Daily News

THE PUTIN PHENOMENON: A BLUNDER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN ...

Recently I was driving with a friend along a freeway during a long trip, and while we were riding and talking, I saw off in the distance a pickup truck which my friend began to pass, and on that truck was a red, white, and blue bumper sticker. From the distance, I could make out the year "2016," and I remarked, somewhat caustically, that we had just lived through, merely a week before, yet another (s)election cycle in which we were offered the "choice" of Dummycrooks or Republithugs, donkey dung or elephant dung, once again, and here, merely a week later, there were already bumper stickers in evidence for the next staged political theater cycle. As we drew closer to the truck, however, the name on the bumper sticker promoting a presidential candidate simply said: "Putin."

My friend and I both had a good chuckle at the bumper sticker.

But it made me think: just exactly why is the President of the Russian Federation so popular in the West, in spite of the attempts of Western media to demonize both him and his country? Once back home, I googled "Putin 2016" and sure enough, all sorts of mock-political bumper stickers and political campaign buttons popped up, some of them even reminiscent of the "I like Ike" buttons from the 1950s. One reason for the Russian President's popularity is simply his character and stature compared to the cloned non-entities of Western leaders, as a simple comparison of him to, say, Prime Ministers Harper or Cameron, Presidents Obama or Hollande, or Chancellorin Merkel, evidence. Next to them, Putin is both articulate, can think on his feet, and does not need a teleprompter to make his thoughts known, which he can and does do, clearly, and with evident conviction, yet another thing lacking in western "leaders." Putin is unabashedly proud of Russia, loves his homeland and its culture, intends to defends it, and makes no secret of it. Moreover, he actually spends time with his fellow Russians, answering real questions in real Q&A sessions that make the staged theater of the American "town hall meetings" and "presidential debates" look like the fake Soviet propaganda that they really are.

There is, however, another reason he is popular, one that perhaps works subliminally and subconsciously in his western admirers, and this factor was brought home to me during a recent discussion with former Assistant Secretary of Housing And Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts during her most recent visit. As we sat discussing the "Putin Phenomenon," she made the salient observation that much of the Russian President's popularity is due to the fact that he is articulating a different vision of the global future than that being proffered by the purveyors of globalogna in London and Washington. It's the mere presence of that "something else," other than Labour or Tory or Dummycrook of Republithug global corporate New World Order claptrap that makes him attractive. This, coupled with his evident and apparently sincere conviction, versus the tired shopworn cliches and playbook of "a thousand points of light" and "hope and change", is the attraction.

Which makes his most recent gaffe all the more interesting, and to my mind, damaging, a crucial warning signal:

Vladimir Putin: Soviet pact with Hitler wasn’t so bad

Well...yea, the Nazi-Soviet pact was a "bad" thing(let's drop the euphemisms... it was an evil thing perpetrated by two evil men and their evil lackeys). It not only paved the way for the genocide not just of Jews, but pretty much everyone else on the Nazi Hate List, which was pretty much everyone who wasn't a Nazi. It was directly responsible for the slaughter of World War Two, for the rapid Nazi takeover of most of Europe, for the Fascist and Nazi aggression in Africa, and ultimately, for the real bloodletting of World War Two, which was in Mr.Putin's own country, which suffered fully half, if not more than half, of all of the casualties of World War Two in order to bring the Nazi juggernaut down. Notwithstanding Salon's slavish repetition of all the claptrap about Mr. Putin's "aggression" in the Crimea, or the eastern Ukraine, and its convenient avoidance of the fact that it was the West which brought about the disaster in the Ukraine with its support of blatantly neo-Fascist elements to stage its coup against a legitimate government in Kiev, remarks like this aren't helping your case, Mr. Putin, and they're certainly not going to help your standing in the polls or your election chances in the 2016 American Presidential (s)election cycle.

Our advice? Hire President Obama's handlers or Karl Rove. After all, if they can turn a non-entity with no real legislative records or accomplishments, or a blithering mediocrity like G.W. Bush into a successful bid for the White House on the completely empty slogan of "hope and change" and hanging chads, they can erase a few tiny problematical statements about the Hitler-Stalin pact. After all, most Americans are so dumbed down they don't even know much about the history of World War Two, except that General Patton won it single-handedly.

See you on the flip side...

(My thanks to Ms. S.H. for sharing this article).

 

62 thoughts on “ THE PUTIN PHENOMENON: A BLUNDER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN ...”

  1. ww 2 was a banker designed war, as all wars are. Designed to kill men (entirely ayrans, When the european slaughter was over, Japan raised the white flag after dr doolittle flew over tokyo), and it appears in hindsight agrarian lifestyles, and bring in a banking era of parasite riders….good book out on it called swindlers list, how too enjoy life with your own money tree and swindle others into starvation while they thank you very much.
    there are those who are in on it…and those who are not in on it.

    Think about which side you fall on while you slurp up the rat poison in your water supply.

  2. Reading Quigley it seems that the Chamberlain government was the British Nazi Party which did much to strengthen Hitler such as the British/Hitler naval agreement. He states that British cooperation didn’t end until the German takeover of Czechoslovakia. And how involved were the French and British armies when the German army marched west? Dunkirk. Was the british army so overmatched, unwilling to fight, or ordered to stand down? Ditto the French army as the german tanks whistled by? Was a Nazi infrastructure already set up in France prior to invasion? And of course there was American cooperation with Hitler as well as others. And how did the Russians finance their military juggernut. I watched the “Ellen” show with my wife yesterday; this program was a perfect example of how vapid the culture has become. People who watch this mindlessness every day(and paying for it!) are presumably voting-what a scary thought. Doubt they are pondering over WW2. There is much to be worked out about that conflict. Probably all the politicians in power in the key involved countries wanted it.

  3. The pact between germany and russia was brought about by england. Stalin tried to make a pact with england first over the mutual defence of poland in case of an invasion by Germany. The problem was england would only obligateitself in sending a minimum amount of troops and equipement leaving Stalin to face Hitlers juggernaut pretty much all by himself. In fact Stalin suspected that england was intentionally trying to draw Russsia into a face to face conflict with germany with the idea to weaken both of them where as later on england could re-establish the Romanov’s (their cousin’s) back in power.

  4. His popularity is because of the Western media trying to demonize both him and his country. People, at least some, now see everything in the MSM as propaganda.

    Cynical nature is taking over.

    1. It’s more than cynicism though, in my opinion. At the 2013 Valdai conference, Putin made some very interesting comments about Western moral relativism, the abandonment of Western moral foundation as envisioned by the Church and multiculturalism. I think Pussy Riot are a perfect example of his approach to the kulturkampf, and a case study in the different approaches being taken.

  5. First off, don’t assume that is what he really said.

    Secondly, as good a chess player as he is, I find it hard to believe that he would make such an obvious gaffe without purpose.

    Thirdly, the British government signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler at the same time, and the U.S. officially ranked Hitler as a “moderate,” with many powerful people in Washington and Wall Street at the time being far more friendly with Hitler than Stalin was. There is no lack of printed material from solid sources of that time that many in the U.S. just loved old Adolf, and actually wanted the U.S. to be more like Nazi Germany.
    (Took a while, but they are finally getting their wish.)

    Coming on the heels of reports about MH17 being shot down by jet fighters, maybe he is just messing with the Nazis running the Ukraine – confusing them by his statement about the pact with Hitler, or suggesting a course of action (between the lines) to them to ease their plight.

    Never take anything in politics at face value, even if it is true – and never react emotionally to it. That is what the manipulators want.

  6. “It was directly responsible for the slaughter of World War Two”

    That is not a provable statement. It is possible, but I personally disagree.

    I think it is fair to say that a whole lot more was responsible for WWII.

  7. Seriously, backing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is one of Putin big mistakes (he is in general a smart guy but he do make mistakes too I think)

    Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany for the first two years of WW 2. They had split the Europe among them, imperialist style. They both made genocide, Soviets started years before Nazis actually. Against their own people and people from conquered nations that were starved, deported, killed in mass and so on.

    Soviet Union backed Germany even before Hitler come to power. It was a slow down at some point during the Nazi reign, and then they remade their ties. Soviets where sending to Germans the Jews that were running in SU, Germany said they will block western powers attempt to help eastern European countries attacked by Soviet empire, and German Panzers that were rolling in France or German bombers over UK were working with Soviet oil.

    And from a technical point of view SU was the most prepared for war, they had the largest army and the biggest number of tanks and artillery.
    I had read somewhere that just their new T-34 was in larger number then the entire number of tanks that Axis used to invade USSR. But Soviets had many more of other tank models as well.

    Where Soviets lacked (not all or not everywhere, but in significant parts) was tactical prepardness, training adapted to that war and even morale for quite a period. And yes, their losses were huge

    1. I think the key was that Stalin was taken completely by surprise, even though both the US and England warned him in vague terms that they had intelligence showing Hitler was preparing for an attack. If Stalin had ordered preparation to defend against the German attack, it seems likely that Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union would not have been very spectacular, and probably would have failed outright. We can only guess, but it seems likely that Stalin thought he would be the one to launch a surprise attack on Germany. Hitler beat him to it.

      1. Stalin’s armies were amassed in offensive assault eastward, not for traditional defense.

        Stalin’s defense was a ‘torched earth policy’ of destruction, sacrificing his own people, well Ukrainians, Belerus, etc…

        Also the Communist had be preparing for war since the late 1920’s by building factories east of the Urals.

  8. Agree with the bit about him being proud of his country and culture. That’s something lacking in the self-loathing liberal elite of the UK who seem determined to destroy the country or sell off what’s left to the highest bidder.

    Not so sure about the lack of “something else” though, as UKIP and the SNP would illustrate. Recent polls suggest that the Scottish Nationalists could be the third biggest party in Westminster after next years general election, as the Labour Party faces wipeout in Scotland after their performance in the recent referendum.

  9. Wait a minute! The pact was signed in 1939, before the full horror of Hitler was known and according to the article, Putin said it was signed for the purpose of avoiding war – not a bad thing in my view.

    If, however, the recently uncovered information about Edward VII’s plan to play all the heads of Europe off each other and destroy Germany so that little Britain wouldn’t be trampled is true, and if Stalin and Hitler suspected something of the sort and planned to thwart it, the pact might have led to a less unbalanced world – had not the personalities who signed it been unbalanced themselves!

    Given that history is usually written by the victors in any conflict, it’s wise to take pronouncements like the effects of this pact with a grain of salt. It’s not like decisions made by Roosevelt and Churchill led unilaterally to benefits for all, as Frankie points out. And given all the clues that show that it’s likely Hitler was a British puppet, it could be said that Britain unilaterally decided to carve up the whole of Europe and kill millions of supposed Allied soldiers for their own aggrandizement, not just share Poland with an ally.

      1. Yes and No.

        The system of the British Empire continues through the actions of the insane Israel, the Saudis, and of course the United States in terms of foreign policy which is about
        perpetual warfare as policy for shaping dominion of a bankrupt monetarist system.

    1. Adding from a post below:

      I am no expert on WWII, but I think the standard consensus is that both Hitler and Stalin were trying to buy time, both knowing that an attack on (or defense against) the other was soon to come.

      Everyone agrees that what followed was a fight for survival for both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and I think at least Hitler is on record as seeing it as such beforehand. In these circumstances you don’t worry about predicting the future about what happens to the rest of the world: you worry about what is best for you right then and there.

  10. Putin’s point,as a Russian patriot, is that the non-aggression pact served Russia’s interest at the time. The Russians felt they were not prepared for a war with Germany, which they also felt the West was encouraging, as they were otherwise engaged with fighting the Japanese in the East. Germany and Russia both took back territory they had controlled before WWI. Molotov was engaged in negotiations with France and Britain to contain Germany while simultaneously negotiating with Germany, who told the Russians they would give them a better deal with the Baltic States. While trusting neither side, my opinion is that Stalin felt an agreement with Hitler would have more longevity as the Germans would also wish to avoid having to fight on two fronts, while any Western security assurances were probably as good as those given to Czechoslovakia. Several detailed Wikipedia articles for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations_before_1941,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II

    1. As an addendum, perhaps, Mr. Putin is also making the point that like Stalin could make a mutually beneficial deal with Hitler, Russia is still willing to make mutually beneficial deals with the current fascists.

      1. I’m reading “Ivan’s War…” at the moment and a pact with Germany is kind of understandable at that time.

        Russia was simply unprepared for war, which was proven over and over when they were brutally attacked anyway. I have read that 8 million Russian soldiers died in WWII and many more millions of civilians. Losses so great they are beyond our comprehension.

  11. But if the Hitler-Stalin Pact would have held and the two nations eventually found common cause in fighting the banksters (who may have spawned them), what would the world look like today? Would we be eating GMO’s? Would we be living in this toxic, dumbed down dystopia? Would billions of people on the planet be malnourished and living in squalor or would the efficient nazis have solved that? Would the kohanim be dying off and not honey bees? Would we have to live to see the horrors of the Cheney-Netanyahu Pact and the Middle East being split between orphaned children with murdered parents and childless parents with murdered children? Would Patton be the American hero of the European theater in WWII or would he have been a hero or martyr in the war for North America– fighting on the western front against invading Soviets or on the eastern front repelling invading nazis? Would we still be fighting this guerilla war today? Would the western half of the US now be a Soviet satellite with a whole generation of women traumatized by marauding bolshevik rapists? Would Dr. Farrell, a native of South Dakota, be writing his books in Russian? Would his books even be about such topics as the Giza pyramid or would they be about the glory of the invincible Red Army, the magnificent and steadfast proletariate, and the brilliant leadership of the Supreme Soviet? Or, would Dr. Farrell be moved to write dark literature about his wretched experiences in an Alaskan gulag? Or, worst of all, would Dr. Farrell have been culled along with all the other western American intelligentsia?

    And what about the east of the Mississippi under Nazi rule? Would it look any different than it does under Homeland Security today? Would Hitler have forbid that tremendous blight on our landscape– the mobile home? Would he have removed our industries and returned us to a quaint, agrarian economy under the advice of Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau who, after the nazi invasion of North America, cunningly changed his named to Heinrich Shicklegruber and became a leading American Nazi? Would Hitler have eventually seen the ingenuity of poor public education, a sloppy medical system, a sickening food supply, inane tv programming, a dominating pharmaceutical cartel, a flourishing illegal narcotics trade, and even rap music as a brilliant and insidious means of keeping the subjected population dumb, complacent and controlled? What about the Ramones? Would they have ever even come into existence or would the sprawling suburban Long Island which spawned them be instead a giant german potato farm and the Ramone brothers just farmers themselves? Or even worse, the musician inmates at a Pennsylvania concentration camp greeting new prisoners as they arrive by train? What would New York City be like under nazi rule? Would all those nazis secretly craving the lost decadence of the Weimar Republic maneuver themselves to be stationed in this depraved foreign outpost? Or, would New York City even exist once Hitler discovered the long held German gold was no longer there? Ultimately, would Hitler discover that the best way to rule people is by getting them into debt? Or would venereal diseases have gotten the best of both him and Stalin and would the two tyrants eventually discover that Earth is just not big enough for both of their egos? Would the two power hungry men then extend the Hilter-Stalin Pact out into space and thus begin a gentlemen’s race to conquer the galaxy, using the technology that wasn’t suppressed, but instead developed to its fullest in order to put nazi or soviet flags on every planet in the galaxy?

    1. Wow such quick and passionate responses to today’s post. I’m of the opinion that Putin’s quote is likely western propaganda, but if it isn’t I’m sure it was taken out of context.

      It’s cliche but how can we judge anyone without placing ourselves in their shoes? Which of course is no easy task seeing that both Stalin and Hitler were insane due to at least venereal disease if not other illnesses. Regardless they were undoubtedly evil, but they were also patriots. Stalin cut a deal with the devil rather than allow the Nazi war machine to rape and pillage his country (I’m aware he was doing that just fine by himself but he didn’t hate everyone). He certainly had no friends in Western Europe at the time, and knew that no one would come to his aid if the Soviet Union was attacked. His proposals for an alliance with the West had gone unanswered. They desired the Russians and Nazi’s to destroy each other and then intended to mop up the remains. (Given the murky relationship between American corporate financiers and the Third Reich I believe this might have been one of their intentions all along. Inevitably the Nazi dog broke free of its leash, biting both the West and Russia, but hey the corporate oligarchs still made billions so what did they care.) Stalin was a very paranoid dude. He knew the Non-Aggression Pact wouldn’t hold forever so he bought the time he needed to beef up his military. Even with the Pact it was barely enough for his military to beat back the Nazis.

      Anyway back to Mr. Putin and his chess game. So if he in fact did, why would he bring this up? It’s very possible we are reading too much into this, but I highly doubt it. Is he signaling his desire for a peaceful solution to our New Cold War, a Non-aggression pact between America and Russia? Is he simply buying time to beef up his military, preparing for the inevitable double cross? Or is he saying to Germany that their countries should team up against the West? If the German/Russian alliance has already been set in motion (all the signs are that it has) then is his remark a dig at the west? I guess the real question is, how ambitious is Mr. Putin? Is he out to save Russia or the world? Can he realistically do either of those? Lots of questions, only time will tell.

    2. Hey Frankie.

      I am no expert on WWII, but compared to the average person, I have read a great deal about WWII.

      And my opinion is that, as ironic as it may be to some, if Hitler had not been there, Stalin’s Soviet Union would have taken over the entire world with 5 to 10 years (after taking over Europe, Asia, and Africa, the Americas would have followed sooner or later). I don’t see how that could have been a good thing for me personally, or the world in general (perhaps I am wrong, who knows).

  12. A bit worrisome you would take seriously such an obvious propaganda hit-piece as this Salon article, which takes a random qoute from Putin and attributes meaning to it.
    It is Obvious to all rational people that Putin is one of the most -if not the most- intelligent and rational national leaders out there. To assume he is some intellectual simpleton, as this piece does, is either complete ignorance or malice, probably both.
    Why would you support this?

    1. We need the ENTIRE conversation that occurred here. I can only guess that Putin said a lot more than what was quoted, which might shed a great deal of light on what he actually meant.

  13. There is certainly a legitimate case to be made against the officially sanctioned group think often displayed in the western media, but there is an equal case to be made against the group think of an ‘alternative’ viewpoint of the conspiracy crowd. Putin is not an evil antichrist, but neither is he this innocent savior with great leadership qualities…he is a self-serving bully about to get slapped down. Just how strong of a leader can he be when he left the recent summit in a huff because he didn’t get his way? Sounds pretty grade school.

    1. Me thinks it is your interpretation of his actions, as well as your evaluation of his character, which is pretty grade school.

    2. “he is a self-serving bully”

      Any proof of that statement?

      I’m not saying there isn’t, but to date I haven’t seen anything but pure assertion . . .

    3. loisg,

      Since you just admitted to not being part of the “conspiracy crowd,” why are you here? Why aren’t you watching FauxNews or CNN or MSNBC where they put out the lies and propaganda you so willingly accept (i.e. Putin, your “self-serving bully”). Those of the great mass of cowards masquerading as morons who still willingly watch that crap have no interest whatsoever in a site such as this where truth is sought, and thus where the thinking is necessarily free, and which so directly exposes their cowardice (masqueraded as moronity). So then are you one of the tens of thousands who even your mainstream media has admitted have been hired to inject official propaganda and other fairy tales into any and all internet discussions in order to disrupt any free thought? Am I forced to pay your salary at gunpoint? At least I do not understand why anybody would dedicate so much time to performing this function for free.

      I quit watching television altogether nearly 15 years ago in order to be free and clear of your sort of intelligence-insulting propaganda. Therefore, I really do not need to come here only to find a truth-seeking site polluted with that very same crap I deliberately avoid on TV. Get thee behind me, loisg!

    4. I think the PM of Oz boasting he was going to “shirt front” Putin, which of course the Kremlin would have known about, is very grade school.

  14. I will give you my take what if Molotov and Ribbentrop had compared notes note’s when they meet. And found out that both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were being played for fools by the usual suspects. The NAZI’s kill list was centuries old Hebrews, Homosexuals, Romanis, Slavs and anybody else the Western European Oligarchs thought were subhuman. And to a certain extent the Soviet Union shared this list. But in the end the Western Oligarchs plan failed because they got the a growing Islamic population to replace these victims. Or was this their plan in the first place, to whom do our oligarchs owe their loyalty to anyway?

      1. Try the Vatican Gaia the blow up Italy reversing it’s unification under Rome resulting in Italy losing control of Corsica to France. Preventing the political consolidation of Germany and turning it into a shooting gallery for centuries. Using German and other European raiders against Orthodox Russia a nice record to be proud off who you say.

        1. Yes the Vatican, your right.

          Note the new Pope says not a peep about Israeli genocide.

          Its the same old Rome/Philistine tag team.

    1. For a more accurate dissection of their relationships, there is an important distinction which must be observed between effeminate and militant “ubermenchen” homosexists.

      True, whereas the Nazis did persecute effeminate homosexuals — disdainfully viewing them as emasculated gossips, militant gay pederasts were well represented and actually endemic among Nazi rank and file. Also, whereas Jews, Slavs and other “racially inferior” groups like blacks and Gypsies WERE targeted for elimination or selected for slave labor as an engine of the National Socialist economy, there are no records of a persecution of even effeminate homosexuals in occupied lands. In fact, homosexuals aren’t even mentioned in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. And why should they be, if leading homosexists like Storm Trooper Captain Ernst Roehm, and Captain Gerhard Rossbach of the all militant gay Rossbach Organization were some of Hitler’s most ardent supporters and closest associates, this during the same period when Mein Kampf was being composed in Landsberg prison?

      To be sure, the Nazi targeting of homosexuals was selective. Whereas the Nazis had little concern about a proliferation of homosexuality among the “inferior” or conquered people’s, they were however, concerned about it’s demoralizing effect among select Germanic organizations like the SS. So, to the Nazis, widespread homoerotic conduct represented an additional and unacceptable diversion to falling birth rates among Germans, especially those who had been certified racially pure.

      In accordance with Nazi population policies, approximately 90 SS officers found guilty of homoerotic conduct were shot for failing to do their “seminal duty” for the Furhrer. This was of course the purpose of the Lebensborn (Fount of Life) program, a racially selective breeding program instituted by the National Socialists, whose scope of recruitment extended into occupied Norway where lay 13 Lebensborn Centers, all in an attempt to compensate for falling birth rates, as well as increasingly heavy war losses. Fundamentally, homosexuality among Aryans only was viewed as a crime against the interests of the Aryan race and prosecuted as such. Conversely, and as for any proliferation of homoerotic conduct among “inferior” races, the Nazis were indifferent. The National Socialists felt homosexism would lead to a demise of racially inferior peoples, and so they were actually favorable to its function.

  15. I respectfully suggest that you are holding Putin to a an impossible standard: that of knowing the future

    Stalin could not have known in 1939 what was going to happen. Putin is looking at THAT ONE MOMENT. What is best for Russia AT THAT MOMENT. He is not commenting on what happened afterwards.

    I do not claim to know if Putin is “the good guy” or not, though as you point out he appears to be, but your criticism above smacks of the political correctness (no tolerance for actual thinking, allowance only for parroting the official view) that you occasionally rant against.

    1. And although Stalin was probably about as “evil” as Hitler was, he was most definitely not responsible for what someone ELSE (Hitler) does.

      This is simple logic.

      1. No Stalin was never responsible for his invasion of Finland and the bombing of Helsinki….why that must be surely mad evil Nazis.

        And of course Stalin would never steal from people as he did in setting up the starvation in the Ukraine.

        Of course the Bolsheviks were all followers of Jesus.

        Remember the Talmud is Kosher, that means it has been blessed by a Rabbi, so it is alright to kill the Goyim.

        1. Gaia, I have no idea what you are saying. I would guess you are either inserting or missing a negative in my sentence. Or your sarcasm (nothing wrong with sarcasm) is just too strong and I miss the point . . . .

    2. Another way of looking at it: one of the things you admire about Putin is that he does not (appear to) parrot the official line just for the sake of parroting the official line, about any issue.

      And yet here you are criticizing him for not parroting the official line about (a small part of) WWII, an event you agree has a huge amount of muddied waters about it.

      1. And I have to wonder how long Putin’s comments went on about this issue: what more was said, that a reporter left out?

    3. Adding from a post below:

      I am no expert on WWII, but I think the standard consensus is that both Hitler and Stalin were trying to buy time, both knowing that an attack on (or defense against) the other was soon to come.

      Everyone agrees that what followed was a fight for survival for both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and I think at least Hitler is on record as seeing it as such beforehand. In these circumstances you don’t worry about predicting the future about what happens to the rest of the world: you worry about what is best for you right then and there.

  16. I think the author has taken the comment out of context and certainly out of time. The author has also used the opportunity to beat the “Jewish” drum. I think the context in which Putin meant it was that Stalin made an attempt at a peaceful resolution. This is as apt today as it was then. Putin is attempting another peaceful solution in the exact same region. I hope everyone remembers in time to come, the accusations that Russia “invaded”Ukraine when it has not done so and when in fact Putin has tried to get a peaceful resolution. I also hope in time to come when it is fully exposed how the same Nazi Banderites from the same region, are , as I speak, committing gross human rights abuses, Odessa was but one example, they are raping and killing Russian speakers and burying them in mass graves they are raping both men and women inserting styrafoam into their intestines, when this is finally reported on in the Western Press, will the accusation again be, as it is in this article , that Russia was remiss in seeking peace instead of actually invading, which he has not done?

