جنگ دوم جهانی نبرد آلمان-شوروی در جنگ جهانی دوم

[samedelavar 6]

آقا شما مثل اينكه از كتابهاي تحريف شده مخصوصا ظهور و سقوط رايش سوم مطلبها رو مينوسيد!
كمي با انصاف باشيد تاريخ رو متفقين مينويسند
من نميدونم دوستاني كه اينجا هستن واقعا خوش ندارند من اينجا باشم يه جوري ميخواهيد من از اينجا برم؟ هي به من فشار مياريد
خوب مسئله اي نيست مقدمات فراهم شود خواهم رفت

دوست من شما به دل نگير وقتي مشتي فرومايه تاريخ ايران را هم عوض كردن ديگه در مورد آلمان كه معلومه icon_frown

[sasha 8]

جناب مصطفي خوشحالم كه شما در نهايت با بنده هم عقيده شديد كه دول قدرتمند اروپايي براي خاطر منافع خود و نه كشورهاي ضعيف جنگ را آغاز كردند. فقط ظاهرا بايد درباره الحاق (و نه اشغال) كشور اتريش كه بر اساس رفراندوم آزاد صورت پذيرفت كمي بيشتر مطالعه كنيد. همچنين نيروهاي آلماني بنا به دعوت دولت روماني وارد آن كشور شدند و ارتش آنها و نيز ارتش فنلاند با تجهيزات آلماني بر عليه دشمن مشتركشان يعني شوروي وارد جنگ شدند. فقط يك ميليون فنلاندي در حمله به شوروي شركت داشتند. از وقايع قبل از جنگ دوم و حمله ارتش سرخ به فنلاند و شكست فضاحت بار آنها هم كه مطلع هستيد. اما درباره طرفداري يا حمايت از يكي از طرفهاي درگير، بهرحال مردم آن زمان كشورهاي ذي نفع بر اساس منافع بلند مدت و نيز كينه هاي گذشته (عملكرد تحقير آميز دول پيروز در جنگ اول بسيار در اين مورد تاثير گذار بود. بعنوان نمونه، سواران فرانسوي در خيابانهاي مناطق اشغالي آلمان راه مي افتادند و مردم را با شلاق مي زدند) اين جنگ را آغاز كردند. همانطور كه امروزه هم مي بينيد كشور انگلستان بهيچ عنوان شمشير خود را بر عليه فرانسه و آلمان غلاف نكرده و در بسياري موارد منافع خود را به تنهايي و خارج از مجموعه اتحاديه اروپا دنبال مي كند. دوست عزيز صادقانه بگويم هر كه توضيحات شما را بخواند اگر به طرفداري شما از متفقين شك هم داشته باشد، شكش به يقين بدل مي شود! ولي خوب چون خودتان اصرار داريد كه بي طرف هستيد پس كمي بي طرفانه تر بنويسيد. اينكه چرا اكثر مردم ما از آلماني ها طرفداري مي كردند و مي كنند و در زمان رضا شاه سينماها براي تماشاي فيلمهاي مستند جنگي آلماني مملو از جمعيت مي شد و وليعهد ايران دائما پيشرفتهاي آلماني ها را روي نقشه علامت گذاري مي كرد تنها يك چيز بود: نفرت، نفرتي كه از پست فطرتي و ظلم و جنايت انگليسي ها و نسل كشي مردم ايران در دل مردم ما بوده و هست. والا اينكه اروپايي ها چرا همديگر را كشتند و چقدر كشتند و ... اصلا بما ربطي ندارد. ضمن آنكه دوست عزيز در وسط جنگ بهر دليل مشروع و نا مشروع كه شروع شده باشد، حلوا كه پخش نمي كنند! در حاليكه بعقيده بنده بزرگترين اشتباه هيتلر عدم بمباران مناطق مسكوني انگلستان در مراحل آغازين جنگ و تحميل تلفات زياد به نيروي هوايي آلمان به خاطر دفاع هوايي موجود در مراكز و تاسيسات نظامي بود. در حاليكه انگليسي ها هيچوقت اشتباه هيتلر را مرتكب نشدند و تقريبا تمام بمبارانهاي خود را شبانه انجام مي دادند و تاسيسات صنعتي آلمان تا زمان ورود آمريكا به جنگ آسيب چنداني نديد. من احساسات پاك انساني شما را درك مي كنم ولي كسي كه جنگي را شروع مي كند به اين چيزها فكر نمي كند. اين رسم قدرتمندان است. گروههايي مثل حقوق بشر و صلح بين الملل و سبزها و ... كه در كشورهاي مختلف دنيا فعاليت مي كنند در واقع اهرمهاي فشاري هستند براي تامين اهداف قدرتمندان و دول استعمار گر و الا هيچكس براي انسانيت تره هم خرد نمي كند! دوست من ايده آلي كه شما درباره انسانيت و عدم تجاوز به حقوق انسانها و برابري انسانها ترسيم كرديد اصلا وجود خارجي ندارد. <اين قدرت است كه حق بوجود مي آورد، بعبارت ديگر حق با كسي است كه قدرت دارد- از كتاب نبرد من> با تشكر

[mostafa_by 5,726]

