola Plavyuk, made a historic statement that “proclaimed on August 24 and approved by the people of Ukraine on December 1, 1991, the Ukrainian state continues to state national traditions of the UNR and is the successor of the Ukrainian People’s Republic “. Democratic traditions and state symbols of the UPR have inherited modern Ukraine.

Therefore our flag is blue and yellow, the coat of arms – Tryzub, the anthem – “Ukraine has not died yet …” Even the name of the Ukrainian hryvnia currency is inherited from the time of the UPR.”

This shows clearly all the symbols of the Ukrainian state were given by the UPR in 1992.

August 22, 2002, UKRAINIAN WORLD COORDINATION BOARD UKRAINIAN WORLD COORDINATING COUNCIL– In 1918, an independent sovereign Ukrainian People’s Republic was proclaimed by the fourth session of the Central Rada (at the historic Teacher’s House in Kiev). After the struggle and defeat, the UNR government continued to work in exile. This is an unprecedented phenomenon in history, when non-stateless people retained their own State Center, Government, President. They carried out a major mission of uniting all Ukrainian emigrants in the world so that they did not assimilate, not disappear, support Ukrainians in their great Ukraine, tortured and destroyed repressions and the famine of the brutal Soviet system. 

And here – a remarkable day on August 24, 1992, when in the Mariinsky Palace, the President of the UPR, Mykola Plavyuk transfers the authority of the National Center of the Ukrainian People’s Republic to the nation-elected President of Ukraine and signs of state power – a flag and a seal. This important act testified to the continuity of the Ukrainian statehood … The Great Citizen of Ukraine Mykola Plavyuk lives for Ukraine. He believes in Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and his faith is effective, active. He holds high the flag of Ukrainian nationalism, the highest manifestation of patriotism, great sacrificial love for his native land. He is a real hero of Ukraine.”

The transfer of power, legitimacy, and state by Plavyuk has conferred on the basis that it is the 1918 UNR that is transferred to its rightful place as the government of Ukraine.

WW II mass murderer Stetsko lay in state at Teacher’s Building in Kyiv which was home to 1918 government

When WWII OUNb Bandera leader Slava Stetsko died in 2003, OUNm world leader and former president of the UNR president Mykola Plawiuk (Plavyuk) was there to honor his colleague.

“The next day, prior to the funeral procession to Baikove Cemetery, Mrs. Stetsko’s body lay in state at the Teachers Building in Kyiv, which had served as the session hall for Ukraine’s Central Rada during Ukraine’s short-lived independence beginning in 1918.

Representatives of local OUN groupings from Volyn, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, and Ternopil attended in large numbers. Mykola Plawiuk, leader of the OUN-Melnyk faction paid his respects at the Teachers Building.”

This Interview with last UNR president Mykola Plavyuk ties everything together.

Ukraine, being an integral part of the empire under the name of the USSR, nevertheless had its own President. But he was abroad. When August 24 was proclaimed, and on December 1, 1991, a nationwide referendum confirmed the restoration of the Ukrainian state, the last President of the exile was obliged to act in accordance with a historical document signed by Simon Petliura. Why did he transfer his powers to Leonid Kravchuk, how he perceives the present realities, which sees the prospect of our state … These and other questions on the eve of Independence Day are answered by Mykola Plavyuk, the last President of Ukraine in the exile. 

2004 Interview with Mykola Plavyuk, OUNm leader, founder of the Ukrainian World Congress, and last UNR Diaspora president

– Mr. Mykola, twelve years ago, on behalf of the Government of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, you passed the attributes of power to the first publicly elected President of Ukraine. What induced you to take such a step?

Plavyuk- It is true: in August 1992, the State Center of the Ukrainian People’s Republic in exile ended its activities. The relevant statement was signed by me as the President of the UPR, Michael Voskoboinik as chairman of the Ukrainian National Council and Ivan Samilenko, the head of the UNR government in the exile. We made our credentials to the hands of the President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk. Our move is due to the decision of the Labor Congress of the Ukrainian People’s Republic of 1919 and the decision of the Head of the Directorate of the UNR Simon Petliura, which obliged the President and the Government of the UNR to end its activities since the restoration of Ukraine’s state independence and the election of its people in a manner. As you know, this happened on December 1, 1991. We could not continue the activities of the DPU of the UPR abroad, because it would harm independent Ukraine. Is not it clear? How would the world perceive our ruling? if we did not recognize an independent Ukrainian state? USA, Canada, and others would recognize, and we – no?”

 According to the best available Ukrainian sources, just like everyone else, the OUN Diaspora was caught with their pants down when Ukraine declared independence. They had no mechanisms in place to jump in and build their state on top of Soviet society. 

Plavyuk- But this state, let’s face it, is rather the continuation of the Ukrainian SSR, and not the UNR? Those who fought for the Ukrainian state are not honored. And vice versa: those who fought against it, tortured the Patriots – in the rank of heroes. 