    1. Thanks Gail!

      Yes the Russians are being set up just as the Germans were.

      Stalin was played by the British to break the non-aggression pact with the Germans.

    2. Nice post Gail. I would add:

      I am no expert on WWII, but I think the standard consensus is that both Hitler and Stalin were trying to buy time, both knowing that an attack on (or defense against) the other was soon to come.

      Everyone agrees that what followed was a fight for survival for both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and I think at least Hitler is on record as seeing it as such beforehand. In these circumstances you don’t worry about predicting the future about what happens to the rest of the world: you worry about what is best for you right then and there.

  17. Well, assuming that the phrase quoted in this article (sourced from the Daily Telegraph) is accurate, this could be related to Putin’s apparent self-identification with Russian power, past or present, Tsarist, Soviet or Federal. So he is reluctant to publicly criticise his “predecessors” unless there is a good political reason for doing so. A bit like the popes, who never proffer a word of criticism against another pope, even one who lived centuries before.
    I take you point that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is undoubtedly evil; but even from the Realpolitik point of view favoured in Russia today, it would not be hardto argue that it was a tragic blunder, connected with previous Soviet support for Germany after WWII and its many-faceted implications.
    Anyway, this news item, whether reliable or not, could be one of those occasions when past events provide a reason to comment on the present day. It certainly does not help Russo-Polish relations; but as for Berlin-Moscow relations, who can tell…

    1. You have every right to your opinion, too bad you don’t address what I said and just attacked me personally. Putin said he left because he needed some sleep at home, even though he had 2 nine hour flights back to Russia. Maybe he can’t sleep on the plane, I don’t know, but no one else seemed to have such pressing sleep deficiencies. This sort of comment is what is typical of the conspiracy theory group think that I was referring to. Why not defend your position instead of attacking me?

      1. Loisg,
        I have never been a fan of Putin’s either, but with the demonization going on by the West, I may have to rethink that position. I’ll just reserve judgment for a bit longer I suppose.

        db

        1. Don B, thank you for being so considerate, I meant this reply to the comment that “p” made to my post above, and somehow I posted it under your comment. Again, I’m very sorry for the mistake, I shouldn’t post when I’m drinking a glass of wine.

  18. Although it’s been years since I’ve been in America, I suspect that there is still a very strong anti-Hillary Clinton sentiment amongst the people. Support for Putin could be interpreted as an “anybody but Hillary” type fashion statement. She will never win an honest popular vote in America. You’d think she’d get the hint and disappear already. For crying out loud, in 2008 when she presumptively would have had a chance, her own party opted against her. She lost out to a black guy with a terrorist sounding name. Who’d have ever thought that would happen? Clearly, Putin (and possibly even Hitler himself) would win in a landslide against her in 2016.

    1. In 2008, no one except republicans in the US thought that Hillary Clinton had serious chance at winning the nomination. (Republicans hoped she would, since she’s easy to beat in general election.)

      And now she’s too close to jingoistic Obama policies–hers seem even worse than his–and her husband and daughter refuse distance themselves from the idiot banking types that caused so much of this mess.

  19. Dr Farrell, I Wonder If You Heard Of The Australian Prime Ministers Promise Made To The Australian People To “Shirtfront” Mr Putin Over The MH370 Incident? Putin Was Here This Week, We Waited And Waited But All We Got From The P.M. (Mr Tony Abbott) Was Some Really Out Of Place Speeches And Gafs. There Was No Shirtfront As Promised But There Was A Photoshoot Of He And Putin Cuddling Koalas. Lord Help Us!

    1. Abbot is a goon, and he is going to have his day when the Australian people throw him on the scrap heap for getting us involved in Iraq AGAIN. Of all the claptrap spoken about at the G20, when Australia hosts people like Yellen, and the IMF, you know it’s going to be a circus.
      State elections in the state of Victoria will be in two weeks, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the LNP gets a whipping, and so they should for sending our sons and daughters back to a useless US created war. Damn I HATE American politicians.

      1. And I hate our absolute commitment to following them blindly wherever they lead.

        Wish they’d take a leaf out of ex-PM Malcolm Fraser’s book “Dangerous Allies”.

        As for Abbott’s statement that he would “shirtfront” Putin, well, I just cringed.

        Goodness, I think Abbott may be as stupid as Bush ever was.

Comments are closed.