ممنون آقا ساشاي عزيز بابت توضيحات و فرمايشتتون. اما بايد عرض كنم كه موضع بنده٬ از ابتدا هم همين بوده و هيچ تغييري نداشته! براي من مثل روز روشن هست كه ابرقدرت‌ها فكر هيچ مردمي نيستن! نه مردم خودشون٬ نه مردم ديگر كشورها٬ نه ساير دولت‌ها! اين كه اظهر من الشمس هست! ولي منظور شما رو درست نگرفتم. چرا هركس كه حرف‌هاي منو بخونه٬ من رو به حمايت از متفقين خواهد شناخت؟ چون از هيتلر بد مي‌گم؟ چون مي‌گم كه هيتلر جنايتكار بوده؟ چون مثل شما اعتقاد ندارم كه آلماني‌ها تو جنگ دوم جهاني مظلوم واقع شدن؟؟!!! اين وسط، بنده هستم كه طرفداري يكي از طرفين رو مي‌كنم؟! حقيقتاً خودتون رو اين وسط، بي‌طرف مي‌بينين و بنده رو، تنها به دليل عدم همراهي‌ام با شما، جزو جناح متفقين محسوب مي‌كنين و ازم مي‌خواين كه يه مقدار بي‌طرفانه بنويسم؟!!! دوست من! شايد شما براي هيتلر احترام قائل باشي! ولي حداقل نذارين باطن حقيقت‌ياب‌تون، به اين سادگي فداي علايقتون بشه! اما درمورد اتريش، من درست متوجه نشدم! اين چه جور رفراندومي بود كه با تهديد هيتلر آغاز شد و به توالت شستن شوشنيك منجر مي‌شه؟! دوست عزيز! اين حرف رو يكي به خود شما بزنه، چه موضعي درموردش اتخاذ مي‌كنين؟! شما حرف هيچ كتاب تاريخي رو قبول ندارين جز معدود منابعي كه به قول خودتون، متفقين ننوشتن؟! آيا هرچيز كه نئونازي‌ها بنويسن رو به عنوان تاريخ قبول دارين؟ اگه اينطوره، خوب مشخصه كه هيچ قومي نمي‌آد جنايات و فجايعي رو كه به بار آورده بنويسه و اون رو در قالب كلمات پروانه‌اي و دوستانه مي‌نويسه! در زمان رضا پهلوي، مسلماً رضا طرفدار نازي‌ها بود! دليل اصلي كه اون خلع شد هم دقيقاً همين بود و نهايتاً هم با ذلت مرد! اما به نظر شما، منطقي هست كه ما طرف يه جنايتكار ديگه رو بگيريم، فقط به اين خاطر كه يكي از طرفين، قبلاً به ما خيلي ظلم كرده؟ دوست من! اين منطق نيست! اگه هم باشه، منطق بي‌منطقي هست!!! نمي‌دونم شما چرا اينقدر علاقه دارين كه جنايات نازي‌ها رو ناچيز نشون داده و حتي‌الامكان حتي انكارش هم كنين، ولي كارهاي متفقين رو صد برابر بزرگتر نشون بدين؟ نازي‌ها اگه كشته باشن مي‌گين همش يه ميليون كشتن! ولي اگه متفقين 4 نفر رو هم بكشن، مي‌فرمايين «4 تا آدم رو كشتن!!». دوست من! بي‌طرفي، دقيقاً به اين معني نيست كه شما علايق‌تون رو دودستي بچسبين و ازش دفاع كنين! بي‌طرفي يعني اينكه شما، علاقه‌تون رو كنار بذارين و منطقاً به يه نتيجه برسين؛ حتي اگه به ضرر شما و علايق‌تون باشه!! دوست گرامي. شما در حالي دارين حرف از جنايات متفقين مي‌زنين كه بزرگترين اشتباه هيتلر رو عدم بمبارون مناطق مسكوني انگلستان در ابتداي جنگ مي‌دونين! به نظر شما، اين حرف شما، فقط اين فكر، خودش كمتر از هر جنايتي هست؟ شايد براي شما، جون اين انسا‌ن‌ها بي‌ارزش باشه! همون‌طور كه براي هيتلر بي‌ارزش بود! همون‌طور كه براي استالين بي‌ارزش بود! همون‌طور كه ذره‌اي براي چرچيل و روزولت و ترومن ارزش نداشت! اگه حقيقتاً اين طرز فكر شماست، فكر كنم كه كيلومترها با هم اختلاف داشته باشيم. براي من، گروه‌هاي صلح و حقوق بشر، از برگ درخت هم بي‌ارزش‌ترن! بنده مي‌تونم ده‌ها صفحه فقط درمورد دلايل ايجاد چنين گروه‌هايي (دلايل حقيقي‌اش، نه شعاري) براتون مقاله بنويسم! خواهشاً فطرت پاك انساني رو با اين واژه‌ها آلوده نفرمايين! آدم حتماً نبايد كه عضو گروه‌هاي حقوق بشر باشه كه از كشتار و شكنجه‌ي انسان‌ها اعلام انزجار كنه! حق با شماست. حرف‌هاي من درمورد صلح، عدم تجاوز، عدم كشتار، حفظ انسانيت و بسياري ديگه، خيلي‌ ايده‌آل گرايانه‌اس! آخه يادم نبود ما تو وسط جنگل داريم زندگي مي‌كنيم!! ما تو دنيايي هستيم كه ملت، صدها دلار خرج مي‌كنن كه دور يه مستطيل كوچيك جمع بشن و شاهد اين باشن كه دو تا گاو بزرگ، چطور به جون هم مي‌افتن و همديگه رو با مشت و لگد، له و لورده مي‌كنن! ما مشتاقانه مي‌شينيم و فيلم‌هاي جنايات طبيعي كه هر 3 ماه يكبار توسط FBI به جهان عرضه مي‌شه رو تماشا مي‌كنيم و مي‌بينيم كه وقتي يه نفر رو واقعاً اعدام مي‌كنن، طرف چه رفلكسي داره! ما مي‌شينيم اينجا و مثلاً مي‌گيم اگه استالين 14 ميليون نفر ديگه رو مي‌كشت، اوضاع اينطور مي‌شد! مي‌شينيم مي‌گيم اگه هيتلر، زودتر به بمب اتم دست پيدا كرده بود و مثلاً آلمان و امريكا رو نابود مي‌كرد، جهان الان اينطور بود! حقيقتاً وقتي كه تمام دلمشغولي‌هاي ما، اين حرف‌ها باشه، حرف شما هم درست مي‌شه! يعني اين‌ها يه ايده‌آل و خيال خام هست! آخه ناسلامتي ما بايد حتماً از خوي حيواني‌مون استفاده كنيم، والا كلاه‌مون پس معركه‌اس! ما بايد به جون همديگه بيافتيم. همديگه رو تكه پاره كنيم تا حقيقت جهان رو به نمايش گذاشته باشيم! بله. من يه ايده‌آليست‌ام. همون‌طور كه چه‌گوارا بود! اون جنگيد، چون به ذات بشر اطمينان داشت! مي دونست كه انسان‌ها، هرچقدر هم تو ظواهر اين دنيا غرق شده باشن، باز هم فطرت‌شون پا بر جا هست و مي‌تونن حق رو از باطل تشخيص بدن! پس ارزش جنگيدن و كشته شدن به خاطرشون رو دارن! اين شايد نهايت ايده‌آليستي باشه كه انتظار داشته باشيم، حداقل خودمون انسان بودن رو هم تجربه كنيم! اينكه از تنها تفاوت‌مون با حيوانات، براي مقاصدي جز ساختن بمب و بمب‌افكن استفاده كنيم!! اگه از نظر شما، اين‌ها ايده‌آلات صرف هست و حقيقت جهان رو، به اين صورت زشت قبول دارين و باهاش حال مي‌كنين، پس بايد گفت كه بحث بنده و شما، تا يك قرن ديگه هم به نتيجه نمي‌رسم! چون بنده، درست از چيزي رنج مي‌برم كه شما لذت مي‌برين! پس تصديق بفرمايين كه حداقل بحث بر سر اينكه هيتلر چقدر جنايت‌كار بود، فايده‌اي براي من يكي نداره! چون حتي اگه اثبات هم كنم كه هيتلر، مثلاً 30 ميليون نفر رو كشته (يه عدد الكيه! براي مثال عرض كردم)، شما مي‌فرمايين : خوب جنگه ديگه! اروپايي‌ها شروع كردن، هيتلر هم نه نگفته! اشكالي نداره كه! جهان يكم خلوت‌تر شده!! زياده عرضي نيست. ------------------------------------------------ يه خواهش دارم از تمام دوستاني كه مطالب و عرايض بنده رو مطالعه فرمودن! خواهشاً هركس كه اون‌ها رو خونده، ترجيحاً با دليل بفرمايه كه كجاي حرف من، طرفداري از متفقين بوده؟!