Today, we see this sentiment played out in Ukraine. WWII heroes that fought against Nazi Germany and the OUN or UPA are criminalized. Their pensions are taken. Nazi SS, UPA, the police battalions that were so eager to engage in mass murder are being rehabilitated and given pensions and hero status.

Plavyuk – The then President Leonid Kravchuk publicly stated that modern Ukraine is the successor to the national traditions of the UPR, documented January 22, 1918 and 1918.

We have executed the decisions of the Labor Congress and the Directory of the UNR. On the contrary, I am happy that it was enough to work in 70 years worthy political activity aimed at restoring Ukraine’s state independence …
The authorities and the people of Ukraine, who chose it, are responsible for the current state of Ukraine.

Plavyuk– I am glad that for thirteen years state traditions have been consolidated in Ukraine, and a new generation of qualified personnel who is able to manage the new Ukrainian state has grown. The growth of understanding among our people is comforting, that the Ukrainian state should be national, and the Ukrainian nation – its owner. 

Mykola Plavyuk moved to Ukraine after transferring the government and helped nationalist scouting groups to get off the ground.
Plavyuk– I worry that the modern Ukrainian government does not fulfill its obligations to the Ukrainian people and cares about its personal or clan interests. And its policy is not consistent and does not always correspond to the interests of the Ukrainian people.
But today, quite often, our Ukraine is called non-Ukrainian …
Therefore, my work is realized in accordance with the slogan “OUN – for national and social justice in an independent national Ukrainian state”.

Plavyuk- It is unlikely that the current generation of compatriots(political leaders) will survive when this slogan is embodied in the concrete actions … 

Plavyuk was clearly calling for a nationalist revolution in August 2004. He threatened Ukrainian leaders to get in line with UNR politics or else. The Orange Revolution started 3 months later in November 2004. It was supposed to deSovietize and clean up corruption. All it did was make Nazi rhetoric politically popular in Kiev.

Because Plavyuk was a leader in the CYM children’s scout movement (it developed political nationalists) he was able to help develop a robust politic based scouting culture. CYM was brought into Eastern Ukraine where it had no record. PLAST, which is CYMs counterpart was kept in the west where it was developed in the 1920s. Both groups taught children sabotage, bomb building, and murder during WWII and after. Until the 1980s both groups were considered terrorist organizations worldwide.

For another 10 years, a lot of focus and NGO money went into developing both scouting groups in Ukraine to prepare leaders for the next revolution. This was called EuroMaidan.

The link from OUN Nazi murderers to President-elect Volodomyr Zelenskiy

Across the history of Ukraine, we see the Diaspora nationalists considering only themselves and only their nationalism worthy of Ukraine. From WWII through the 2014 coup every other political leanings have been met with violence.

These people have had a chance to become Ukrainian George Washingtons,” says Yurash. “And they’ve wasted it.”

Sviatoslav Yurash is a name I’ve kept an eye out for since the near the beginning of January 2014 when he walked onto EuroMaidan and demanded to be the international spokesman. And they let him.

After that, if you wanted to interview or speak to Aresniy Yatsenyuk, Petr Poroshenko, Oleh Tianhybok, or Vlad Klitchko; you went through Yurash.

Within days he was also the spokesman for Pravy Sektor and Dimitro Yarosh. Following the coup, he became the spokesman for Assistant Defense Minister Yarosh, Defense Minister Parubiy, and the Ukrainian Army.

I did mention he was a 17-year-old college student who dropped out to go to the protest, didn’t I?
Yurash made it clear that he was never paid for his trouble. He also started the website Euromaidanpr which pumps out a lot of Ukraine’s propaganda. He coordinates with 3 Chalupa sisters through the site and its sister website InformNapalm.com which they use to provide propaganda to western outlets.

As a thank you for volunteering, Sviatoslav Yurash was given a job as the Deputy Director of the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC)Kiev office.

The UWC was founded in 1967 by an OUNm leader Andriy Melnyk supporter named Mykola Plavyuk who later became its president as well as the last Diaspora UNR president. The UWC was recognized by the United Nations Economic and Social Council as a non-governmental organization with special consultative status. Today it has ties with 61 countries and represents a Diaspora of 20 million Ukrainians.

The Atlantic Council has a contract with the UWC to promote its interest which it does in spades. When the article “Why Poroshenko Doesn’t Deserve a Second Term” came out, it meant it was already over. The fat lady sang. The cows came home. The song was over.

Sviatoslav Yurash is Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s spokesman and is one of his top advisors. What does that tell you about the election?

Russia chose the perfect time to introduce RF passports in Donbass and Ukrainian expansion of the passport program will help to stabilize the region. If people don’t start paying closer attention to the back story with this election, we are in for one hell of a ride.

%d bloggers like this: