Events in the Ukraine and a Possible Future Scenario
Book 3, Chapter 4
IV. The Second Nodal Point of “the Decline of Europe”
In the structure of the first nodal point the following triad of forces was working as its key impulse:
Russia initially established friendly relations with Napoleon, but then England sowed dissension between them. This was understood both by Napoleon and Alexander I. And modern historians have unearthed eye- witness reports according to which a role was played not only by the subversive activity of secret societies, but also by British gold.
The task of England this time was to incite the U.S.S.R. and Germany against one another. England could see that it would be unable to defeat Germany without the U.S.S.R.; but Germany also understood that it would stand no chance of defeating England without the U.S.S.R. Thus the outer constellation of forces presented itself.
Here we have the methodological similarity between the first and the second nodal point. Napoleon was the gravedigger of the French Revolution. One can even say that his wars were a natural reaction to the previous abrupt shift to the Left.
In the second nodal point National Socialism arises as, in a certain sense, a natural reaction to the Bolshevist revolution. Hitler emerges instead of Napoleon. The difference between them is merely a question of form and not of the core of events. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that even in Russia there was a stirring of resistance to Bolshevism. We refer here not to the White Guards who confronted the Bolsheviks in the civil war (an analogy to the counter-revolutionary rebellion in the Vendée during the French Revolution). No, the counter-thrust of the counter-revolution arose among the ruling élite of the Soviet Union. And, just as happened in France, “Napoleon” raised his head in the “cradle” of the revolution itself, and this “Napoleon” was Stalinism.
Thus, the scenario of the second nodal point took its course like that of the first. But in this is hidden a big historical mystery. The preconditions for its solution arose in the period of the Perestroika when it was necessary, willy-nilly, to grant political freedom, open up archives, etc.
In Russia revisionist historians began to speak out. They had found in these archives a large number of highly-explosive documents, thanks to which the period of Stalinism and of the 2nd World War could be seen with quite different eyes and one could come closer to resolving the mysteries it conceals. In our short work it is of course in no way possible to go into all the discoveries made by the revisionist historians and present the evidence on which their proofs are based, as it fills dozens of volumes. Nor is this necessary, because anyone seriously interested in this mystery can read these books himself and draw his own conclusions. This is much to be desired because, with this mystery, the destiny of the 21st century is revealed. We will endeavour to point out things to which the historians were, nevertheless, unable to penetrate. But they have rendered the tremendous service of creating a solid basis of knowledge. Thanks to them, we can understand the worldwide conflict of the “Brothers of Shadow” and the “Fathers of Darkness” in the events of revolution and war far better than was hitherto possible.
The Bolshevist rebellion was, as we know, conducted with the aid and under the leadership of members of secret societies. Not only Kerensky, but also Lenin and Trotsky were, as evidence shows, high degree Freemasons. Practically the whole so-called “Lenin Guard” was connected to the Lodges. This is simply accepted as fact in historical research, and we will not return to it.
As previously in the French Revolution, the high ideals of the Russian socialists – freedom, equality, brotherhood – were turned into their opposite after the rebellion. They began to give free rein to their instincts. The “Fathers of Darkness” were not at all shocked by this. They followed Mereshkovsy’s advice and laid aside “their previous weapon – religious feeling and prejudice”. They joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks. Rudolf Steiner explains how this was possible: “The alliance between Jesuitism and social democracy, which is now growing ever closer, is something entirely natural, there is nothing unnatural about it.” A social democrat is equipped with the same thought-forces as those of a Jesuit, only they are turned in a different direction (GA 197, 1.6.1920).6
Rudolf Steiner gives an interesting illustration of how this alliance manifests. He quotes an article written and published in 1919 by the “Fathers of Darkness”. The quotation is preceded by a lengthy introduction which is extremely illuminating for us. He says: “From another side it has been observed how thinking is becoming shadowy in nature, and in the Jesuit order a method has been devised which, from a certain side, brings life into this thinking. The Jesuitic exercises aim to bring life into this thinking. But they do so by renewing old life, above all not by working towards Imagination and working through Imagination, but by working via the will, which plays a big role especially in the Jesuitic exercises. Humanity today ought to understand and understands far too little how, in a community such as the Jesuitic, all soul-life becomes something radically different from that of other people. Other human beings of the present day are all, basically, in a soul-state different from that of people who become Jesuit. The Jesuits work out of a world-will, this cannot be denied. They therefore see certain connections that exist, and such connections are perceived at most by other Orders, which are in their turn fiercely opposed by the Jesuits. But this significant factor whereby reality enters shadowy thinking, this is what makes the Jesuit into a human being of a different kind than the people of modern civilization, who think only in shadowy pictures and therefore are virtually asleep because the thinking does not take hold of their organism, does not vibrate in their blood, does not actually permeate their nervous system...