[sasha 8]

جناب مصطفي، در ابتدا از اينكه شما را طرفدار متفقين خواندم عذر مي خوام. قصدم جسارت نبود، بنظر من در طرفداري از يك طرف و احساس نزديكي با تفكر و استدلال آنها هيچ اشكالي وجود ندارد. اگر هم شما اصرار به بي طرفي داريد من حرف خودم را پس مي گيرم. بخش هاي ديگر فرمايشات شما هم برايم محترم است و اصراري به تغيير نظر كسي ندارم. راستش را بخواهيد در زمان كودكي من يكي از طرفداران پر و پا قرص فيلمهاي پارتيزاني بودم ولي بعدها كه درباره آدولف هيتلر كتابهاي بيشتري خواندم و نظريات او را راجع به دموكراسي دانستم (و صحت ادعاهاي او را درباره كشك بودن دموكراسي مورد ادعاي انگليسي ها در بسياري از جاها از جمله در رابطه با جريانات حزب آزادي در اتريش ديدم) علاقه ام بيشتر شد. اين البته به معناي تاييد همه حرفهاي او نيست ولي مثلا فكر كنيد كه حرف آخر در تمام مسائل (بخصوص سياست خارجي) را در ايران رئيس جمهور مي زد آنوقت ببينيد چه فاجعه اي ببار مي آمد! بشدت معتقد هستم كه تا زمانيكه در ايران احزاب پر قدرت وجود نداشته باشند كشور ما با آزادترين انتخابات هم ره به جايي نخواهد برد. زيرا اكثريت مردم نه از روي عقل كه از روي احساس و بقول معروف با چراغ خاموش! كانديداهاي خود را انتخاب مي كنند و تا زمانيكه مثلا يك استاد دانشگاه يك راي و يك روستايي بي خبر از همه جا هم يك راي داشته باشد، با اين سيستم غير حزبي، كشور ما همچنان در بدبختي و ضعف دست و پا خواهد زد. واي به آن روزي كه بهانه دشمني خارجي را هم از ما بگيرند آن وقت نمي دانم چكار بايد بكنيم؟! حتما فكر نكرده ايد كه مثلا در كشوري مثل آمريكا كه ابرقدرت دنيا هست هر كسي دلش خواست مي تواند كانديدا شود و مردم به هر كه دلشان خواست مي توانند راي دهند؟ انتخابات يك شوي عمومي براي ايجاد احساس حق اظهار نظر و موثر بودن در سرنوشت خود در مردم عوام هست و لاغير. اين نخبگان آنجا هستند كه نظام امور و جريان قدرت در اين كشور را رهبري مي كنند و اجازه نمي دهند سرنوشت كشورشان بدست عوام الناس تعيين شود. بقول آدولف هيتلر: <اكثريت نمي تواند جانشين اراده يك مرد شود. اكثريت نه تنها نماينده بلاهت بلكه نماينده جبن هم هست و همانطور كه يكصد كله پوك نمي توانند مرد عاقلي را بوجود آورند، يك تصميم قهرمانانه از ميان يكصد آدم جبون صادر نمي شود...- از كتاب نبرد من>. اين مساله اي هست كه ما بارها در طول تاريخ كشورمان شاهد آن بوده ايم و حتي در دوران پس از انقلاب هم هيچوقت مجلس هاي ما نتوانسته اند حتي يك تصميم انقلابي بگيرند. در احزاب قدرتمند هم اعضاي نخبه حزب و نيز رهبر حزب تصميمات خود را بعد از مشاوره با كارشناسان خبره اتخاذ مي كنند و از نظر متخصصان تبعيت مي كنند نه خواست عوام كه فقط منافع كوتاه مدت خود را در نظر مي گيرند و هيچ برنامه اي براي آينده و جامعه خود ندارند. بگذريم، فقط خواستم شما را كمي از فضاي جنگي خارج كنم و درباره هيتلر با اين جمله از ژوزف استالين(اگر اشتباه نكرده باشم) بحث خودم را خاتمه مي دهم: <هيتلر مرد بزرگي بود ولي نمي دانست كه بايد در كجا متوقف شود>. درباره اتريش هم به نقل قولي از نويسنده كتاب <چهره واقعي هيتلر اثر جان تولند> بسنده مي كنم: ... مراجعه به آرا عمومي در يك جو غير عادي و در شرايطي كه امكان فعاليت و تبليغ براي مخالفان وجود نداشت برگزار شد ولي اگر اكثريت اعلام شده(يعني 99.73 درصد) را هم طبيعي حساب نكنيم، ترديدي وجود ندارد كه در آن شرايط اكثريت مردم اتريش بطرفداري از پيوستن به آلمان راي دادند، زيرا تصور مي كردند كه رفاه و پيشرفت آلمانيها نصيب آنها هم خواهد شد. براي شما آرزوي موفقيت دارم بدرود

[PERSPOLIS 335]

The British are behind everything The United States is still a British Colony http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone's belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth. I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows. "In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914. Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen. "In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914. "Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed. I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law. "The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914. The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss. If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America. This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias. The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2). I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire. An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions. "Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562 "Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641 Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr.. Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown. In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty? I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3) Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire." All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage: -CITE- 26 USC Sec. 1491 HEAD- Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax -STATUTE- There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of - (1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over (2) the sum of - (A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus (icon_frown the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer. -SOURCE- (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.) -MISC1- AMENDMENTS 1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing. 1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par. (1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par. (1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par. (2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (icon_frown. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.' EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.' A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded. (Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons. In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4). What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper. The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players. Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters. The following is the definition of tribute (tax). "A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677 As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783. Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty. In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War? That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain. Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor. The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815. | Index | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Home

[PERSPOLIS 335]

The Afrika Korps and Rommel The North African Campaign opened the day following Rome’s declaration of war, when British armored cars crossed from Egypt into Libya to ambush unarmed Italian trucks near Fort Capuzzo. After three days of fierce fighting, Capuzzo and another Italian fort (Maddalena) were captured. While units of the British Army and the R.A.F. launched a series of relentless raids throughout Libya, English engineers excavated a powerful defensive line at Mersa Matruh, 300 miles west of the Suez Canal. The conquest of Italian North Africa seemed under way. Responding to these British advances, the Duce worked out an aggressive counter-offensive with his most able military leader, Marshal Italo Balbo, an aviation pioneer, who led the first squadron flight from Europe to America (Rome to Chicago), in 1930. The strategy they devised called for a massed attack of infantry, accompanied by anti-tank guns and field artillery screened by advancing units of light and medium tanks, and covered by fighters and bombers of the Regia Aeronautica, the Italian Air Force. They had high hopes for the Campaign, so long as Italian initiative was maintained. A prolonged struggle would only work to the advantage of the British, who were richer in supplies. Italy’s tragedy was Balbo’s death on June 28th, the day he was to begin operations in Libya. His plane was shot down by Italian anti-aircraft, either by accident or design. A dedicated Fascist, pro-British traitors in the royal House of Savoy may have ordered his assassination. He was succeeded by the Army Chief-of-Staff, Marshal Rodolfo Graziani, who launched the Mussolini-Balbo Offensive on July 4. It instantly over-ran the key posts at Kassala and Gallabat on the Sudan borders with Eritrea and Abyssinia, from which Italian forces swept into Somaliland. On August 17, the British were Dunkirked a second time, when they were evacuated by Royal Navy ships from the port of Berbera. A few hours later, all of Somaliland fell to the Italians. Their swift and far-ranging advance through the desert allowed them to threaten the southern entrance of the Red Sea, seriously jeopardizing England’s oil supplies in the Middle East, and her vital line of communication with India and the Far East through the Suez Canal. These victories were in large measure assisted by the Italians’ technological superiority in desert warfare, particularly their Sahaina. Ideally suited for combat through Libya’s trackless sands, the heavily armed (with 20mm Soluthun and 47/32 anti-tank guns, together with 13.2 mm heavy machine-guns), long-ranging (800-kilometer) patrol-car was a design far ahead of its time. The British fielded nothing like the Sahaina, which backed up Italian tanks, and often replaced them more successfully. The "cheap and easy victory" Churchill felt sure he could win over the despised Italians had blown up in his face like an exploding cigar. In the very midst of the Battle of Britain, when her every resource was pressed to the limit, he dispatched a large convoy carrying abundant munitions, artillery, aircraft, and 150 tanks to his beleaguered forces in North Africa. Since the Italian Navy still dominated the Mediterranean Sea, the convoy had to be diverted the long, time-consuming way---around the Cape of Good Hope. It docked at Port Said more than a month after setting out. With their capture of Somaliland, the Italians suddenly halted their advance to replenish supplies. "Time is working against us," Mussolini urged Marshal Graziani. "The loss of Egypt will be the coup de grace for Great Britain." He knew that Italian supremacy in manpower and materiel was only temporary. A fat convoy was on its way that would tip the scales in the enemy’s favor. The moment to resume the attack was now or never. But Graziani complained of the heat and of the anti-tank guns that awaited his armor; he suggested the offensive be renewed in October. "That would be too late!," the Duce countered. He agreed that the struggle was difficult, and that losses would probably be high. But the Italians must not lose their momentum now. 1940 was their best and perhaps only chance to succeed. Still, Graziani hesitated, while Mussolini fumed helplessly and sent him more supplies. Finally re-equipped with additional armor and Fiat CR-42 fighters, the reluctant Marshal began the invasion of Egypt on September 13. His five divisions with 200 tanks stormed across the border, taking Sollum, while the British Western Desert Force, consisting of the 7th Armored and 4th Indian Divisions, fell back. Just two days later, the Italians had penetrated sixty miles, over-running Sidi Barrani. At the height of their success, Graziani halted again, this time to build a series of fortified camps, allowing General Wavell, commanding British forces, time to organize his own counter-attack. The Duce was furious, and demanded the advance be resumed at once. Incredibly, Graziani refused. But because he was protected by the House of Savoy, the Marshall could not be fired. Time, as Mussolini argued, was running out. By September 24, the heavy-laden convoy reached Britain’s Western Desert Force, which was now fully supplied with weapons and munitions. Yet, Wavell was himself slow to launch his offensive, which would not be ready until late autumn. Even days after that December counter-offensive got under way, his Australian Division was still unfit for combat. Had Graziani continued his hitherto successful march into Egypt, instead of stopping to construct defenses at Sidi Barrani, the North African Campaign would have undoubtedly climaxed in an Italian victory before Wavell’s preparations were completed. Unfortunately, Balbo was not in command to maintain the initiative, which was passing to the enemy. Even if Graziani resumed the offensive in October, as he planned, he could have still over-run the British, catching them unready and ill-organized. But the Marshall changed his mind. He took months strengthening and expanding his fortified camps in and from Sidi Barrani. While they pinned-down the enemy’s anticipated attack, the Italian 10th Army would resume the offensive. Mussolini, in yielding to Graziani for additional supplies, had spoiled him. It was much easier and safer to hold up behind the fortified camps, accumulating supplies, than to risk an assault against English anti-tank guns in which the British also enjoyed numerical superiority. In fact, Wavell’s counter-offensive had been seriously thrown off in late October by Churchill’s insistence to support the Greeks fighting an Italian invasion. Mussolini had invaded Greece to divert British supplies and forces from North Africa. There he continued to fortify Graziani, hoping the reluctant marshall would seize the opportunity by renewing offensive operations against his divided and diluted opponent. To the outrage of not only General Wavell, England’s Minister of War Anthony Eden and the Cabinet, Churchill rushed head-long into the Duce’s trap, and sapped the British Desert Army by robbing its units to serve in Greece. The rotund Prime Minister almost gutted that Army by diverting many of its men and materiel to the Aegean, offering a superb opportunity for Graziani to attack. Instead, he frittered away his last chance by continuing to wait for the British behind his fortified camps. At last, on December 9, warships of the Royal Navy heavily bombarded Sidi Barrani and Maktila, as the 4th Indian Division took forts at Nibeiwa and Tummar East and West. But the attackers paid dearly for these conquests. On just the first day of fighting, the British lost fourteen tanks to Tummar’s defenders, and warriors of the Fascist Maletti Group knocked out 35 of 57 attacking Matilda tanks. Meanwhile, the 7th Armoured Division cut off Sofafi and Rabia, from which, however, the Italians staged a successful break-out. Until now, their loses had been light, with some 3,500 fatalities. But Wavell’s counter-offensive swallowed up 38,000 prisoners, 237 artillery and 73 tanks, reducing Italian holdings in Egypt to Sollum, Fort Capuzzi and Sidi Omar. Graziani’s men put up a determined defense at the vital port of Bardia, beginning on December 21. Out-numbered, out-gunned and down to their last supplies, they fought off the tough Australians for more than two weeks. On January 7, the British XIII Corps captured Tobruk within 24 hours. By then, the Italian 10th Army had more than 100,000 men taken prisoner. The Italians put up stiff resistance at various strong-holds, such as the Mechili fort and near Derna, but the tide had turned against them. Efforts to block the enemy advance toward Tripolitania at El Aghelia were cut-off by the 7th Armoured Division, which reached the coast 70 miles south of Benghazi. Refusal to obey Mussolini’s orders by maintaining the momentum of the offensive had cost Graziani dear. In late January, the entire North African Campaign was on the verge of complete collapse, when the Italians suddenly and quite unexpectedly turned the tables on their pursuers. With the reversals of his desert forces during the previous month, Mussolini realized that, together with Graziani’s insubordination, the 10th Army suffered for lack of sufficient armor. He moved quickly to organize a Brigata Corazzato Speciale, or "Special Armored Brigade", of M-11 tanks operating in squads accompanied by infantry specializing in anti-tank weapons and tactics. In hardly more than a month, the Duce dispatched this improvised force to General Valentino Babini, in Libya, just in time to confront the massed assault of 177 Matilda tanks and other armored vehicles. During a single engagement, on January 24, 1941, the badly out-numbered Fascist soldiers of the BCS quickly knocked out and disabled the first 21 enemy tanks. The rest turned around on their treads, and beat a hasty retreat toward Cairo. Mussolini, Babini and their men had parried General Wavell’s anticipated "death blow" to the Italians, who until then, were losing ground forces on a debilitating scale. These huge numbers of prisoners, often taken by relatively small British units, helped foster Allied propaganda characterizing the Italians as cowards, or, at any rate, unwilling, unenthusiastic participants in "Mussolini’s war". Actually, most Italians fought with unrivaled courage and skill. When, for example, new R.A.F. pilots arrived in Egypt with their state-of-the-art Spitfires, they laughed at the antiquated-looking bi-planes of the Regia Aeronautica. But their commanders sternly brought them up sharp by warning, "Your planes may be faster than theirs, but if you ever get into a dog-fight with them, they’ll kill you!" As an example, a Spitfire pilot reported after his encounter with a Fiat CR-32 Falco, "I dived to attack. As I opened fire, he half-rolled very tightly, and I was completely unable to hold him, so rapid were his maneuvers" (Adams, p.74). In its assessment of the fighting across Libya and Egypt, the British VIIIth Army newspaper concluded that "the Black Shirt and Bersaglieri Divisions were often comparable in courage and fighting spirit to the best troops in the Campaign." These Fascist elements had fought with extraordinary heroism, especially when the battle had gone against them, while most of the other Italian soldiers had been trained and led, as was Marshal Graziani himself, by the hostile, even pro-British aristocracy in the House of Savoy. The North African Campaign that could have concluded after just four or five months in an Italian victory, had only the Duce’s orders been followed, would go on for two more years, killing many thousands more men, and eventually climaxing in an Axis withdrawal. Tragic as these events were for Italy, the Fuehrer began to regard North Africa as a great, strategic trap for the British. He observed how they devoted all their energies, even while hard-pressed during the Battle of Britain, to protect their holdings in Egypt. North Africa might divert the British from interfering in his up-coming invasion of the Soviet Union. They could be induced to weaken themselves in operations involving minimal German forces. But to waste the British out of strength in the desert Hitler needed the most daring, innovative and dauntless Wehrmacht commander available. On February 12, 1941, Erwin Rommel landed at Tripoli with just two divisions---one light, the other Panzer---that formed the Deutsche Afrika Korps. He arrived just in time to prevent the enemy’s total conquest of North Africa. Less than a week before, General Wavell, recovering from his defeat at the hands of the Brigata Corazzato Speciale, destroyed 80 Italian tanks and captured seven generals at Benghazi. Worse came the next day, when he took 120 tanks, 200 artillery pieces and 20,000 troops. Undaunted by these otherwise catastrophic reversals, Rommel went over on the offensive with an imaginative flair rarely encountered in warfare. In little more than two months, he made Wavell give up all the gains won from the Italians. During the next two years, Rommel led the British on a merry chase through the desert, often deceiving them with unorthodox ploys. For example, when confronted by a numerically overwhelming force of Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Indians, he dragged farming implements behind his tanks. The resultant clouds of sand were so great, the enemy were fooled into believing that they were opposed by a gigantic Panzer army, and called off their attack. Rommel’s daring was exampled in the Battle of Knightsbridge, between June 11 and 13, when his 124 Panzers audaciously attacked 248 British tanks, trapping and destroying most of them. Suddenly, the main supply route for the 50th and 1st South African Divisions was threatened, and they fled toward Egypt. In every engagement---either wriggling out of an encirclement, or spear-heading a sudden assault where it was least expected---the Afrika Korps seemed unbeatable. What made the Campaign so frustrating for the British was its lack of real territorial goals. Rommel’s chief objective was less the capture of Cairo or Suez, than wearing out the enemy’s land forces, to keep them away from the European Continent at relatively low cost to the Axis. He could go on racing around the desert indefinitely, so long as his supplies held out. To keep him well-equipped was the chief responsibility of the Italian Navy. Whatever damage had been done to Italy’s reputation by Graziani’s failures in Egypt was more than adequately repaired by the unswerving courage demonstrated by Mussolini’s sailors aboard the convoys to North Africa. Relentlessly savaged from the air by anti-shipping bombers of the R.A.F. and under the sea by Royal Navy submarines, Italian freighters pushed on against terrible losses. But they were the life-line of the Afrika Korps, fueling its non-stop victories, despite everything the British could throw at them. From June, 1942, however, Italian sinkings began to increase dramatically. And the Luftwaffe spared additional aircraft to protect Axis convoys, which were invariably intercepted by the enemy. Rommel’s capture of Tobruk on the 21st bagged him large stocks of materiel that made up for dwindling supplies, but this windfall could not be expected to last him for long. Thus well provisioned, although only temporarily, he decided on capturing Egypt and putting an end to the North African Campaign, before his supply problems became too critical. Thanks to Ultra, the British knew long in advance of his next attack, but their long series of defeats rendered them too weak to oppose it. The Royal Navy evacuated Alexandria, where port authorities prepared to blow up the harbors at a moment’s notice. In Cairo, British Army headquarters staff burned classified papers and prepared for a retreat into Palestine. But Italian losses at sea mounted, and Rommel’s advance ground to a halt. Mussolini had good reason to suspect that House of Savoy traitors in the Navy were passing the sailing times and courses of his convoys to the enemy. Even long after the war, historians concluded either espionage or treason was responsible. Not until the 1960s was the so-called "Ultra Secret" revealed. Having broken all the Axis military codes, Allied commanders were simultaneously reading the top secret orders of their German and Italian counterparts. In the beginning, however, Ultra was often too slow to keep up with the rapid, last minute changes inherent in desert warfare, and even missed reporting many important Italian convoys. Meanwhile, U.S. supplies were reaching General Montgomery, commanding British forces in Egypt, in ever growing numbers. The Afrika Korps continued to score one victory after another, in spite of these heavy odds. But with the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in June, 1942, traitors in the German Abwehr and General Staff helped fill in the missing gaps for Allied intelligence. So much so, that the following September, supplies were virtually pinched off. The entire North African Campaign was dominated by supplies and military intelligence. But the key factor, of course, was Rommel himself. His genius always made the difference between victory and defeat, no matter what the circumstances. The British realized this better than anyone, so they staged a massive raid on Tobruk during the night of September 13, specifically aimed at killing or abducting the Desert Fox. Insidiously known as "Operation Agreement," the large-scale assault by land, sea and air was also designed to destroy the harbor installations (too many Italian freighters were still getting through to Tobruk), and knock out Axis air bases at nearby Barce and Benghazi. Some warplanes were destroyed on the ground at Barce, but Italian anti-aircraft defenses at Benghazi succeeded in totally repulsing attacks by elite R.A.F. bomber squadrons of the Special Air Service. Tobruk’s harbor went unscathed, while three Royal Navy destroyers were sunk, and many British infantry were killed or captured. Rommel, of course, escaped assassination in this latest Churchillian fiasco. In fact, he was not even in Tobruk during the raid. He was a mortal human being, however, and his over-long tour of duty began to tell on his nerves. He became guilty of obvious errors, such as failing to pursue the Americans routed at Kassarine Pass. Had he followed up on that victory, he might have driven them back into the sea. The stress of 18 months non-stop combat was beginning to have its effect on his health. On September 23, he was flown to several hospitals in Europe, suffering from acute liver problems and high blood pressure. Ultra code-breakers flashed the news to General Montgomery, who used Rommel’s absence to launch the Battle of El Alamein on the night of October 23, opening with a barrage of 900 artillery pieces, virtually all of them U.S. made. By then, Monty’s shot-up British equipment had been more than amply replaced by American stock piles of armor and ammunition, without which "Operation Lightfoot" would never have been possible. And, to be sure, he had advance copies of all German and Italian intentions, supplies and movements on his desk, thanks to Ultra. His counter-attack went well until Rommel returned on the 25th. The Desert Fox once again turned the tables on his opponents, despite all the odds in their favor, until he had just enough stores to withdraw his own forces. Aware that the Panzers were desperately low on fuel, Montgomery tried to cut them off at Fuqa, but failed. Then he tried to pin down the out-numbered, under-equipped Germans at Mersa Matruh, but they escaped him again. For all his efforts to capture the Afrika Korps, it continued to elude his grasp. Even so, Rommel was not strong enough to regain the initiative, as he had in the past, because only a dwindling, insufficient number of Italian freighters was now able to successfully run the Allied gauntlet of Ultra-guided anti-shipping aircraft and naval units. Although Rommel had been turned back in Egypt, through no fault of his own or his men, his withdrawal did not fundamentally alter the Afrika Korps’ raison d’art; namely, to waste the Allies’ strength, keep them away from Western Europe, and prevent them from assisting the Soviets on the ground---all at minimal cost to the Axis. Even after El Alamein, the North African Campaign would go on to fulfill this strategy. MORE Nazi Militaria