The Jesuit, who stirs the full human being into movement, sees what vibrates through the world today. I would therefore like to read out a few words from a Jesuit pamphlet of the present time, from which you will see the kind of life that pulses in it:
‘For all those who take the Christian principles seriously and to whom the welfare of the people is a real heart’s concern, and into whose soul has penetrated deeply the Saviour’s word ‘Misereor super turbam’ [I have compassion for the masses], for all of them the time has now come where, borne on the surge of the Bolshevist tidal wave, they can work far more successfully with the people and for the people. But they should not be too hesitant. Therefore, a thoroughgoing and comprehensive fight against ‘Capitalism’, against the exploitation and usurious extortion of the people; a stronger emphasis on the duty to work, including for the higher classes; provision of decent accommodation for millions of fellow citizens, even if this provision means the appropriation of palaces and larger dwellings; exploitation of mineral wealth, and of the forces of water and air, not for trusts and syndicates, but for the general well-being, elevation and education of the popular masses... Use of the idea of the council system for the building-up of a representation of the classes that runs parallel to and is equal in legitimacy to the representation of the masses, in order to prevent the ‘isolation of the masses from the State apparatus’ rightly condemned by Lenin... God has given the goods of the earth for the benefit of all human beings, not to enable individuals to wallow in abundance and excess while millions languish in a poverty that is ruinous both physically and morally...’7 You see, that is the fire that, one must admit, senses something of what is going on. This is a person who strongly opposes Bolshevism in the rest of his book and who, of course, wishes to hear nothing of Bolshevism, but who doesn’t sit like someone who has sat down comfortably on a chair and fails to notice the fire all around him in the world, but does notice it and knows what he wants, because he sees” (GA 204, 29.4.1921).
The presence of truly (not in the best sense) unusual people from the circles of the “Fathers of Darkness” within the “Lenin Guard” determined from the beginning its further destiny. As they staunchly defended the new socialist structure which was acceptable to them too, they were working to get their own people into the highest positions of leadership. The iron dictatorship set up by Lenin and Trotsky facilitated their work considerably.
Careful attention should be paid to the fact that there are no political forces in the world that can rival the thousand-year experience of Rome in the social and political control of the peoples. The “Brothers of the Left” with their pale shadows of the abstract intellect are in no position to offer serious resistance to the highly specific but nevertheless living thinking of the “Fathers of Darkness”. In their secular policy they always adopt conservative positions. And socialism must, for them, be conservative. Within the Bolshevist experiment Trotsky’s ideal of “permanent revolution” came into head-on collision with this position. The Stalinists set over against this ideal the thesis of the “victory of socialism in one land”. As children of the “Brothers of the Left”, the Bolsheviks showed, however, that they were not capable of building anything up, but were in the last resort bearers of destruction, of chaos. Rudolf Steiner clarified things for us by saying as early as 1919 that the socialist experiment in Russia had failed, “as Lenin knows already today that he will get no further with what he inflicted on the world” (GA 192, 15.6.1919).
One year later he added: “No, it would be naïve to think that something like the English parliament can cope with what will seize hold of humanity when individual consciousness works only in the instincts. But one power can cope with it: that is the power of Rome. It is merely a question of how it can cope. Rome can impose its rule, because Rome has the necessary power and means to do so” (GA 198, 6.6.1920).
The answer to Rudolf Steiner’s question became evident at the end of the 1920’s. The “power of Rome” revealed itself in the form of Stalinism. This was so cleverly disguised that not only in Russia but also in the West only the tiniest few understood that a counter- revolution was underway. Trotsky pointed this out in his writings, but the international “Communist community” considered this of no importance.
The counter-revolution assumed concrete form from 1935, when a new – also qualitatively new – wave of terror began. In the period from 1935 to 1939 the entire “Lenin Guard” was totally eliminated, wherever their representatives may have been: in the central administrative apparatus, in the army, in the organs entrusted with the task of carrying out the repression.8
Within the context of this terror a tremendously large number of simple and completely innocent people were liquidated, but here the principle applied which was formulated by the nuntius of Pope Innocent III during the struggle of the medieval “Entente” against the Albigensian heresy: “Kill all of them! God in heaven will recognize his own.”