[PERSPOLIS 335]

(1) Red Symphony {p. i} RED SYMPHONY by Dr. J. Landowsky As translated by George Knupffer Christian Book Club of America P.O. Box 900566 Palmdale, CA 93590-0566 2002 {p. ii} First Printed 1968 Reprinted 2002 Printed in the U.S.A. {p. 1} RED SYMPHONY. J. Landowsky. Translator: George Knupffer. FOREWORD The material here given is a translation of Ch. XL of a book which appeared in Madrid in Spanish as "Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor," and is now past its 11th Edition, produced by Editorial E.R.S.A. under the well-known publisher Senor Don Mauricio Carlavilla, who has very kindly agreed to this English translation and publication. As soon as possible the full book of over 800 pp. will follow. The given chapter is of immense importance. It is here translated from a Russian edition as well as from the Spanish. It is a complete material on its own. The translator's own book on "The Struggle for World Power" also deals with the whole problem of super-power and global enslavement through the masters of both usury-Capitalism and terroristic Communism, which are both the tools of the same forces and serving the same purpose. The book has been published in Madrid in Spanish by Senor Carlavilla as "La Lucha por el Poder Mundial." In the present work we see this whole story brilliantly described and proved by one of the major exponents of the subversive take-over of the world, Christian G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism and also a victim of the show trials just before the last war under Stalin. This is a document of historical importance and nobody who wants to be well-informed should fail to read and recommend it. Not to know the thesis here described is to know and understand nothing concerning the chief events and prospects of our time. In the Spanish book Senor Carlavilla explains the origin of the material in question. He says: "This is the result of a painstaking translation of several copybooks found on the body of Dr. Landowsky in a hut on the Petrograd front (Leningrad) by a Spanish volunteer. "He brought them to us. In view of the condition of the manuscripts, their restoration was a long and tiring job, lasting several years. For a long time we were not sure if they could be published. So extraordinary and unbelievable were his final disclosures that we would never have dared to publish these memoirs if the persons and events mentioned had not accorded fully with the facts. "Before these reminiscences saw the light of day we prepared ourselves for proofs and polemics. We answer fully and personally for the veracity of the basic facts. "Let us see if anyone will be able to disprove them ..." Dr. Landowsky was a Russianized Pole and lived in Russia. His father, a Colonel of the Russian Imperial Army, was shot by the Bolsheviks during the 1917 revolution. The life-story of Dr. Landowsky is astonishing. He finished the Faculty of Medicine in Russia before {p. 2} the revolution and then studied two years at the Sorbonne in Paris, and he spoke fluent French. He was interested in the effects of drugs on the human organism, to help surgeons in operations. Being a talented doctor, he carried out experiments in this field and had achieved considerable results. However, after the revolution all roads were closed to him. He lived with his family in great need, earning a living by chance jobs. Not being able to publish learned papers in his own name, he permitted a more fortunate colleague to publish them in his own name. The all-seeing NKVD (secret police) became interested in these works and easily discovered the real author. His speciality was very valuable for them. One day in 1936 there was a knock at the doctor's door. He was invited to follow, and he was never again allowed to rejoin his family. He was placed in the building of the chemical laboratory of the NKVD near Moscow. He lived there and was forced to carry out various jobs given him by his masters, he was a witness at questionings, tortures and the most terrible happenings and crimes. Twice he was abroad, but always under control, as a prisoner. He knew and suffered much, especially as he was a decent and religious man. He had the courage to keep notes of what he has seen and heard, and he kept whenever possible such documents and letters as passed through his hands, hiding all this in the hollow legs of his table in the chemical laboratory. So he lived until the Second World War. How he came to Petrograd and how he was killed is not known. The document given below is an exact recorded report of the questioning of the former Ambassador in France, C.G. Rakovsky during the period of the trials of the Trotzkyists in the USSR in 1938, when he was tried together with Bukharin, Rykoff, Yagoda, Karakhan, Dr. Levin and others. Insofar as the accused Rakovsky made it clear, having in mind the sparing of his life, that he could give information about matters of very special interest, Stalin gave orders to his foreign agent to carry out the questioning. It is known that Rakovsky was sentenced to be shot, like the others, but was reprieved and given 20 years of prison. Very interesting is the description of the above mentioned agent. This was a certain René Duval (also known as Gavriil Gavriilovitch Kus'min), the son of a millionaire, very good looking and talented. He studied in France. His widowed mother adored him. But the young man was carried away by Communist propaganda and fell into the hands of their agency. They suggested that he should study in Moscow, and he gladly accepted the proposal. He passed through the severe school of the NKVD and became a foreign agent, and when he wanted to change his mind, it was too late. They do not let people out of their grip. By the exercise of will-power he reached the "heights of evil," as he called it, and enjoyed the full confidence of Stalin himself. The questioning took place in French by this agent. The doctor was present in order to put drug pills unnoticed into the glass of Rakovsky, to induce energy and a good mood. Behind the wall the conversation was registered on apparatus, and the technician who operated it did not understand French. Then Dr. Landowsky had to translate {p. 3} into Russian, with two copies, for Stalin and Gabriel. Secretly he dared to make a third carbon copy, which he hid away. * * * XL X-RAY OF REVOLUTION I returned to the laboratory. My nervous system bothered me and I prescribed myself complete rest. I am in bed almost the whole day. Here I am quite alone for already four days. Gabriel enquired about me every day. He has to reckon with my condition. At the mere thought that they could again send me to the Lubianka (Moscow HQ of the secret police) to be present at a new scene of terror I become excited and tremble. I am ashamed of belonging to the human race. How low have people fallen! How low have I fallen! * * * These lines are all I was able to write after five days following my return from the Lubianka, when trying to describe on paper the horror, and thereby interrupting the chronological order of my notes. I could not write. Only after several months, when Summer began, I was able calmly and simply to set out all that I had seen, disgusting, vicious, evil. During these past months I asked myself a thousand times the same question : "Who were the people who were anonymously present at the torture?" I strained all my intuitive and deductive capabilities. Was it Ezhov? It is possible, but I see no reason why he should have concealed himself. Officially he is responsible and the fear which made him hide does not lead to a logical explanation. Even more: if I have any reason for describing myself as a psychologist, then this fanatic, the chief of the NKVD, with signs of abnormality, would be certain to enjoy a criminal display. Such things as the expression of haughtiness in front of a humbled enemy, who had been converted into a wreck psychologically and physically, should have given him an unhealthy pleasure. I analyzed still further. The absence of prior preparation was obvious; evidently the decision to call this satanic session had been taken in a hurry. The circumstance that I had been appointed to be present was the result of a sudden agreement. If Ezhov had been able to chose the time freely, then timely preparations would have been made. And then I would not have been called; that general of the NKVD who was hardly able to come in time, for the purpose of being present at the torture, would have known about this beforehand. If this was not Ezhov, then who had decided on the time? Which other chief was able to arrange it all? However poor are my informations about the Soviet hierarchy, but above Ezhov in affairs along the line of the NKVD there is only one man - Stalin. Therefore it was he? Asking myself these questions, which arose from my deductions, I remembered yet other