With the beginning of the period of terror in the ’30’s socialism in Russia assumes entirely new features. It grows more and more national, assumes increasingly conservative qualities, recognizes the principle of statehood etc., because the “Brothers of the Left”, who have outwardly sworn loyalty and paid lip-service to the new policy are striving with all their might for revenge. (And will really achieve this – in 1991.)
Stalinism was urgently in need of support from outside. This it obtained in the form of National Socialism. The latter emphasized its irreconcilable opposition to Bolshevism, but did not declare outwardly that it meant by this the Bolshevism of Lenin and Trotsky. It embarked on a close collaboration with Stalinist Bolshevism. But this had enemies also in Germany, where in the highest echelons of power there were influential supporters of England. All this resulted in a complicated mosaic of, in part friendly, in part hostile relations between Germany and the U.S.S.R. But they formed, overall, a unified bloc – that of the “Brothers of the Left” – who stirred up revolution, not only in Europe but also engaged in struggle on other continents.
From the standpoint of the laws at work in the three nodal points of the “decline of Europe”, the wars of National socialism were essentially “Napoleonic” and were intended to become a joint Soviet-National socialist World War against British-American domination on the planet. The question: “Who will rule the world – Rome or London- Washington?” was to be given a clear and unmistakable answer. This question was asked with less ambiguity than at any time in the past. The answer would show which of the two antagonists would disappear from the scene. From the standpoint of the supersensible world where a battle rages between Lucifer and Ahriman – a battle that will never produce a victor – this question, too, was unanswerable, as the further course of history was to prove. But the preparation for it on the earthly plane was unparalleled.
And now we have arrived at the riddle of the first day of the 2nd World War, wherein lies the actual key to an understanding of the greatest mystery of the 20th century. Thanks to the research of Russian revisionist historians this mystery has finally been revealed to the world.
We will try to present a brief overview of this subject (more is not possible in a short publication), in order to convey to our readers information that will enable them to penetrate the theme more deeply.9
In short: The problem consists in the fact that on 22nd June 1941 the Soviet Union was not only unprepared for defence (which was demonstrated by Suvorov), but also for an attack on Germany. Herein lies also the riddle: What did this mean?
The answer to this question was provided by Alexander Osokin (whereby he demolished Suvorov’s conception at the same time), in his study “The great Mystery of the Great War of the Fatherland”. This consists of three volumes, which appeared in 2008, 2010 and 2013 and comprise 1800 pages in all. Osokin says that he is merely putting forward a thesis, but in the reading of his work one realizes that he has made a discovery of the first order.
His “hypothesis” suggests that Moscow and Berlin had devised the plan of a so-called “Great Transport Operation”, according to which a Soviet army of one million soldiers (or more) was to advance to the English channel in order to launch an invasion of Britain, while the German divisions were to march via Soviet territory into Persia and invade from there the colonial hinterland of Britain. But we will let Osokin himself speak:
“Because Hitler understood that Germany, fighting alone, would be unable to gain a victory over England, he proposed to Stalin that he should join in the battle against the British Empire – particularly by means of a landing on the British Isles and an advance into the Middle East. The Soviet-German negotiations, which took place in Berlin from 12th to 14th November 1940, were said to have produced no results, but they ended in reality with a secret agreement between the top leadership of the Soviet Union and Germany on a joint execution of this operation. From that moment onward Stalin’s plan was as follows: He wanted with the help of the Germans to march his armies through Poland and Germany to the Baltic coast (while the German troops were to advance simultaneously across Soviet territory towards Turkey, Iran and Iraq)”.
As – to repeat our argument – the alliance between Stalin and Hitler had many opponents on both sides, it was decided that precautions should be taken: “... The Soviet troops and their war material were to move by rail, and also on rivers and canals, without ammunition (this was to be delivered separately); their military equipment was to be partially dismantled (for example, the rifles were to be transported without telescopic sights and be fitted with them later), they were not to be provided with fuel (they were only to be given enough to enable the tanks or lorries to drive up onto a railway ramp or transport ship and then off it again), etc. Under these conditions a transport of Soviet troops in the direction of the Baltic began on June 20th 1941. At the same time units via Soviet territory towards the Middle East. But on the morning of June 22nd the German air force dropped ammunition and fuel to the Wehrmacht units that were moving across Soviet territory and to the Luftwaffe aircraft standing on Soviet airfields. This is the reason why on the first day of the war there were numerous German “land troops” in the Soviet hinterland and in Russian skies German aircraft with red stars appeared (these had been painted on them, so that they could, in accordance with the terms of the treaty, fly unimpeded over our territory). And the transport already underway, as well as the Soviet troops and military units of the border areas preparing for this, were on the first day of the war not ready for battle because they had no ammunition and no fuel. This was the main reason for the catastrophe that descended upon the Red Army on 22nd June 1941.
In the preparation for the Great Transport Operation unprecedented measures were taken to ensure that it remained secret – not just in regard to information (unheard-of ongoing disinformation!), but also to technical matters. In particular, the Soviet trains on Soviet territory had to line up on rails that were adapted to the European gauge so that no reloading and no change of rails would be necessary at the border. The German trains had, correspondingly, on German and Polish territory, either to line up on rails of Soviet gauge or use adjustable “shoes” especially manufactured for this operation, which made possible the transition to a wider gauge without previous reloading.
As Osokin does not wish to come into conflict with representatives of the official version of the beginning of the war, he says that Stalin reasoned as follows: Once we have advanced to the English Channel, we will strike with Hitler against England or with England against Hitler. But his is an utterly superficial, ideologically-coloured thought that does not in any way follow from the account of what happened then. For example, Osokin himself says: “... The deliveries of Germany to the Soviet Union were not only of an informative but also an innovative character, as they brought about on a considerable scale that outdated technical devices and technology were replaced by modern versions” [Emphasis G.A.B.] In other words, the Third Reich made a significant contribution to the development and perfecting of the military power of its main opponent in the 2nd World War – literally at the last minute before attacking them. Why was this?
The aircraft builder Jakovlev describes in his memoirs how, during the visit of a Soviet air pilot delegation to Germany in Spring 1941, they were shown everything without exception including the latest, secret aircraft technology. (A German delegation to Moscow, which followed in March 1941, was also shown nearly everything, ... including the best Soviet aircraft factories). Prior to this, in October and November 1939, the entire productive capacity of German industry was demonstrated to a Soviet commission headed by People’s Commissar Tevosyan. What was the purpose of all this? And the delivery of the ultra-modern German cruiser “Lűtzov” (albeit in a half-finished state of construction)? And the use of Soviet harbours as a place of refuge for German merchant vessels? And the setting-up of the “Nord” base on Soviet territory, which was used by German submarines until 1941? ... And the sale to the U.S.S.R. of most types of German aircraft (over 30), including the most up-to-date, with which the Luftwaffe had been equipped only recently? And the use of the Minsk radio station as a transmitter for the guiding of German bombers in the bombarding of Polish cities at the beginning of September 1939?
This is no longer neutrality; it is the collaboration and coordination of the activities of allied States.
And the uninterrupted, meticulously executed Soviet deliveries of raw materials and provisions to Germany (the last transports arrived in Germany in the early morning of 22nd June, one hour before the attack)? And the reinforcements at the old border of the U.S.S.R., a part of which were dismantled for reasons unexplained to this day, whereby according to various reports a number of installations of reinforced concrete were blown up by the Soviets in 1941, before the war began?”
True, a plan to attack the U.S.S.R. was drawn up in Germany, but the possibility can in no way be discounted that the invasion plan ‘Barbarossa’ decided upon by the Fűhrer in December 1940 was at first pure disinformation with the aim of proving to Britain that Molotov’s visit to Berlin had ended in fiasco. Only later, possibly in May 1941 when Hess had flown to England – which made war between Germany and the Soviet Union practically unavoidable – was it developed further in such a way that it could be put into practice. If one studies the text of the plan ‘Barbarossa’ more carefully than was usual with us in the past, one notices to one’s astonishment that it was drafted ‘in case of a situation where Russia alters its present day policy towards Germany’.” It was not actually a plan, but a “case”. Only, until now, no-one has wanted to notice this.
To give support to his theory that the U.S.S.R. on 22nd June was not in any respect ready to launch an attack, Osokin cites a number of facts which we also find in a number of other revisionist works. In Osokin they are presented as follows (and these are, we would emphasize, documented facts):
“It is quite obvious that a colossal preparation of the Red Army for military action took place, but for what was it actually preparing itself? Maybe to defend the country against aggression by Hitler? After all, anyone could see that at the German-Soviet border were German élite divisions that could look back on nearly two years of battle experience and had effortlessly defeated all the armies of capitalist continental Europe.