facts in support of my opinion. I remembered that when I looked from the window over the square a few minutes before we went down to the "spectacle" I saw how there drove across it four large identical cars; all we Soviet people know that Stalin travels in a caravan of identical machines, so that nobody would know in which he is sitting, to make attack more difficult. Was he there? ... But here I came across another mystery: according to the details which Gabriel gave me, the hidden observers were to sit behind our {p. 4} back. But there I could only see a long mirror, through which nothing could be seen. Perhaps it was transparent? I was puzzled. * * * Only seven days passed when one morning Gabriel appeared in the house. I found that he had an energetic and enthusiastic appearance and was in an optimistic mood. Yet these flashes of happiness which lit up his face at first, did not return later. It seemed as if he wanted chase away the shadows which passed over his face by increased activity and mental exertion. After lunch he told me: "We have a guest here." "Who is it" I asked. "Rakovsky, the former Ambassador in Paris." "I do not know him." "He is one of those whom I pointed out to you on that night; the former Ambassador in London and Paris ... Of course a big friend of your acquaintance Navachin ... Yes, this man is at my disposal. He is here with us; he is being well treated and looked after. You shall see him." "I, why? You know well that I am not curious about matters of this kind ... I would ask you to spare me this sight; I am still not quite well after what you had forced me to see. I cannot guarantee my nervous system and heart." "Oh, do not worry. Now we are not concerned with force. This man has already been broken. No blood, no force. It is only necessary to give him moderate doses of drugs. Here I have brought you details: they are from Levin* {footnote} who still serves us with his knowledge. Apparently there is a certain drug somewhere in the laboratory, which can work wonders." "You believe all this?" "I am speaking in symbolic form. Rakovsky is inclined to confess to everything he knows about the matter. We have already had a preliminary talk with him, and the results are not bad." "In that case why is there a need for a miraculous drug?" "You will see, doctor, you will see. This is a small safety measure, dictated by the professional experience of Levin. It will help to achieve that our man being questioned would feel optimistic and would not lose hope and faith. He can already see a chance of saving his life as a long shot. This is the first effect which we must attain. Then we must make sure that he would all the time remain in a state of the experience of the decisive happy moment, but without losing his mental capacities; more exactly, it will be necessary to stimulate and sharpen them. He must have induced in him a quite special feeling. How can one express it? More exactly a condition of enlightened stimulation." "Something like hypnosis?" "Yes, but without sleepiness." "And I must invent a drug for all this? I think you exaggerate my scientific talents. I cannot achieve it." {footnote} * Former NKVD doctor, was a co-defendant with Rakovsky at the trial. {end footnote} {p. 5} "Yes, but it is unnecessary to invent anything, doctor. As for Levin, he asserts that the problem has already been solved." "He always left me with the impression of being something of a charlatan ... " "Probably yes, but I think that the drug he has mentioned, even if it is not as effective as he claims, will still help us to achieve the necessary; after all, we need not expect a miracle. Alcohol, against our will, makes us speak nonsense. Why cannot another substance encourage us to say the reasonable truth? Apart from that, Levin had told me of previous cases, which seem to be genuine." "Why do you not want to force him to take part in this affair once more? Or will he refuse to obey?" "Oh no, he would like to. It is enough to want to save or to extend your life with the help of this or another service, for not refusing. But it is I myself who does not want to use his services. He must not hear anything of that which Rakovsky will tell me. Not he, not anyone ... "Therefore I ... " "You - that is another matter, doctor. You are a deeply decent person. But I am not Diogenes, to rush to look for another over the snowy distances of the USSR." "Thank you, but I think that my honesty ..." "Yes, doctor, yes; you say that we take advantage of your honesty for various depravities. Yes, doctor, that is so ...; but it is only so from your absurd point of view. And who is attracted to-day by absurdities? For example such an absurdity as your honesty? You always manage to lead one away towards conversation about most attractive things. But what, in fact, will take place? You must only help me to give the correct doses of Levin's drug. It would appear that in the dosage there is an invisible line which divides sleep from a state of activity, a clear condition from a befogged one, good sense from nonsense ...; there can come an artificial excessive enthusiasm." "If that is all ..." "And yet something else. Now we shall speak seriously. Study the instructions of Levin, weigh them, adapt them reasonably to the condition and strength of the prisoner. You have time for study until nightfall; you can examine Rakovsky as often as you wish. And that is all for the moment. You would not believe how terribly I want to sleep. I shall sleep a few hours. If by evening nothing extraordinary happens then I have given instructions that I am not to be called. I would advise you to have a good rest after dinner, because after that it will not be possible to sleep for a long time." We entered the vestibule. Having taken his leave from me he quickly ran up the stairs, but in the middle he halted. "Ah, doctor - he exclaimed - I had forgotten. Many thanks from Comrade Ezhov. Expect a present, perhaps even a decoration." He waved me goodbye and rapidly disappeared on the staircase landing of the top floor. * * * The notes of Levin were short, but clear and exact. I had no difficulty in finding the medicine. It was in doses of a milligram in {p. 6} tiny tablets. I made a test and, in accordance with his explanation, they dissolved very easily in water and better still in alcohol. The formula was not indicated there, and I decided later to make a detailed analysis, when I shall have the time. Undoubtedly it was some substance of the specialist Lumenstadt, that scientist of whom Levin had spoken to me during the first meeting. I did not think I would discover during analysis something unexpected or new. Probably again some base with a considerable amount of opium of a more active kind than tebain. I was well acquainted with 19 main types and some more besides. In those practical conditions in which my experiments were conducted I was satisfied with those facts which my investigations had yielded. Although my work had an altogether different direction, yet I was quite at home in the realm of hallucinatory substances. I remembered that Levin had told me of the distillation of rare types of Indian Hemp. I was bound to be dealing with opium or hashish, in order to penetrate the secret of this much praised drug. I would have been glad to have had the opportunity of coming across one or more new bases which gave rise to his "miraculous" qualities. In principle I was prepared to assume such a possibility. After all the work of investigation in conditions of unlimited time and means, while not having to reckon with economic limitations, which was possible in conditions of the NKVD, provided unlimited scientific possibilities. I flattered myself with the illusion of being able to find, as the result of these investigations, a new weapon in my scientific fight against pain. I could not give much time to the diversion of such pleasant illusions. I concentrated my thoughts in order to think how and in what proportion I shall have to give Rakovsky this drug. According to the instructions of Levin, one tablet would have to produce the desired result. He warned that if the patient had any heart weakness there could follow sleepiness and even complete lethargy, with a consequent dimming of the mind. While bearing all this in mind, I had first of all to examine Rakovsky. I did not expect to find the internal condition of his heart to be normal. If there were no damage, then surely there would be a lowering of tone as the result of the nervous experiences, as his system could not have remained unchanged after a long and terrifying torture. I put off the examination until after lunch. I wanted to consider everything, both for the case that Gabriel would want to give the drug with the knowledge of Rakovsky, as also without his knowledge. In both cases I would have to busy myself with him, insofar as I myself would have