But why on the first day of the war were they not in their entrenched positions and front lines, why did they have no ammunition and no fuel and – most important of all – why were there no clear orders and clear organization on the part of the supreme command? For, on 22nd June the army received three directives from supreme command – two unclear ones (Nrs. 1 and 2) and one that was unfulfillable (Nr. 3), and for some reason none of them bore Stalin’s signature. On this day the country did not know, for four hours, that the war had begun, and when it at last heard the news around 12.00 noon, it was not Stalin who delivered it in a radio speech, but his representative Molotov. Stalin did not address the people until 12 days later, on 3rd July.
Why were the munitions depots and the airfields moved right up to the border? (As a result of this, huge stocks of ammunition, fuel and provisions fell into enemy hands or were blown up by our [Soviet] troops before their retreat, and on the first day of the war 800 of our aircraft were destroyed on the ground. On the first day alone we [the Red Army] lost a total of 1,200 aircraft and in the first two days 2,500! Why had the artillery been withdrawn from divisions and transferred to artillery training grounds?
Research into the beginning of the war and especially of its first day, bears eloquent witness to the fact that the Soviet troops had not prepared themselves for defence; hence, the blow came “unexpectedly” and the defeat of the Soviet armed forces was overwhelming...
But maybe the Soviet troops had prepared themselves, not for defence, but for the delivery of a preventive strike against the German units massed at and advancing towards the border? Was Suvorov right after all with his hypothesis of the “Icebreaker”, and Stalin really wanted with this blow to launch his “revolutionary” campaign against Europe?
But why at dawn on 22nd June 1941 were the major part of the Soviet troops and units not one or two kilometres from the border like the Germans, but 30 to 300 kilometres? Why did they have no ammunition and no fuel? (As an example of a real preparation for a first strike one could point to a photograph of German tanks in Brest on 22nd June, showing on each tank 10 to 20 reserve canisters each containing 20 litres of petrol, and in addition a trailer with two barrels, each containing 200 litres, and with a hand-pump to fill them up!)
Why on earth were we ordered to remove the telescopic sights from the heavy guns?
Why did the infantry units in the foremost positions receive the order on 21st June, to bring the cartridges supplied to them into the munitions depot and seal them up?
Why in the very last days before the war were precautionary manoeuvres carried out by the air forces of western military circles, in the course of which the aircraft are not ready for action?
Why were instructions given merely to place the aircraft “in scattered positions and camouflage them”? If the Soviet troops were preparing for a surprise attack, was it sensible to make it impossible for them to move quickly to the runway? For what purpose was the runway cleared? (In some cases it turned out that the fuel canisters had been filled with water.) Question upon question...
The answer to the question Why? stubbornly posed again and again, is one and the same: The Red Army was not being prepared, either, for a surprise attack on the German troops and then on Germany and Europe.
There is another possible aim of the Soviet preparations for war at the western borders of the country: maybe... the Soviet leadership was preparing the Red Army for an organized strategic retreat in the event of a German attack, comparable to the retreat of the Russian army under the command of Barclay de Tolly, and then Kutozov, during the war against Napoleon in 1812?
But this is completely out of the question, because already in the evening of 22nd June Directive Nr.3 (unfulfillable) reached the troops, according to which the Soviet units should launch a counter-attack, with the task of not only recapturing the territory overrun by the Germans, but also crossing the border and, in particular, gaining control of the Lublin district by the 24th June... No, in the period from March to June 1941 the Red Army was not preparing for an organized retreat from the borders to the interior.
But what, then, was the Red Army so intensively preparing itself for in this period at the western border of the U.S.S.R.?
The Red Army was preparing for the Great Transport Operation... This was the exact reason for the catastrophe that occurred on the 22nd June 1941”.
The circles that stood behind Hitler and Stalin had drawn up a plan for the gaining of world domination, which contained two phases: The East was to be subjected to the rule of Stalinism, and the West to that of National Socialism, and then would begin the merging of these two into a single ideology. As we already mentioned, Hitler said during the negotiations with Molotov in Berlin on the 13th November: “I am convinced that our success will be greater if we stand back to back and fight with our forces united, than if we stand chest to chest and fight one another.” And then: “The great expanse of Asia must be divided into an East Asian and a Central Asian region. The latter reaches southwards, gives access to the ocean and will be recognized by Germany as Russia’s sphere of interest.”
After the two dictators had set themselves a goal of such immense significance, they feared that internal opposition could prevent its realization. On the 14th May 1941 Hitler wrote to Stalin: “These generals... try to do everything imaginable to frustrate the plans for the invasion of England... Under these circumstances I do not exclude in any way the possibility of a chance outbreak of armed conflict which, in view of so massive a concentration of troops, could be on an alarming scale if it is difficult or even impossible to determine what set it off. It will be no less difficult to stop this conflict.
I will be perfectly open with you.
I fear that one of my generals will deliberately provoke such a conflict to save England from its fate and bring my plans to nought. There is only one month to spare. Somewhere between the 15th and 20th June I plan to begin a massive transport of troops from your borders westwards.
I beg you with the greatest urgency not to react to any kind of provocation staged by generals of mine who are forgetful of their duty. And it goes without saying, that you should endeavour to provide them with no pretext for doing so. If it is not possible to avoid provocations originating from one or another of my generals, please exercise restraint, do not undertake acts of reprisal and keep me informed via the channel of communication known to you. Only in this way will we be able to realize the common goals which the two of us, so I believe, have discussed in detail and agreed upon.”
This, therefore, is the actual reason why Stalin dismissed all reports about an imminent invasion of the U.S.S.R. Osokin asks: “Why did Stalin not believe the reports of the Soviet news service, of the NKVD, of the Komintern and of the heads of other States, according to which Hitler was preparing an attack on the Soviet Union?
Firstly, because he thought he knew Hitler’s main ambition in life – the destruction of the British Empire – which he would never be able to achieve without the help of the U.S.S.R. Secondly, because he viewed these reports as being due to the English efforts to involve the U.S.S.R. in a war against Germany; underlying these efforts was disinformation disseminated for the British by Hitler and Stalin themselves (particularly the information passed on to them about the ‘Barbarossa’ plan), in order to disguise the forthcoming joint German-Soviet Transport operation against Britain”.
Regarding the flight of Hess to England, the situation appears to have been as follows: Either Hitler was a double agent, in whom a sympathy for the British side retained the upper hand; or he had been informed of the fact that the enemies of Stalin in the Kremlin were in a position to sabotage the Transport operation – for example, by taking control of the operation at the English Channel and forging an alliance with Britain.
Hitler, who had striven all the time for the signing of a treaty with England, was also able to make the following calculation: If England got wind of the planned Transport operation, it would be filled with mortal fear and thereby motivated to begin a war together with Germany against the U.S.S.R. But if Stalin were to conspire with Hitler in this, the war could be concluded in a month or two with victory over the U.S.S.R., the opposition in both the Kremlin and Berlin could be overcome with no difficulty and both the “socialisms” could be joined into one, as soon as Britain had suffered a resounding defeat.
This conclusion is not drawn by Osokin but the actual course of the war as described by revisionists – for example, by Vladimir Beshanov in a four-volume study – provides strong arguments in its favour. And then the assurances of German generals that Russia would be defeated in one month was no empty boast.
As evidence showing that Germany began the war against the Soviet Union together with England, Osokin cites eye-witness reports according to which at 2.00 a.m. – and not at 4.00, as in the “Barbarossa” case – unidentified aircraft had bombed Sevastopol and Kronstadt. When Hitler heard of this, he knew that Britain had begun the war in a accordance with the treaty. And then Germany also entered the war. But on the same day, England proposed a military alliance with the Kremlin.
Thus the “Brothers of the Left” outwitted the “Fathers of Darkness”, and the “Napoleonic” wars of the second nodal point also ended with the defeat of the “new Napoleon”.
Khrushchev tells in his memoirs how he had decided to congratulate Stalin on the day of victory. “And what happened then? Stalin answered me with an obscenity. As if to say that I was wasting his time approaching him on such an occasion.”
But it is no insignificant matter – he had been forced to wage such a war for the sake of the interests of Great Britain!
6 We have confirmation of this fact today in the way Frau Merkel and the Pope conduct themselves. This does not suggest in any way that the oligarchs can expect to obtain unlimited power over humanity and possession of all the world’s wealth.
7 ‘Bolshevism’ by Bernhard Duhr S.J. (1852-1930), historian. 618 We will not quote here the terrifying figures – they are all too well-known.
9 The Western reader has unfortunately not yet the opportunity to acquaint himself fully with this literature, because it has not been translated into other languages. There are some few exceptions in the writings of Viktor Suvorov, who presents an abundance of facts but misleads his readers in the main question; and of a number of other authors.