to give him the drug of which I had been told concretely. There was no need for the participation of a professional, as the drug was given by mouth. After lunch I went to visit Rakovsky. He was kept locked up in one room of the ground floor and was guarded by one man, who did not take his eyes off him. Of furniture there was only one small table, a narrow bed without ends and another small, rough table. When I entered Rakovsky was sitting. He immediately got up. He looked at me closely and I read in his face doubt and, it seemed, also fright. I think he must have recognized me, having seen me when he sat that memorable night at the side of the generals. I ordered the guard to leave and told him to bring me a chair. {p. 7} I sat down and asked the prisoner to sit. He was about 50 years old. He was a man of medium height, bald in front, with a large, fleshy nose. In youth his face was probably pleasant. His facial outlines were not typically semitic, but his origin was nevertheless clear. Once upon a time he was probably quite fat, but not now, and his skin hung everywhere, while his face and neck were like a burst balloon, with the air let out. The usual dinner at the Lubianka was apparently too strict a diet for the former Ambassador in Paris. At that moment I made no further observations. "You smoke?" I asked, opening the cigarette case, with the intention of establishing somewhat more intimate relations with him. "I gave up smoking in order to preserve my health" he replied with a very pleasant tone of voice, "but I thank you; I think I have now recovered from my stomach troubles." He smoked quietly, with restraint and not without some elegance. "I am a doctor" I introduced myself. "Yes I know that; I saw how you acted 'there' " he said with trembling voice. "I came to enquire about the state of your health. How are you ? Do you suffer from any illness?" "No, nothing." "Are you sure? What about your heart?" "Thanks to the results of enforced dieting I do not observe in myself any abnormal symptoms." "There are some which cannot be noticed by the patient himself, but only by a doctor." "I am a doctor" he interrupted me. "A doctor?" I repeated in surprise. "Yes, didn't you know?" "Nobody had told me of it. I congratulate you. I shall be very glad to be of use to a colleague and, possibly, a fellow student. Where did you study? In Moscow or Petrograd?" "Oh no! At that time I was not a Russian subject. I studied in Nancy and Montpellier; in the latter I received my doctorate." "This means that we may have studied at the same time; I did several courses in Paris. Were you French?" "I intended to become French. I was born a Bulgarian, but without asking my permission I was converted into a Rumanian. My province was Dobrudga, where I was born, and after the peace treaty it went to Rumania." "Permit me to listen to your chest" - and I put the stethoscope in my ears. He took off his torn jacket and stood up. I listened. The examination shewed nothing abnormal; as I had assumed, weakness, but without defects. "I suppose one must give food for the heart." "Only the heart, comrade?" he asked ironically. {p. 8} "I think so" I said, pretending not to have noticed the irony, "I think your diet, too, should be strengthened." "Permit me to listen to myself." "With pleasure" - and I gave him the stethoscope. He quickly listened to himself. "I had expected that my condition would be much worse. Many thanks. May I put my jacket on?" "Of course. Let us agree, then, that it is necessary to take a few drops of digitalis, don't you think?" "You consider that absolutely essential? I think that my old heart will survive the few days or months which remain to me quite well." "I think otherwise; I think that you will live much longer." "Do not upset me, colleague ... To live more! To live still longer! ... There must be instructions about the end; the court case cannot last longer... And then, then rest." And when he said this, having in mind the final rest, it seemed that his face had the expression of happiness almost. I shuddered. This wish to die, to die soon which I read in his eyes, made me faint. I wanted to cheer him up from a feeling of compassion. "You have not understood me, comrade. I wanted to say that in your case it may be decided to continue your life, but life without suffering. For what have you been brought here? Does one not treat you well now?" "The latter, yes, of course. Concerning the rest I have heard hints, but ..." I gave him another cigarette and then added: "Have hope. For my part and to the extent which my chief will allow, I shall do everything that can depend on me, to make sure that you come to no harm. I shall begin immediately by feeding you, but not excessively, bearing in mind the state of your stomach. We shall begin with a milk diet and some more substantial additions. I shall give instructions at once. You may smoke ... take some ... " and I left him everything that remained in the packet. I called the guard and ordered him to light the prisoner's cigarette whenever he wants to smoke. Then I left and before having a couple of hours rest I gave instructions that Rakovsky was to have half a litre of milk with sugar. * * * We prepared for the meeting with Rakovsky at midnight. Its "friendly" character was stressed in all the details. The room was well warmed, there was a fire in the fire-place, soft lighting, a small and well-chosen supper, good wines; all had been scientifically improvised. "As for a lovers meeting," observed Gabriel. I was to assist. My chief responsibility was to give the prisoner the drug in such a manner that he would not notice it. For this purpose the drinks had been placed as if by chance near me, and I shall have to pour out the wine. Also I would have to observe the weakening of the drug's effect, so as to give a new dose at the right moment. This was my most important job. Gabriel wants, if the experiment succeeds, to get already at the first meeting real {p. 9} progress towards the essence of the matter. He is hopeful of success. He has had a good rest and is in good condition. I am interested to know how he will struggle with Rakovsky who, it seems to me, is an opponent worthy of him. Three large arm-chairs were placed before the fire. The one nearest the door is for me, Rakovsky will sit in the middle, and in the third will be Gabriel, who had shown his optimistic mood even in his clothes, as he was wearing a white Russian shirt. It had already struck midnight when they brought the prisoner to us. He had been given decent clothes and had been well shaved. I looked at him professionally and found him to be livelier. He asks to be excused for not being able to drink more than one glass, mentioning the weakness of his stomach. I did not put the drug into this glass and regretted it. The conversation began with banalities ... Gabriel knows that Rakovsky speaks much better French than Russian and begins in that language. There are hints about the past. It is clear that Rakovsky is an expert conversationalist. His speech is exact, elegant and even decorative. He is apparently very erudite; at times he quotes easily and always accurately. Sometimes he hints at his many escapes, at exile, about Lenin, Plekhanov, Luxemburg, and he even said that when he was a boy he had shaken the hand of the old Engels. We drink whisky. After Gabriel had given him the opportunity of speaking for about half an hour, I asked as if by chance: "Should I add more soda water?" "Yes, add enough" he replied absentmindedly. I manipulated the drink and dropped a tablet into it, which I had been holding from the very beginning. First I gave Gabriel some whisky, letting him know by a sign that the job had been done. I gave Rakovsky his glass and then began to drink mine. He sipped it with pleasure. "I am a small cad" I told myself. But this was a passing thought and it dissolved in the pleasant fire in the fire-place. Before Gabriel came to the main theme, the talk had been long and interesting. I had been fortunate in obtaining a document which reproduces better than a shorthand note all that had been discussed between Gabriel and Rakovsky. Here it is: INFORMATION THE QUESTIONING OF THE ACCUSED CHRISTIAN GEORGIEVITCH RAKOVSKY BY GAVRIIL GAVRIILOVITCH KUS'MIN ON THE 26TH JANUARY, 1938. Gavriil G. Kus'min. In accordance with our agreement at the Lubianka, I had appealed for a last chance for you; your presence in this house indicates that I had succeeded in this. Let us see if you will not deceive us. Christian G. Rakovsky. I do not wish and shall not do that. G. - But first of all: a well-meant warning. Now we are concerned with the real truth. Not the "official" truth, that which is to figure at the trial in the light of the confessions of the accused ... This is something which, as you know, is fully subject to practical considerations, or "considerations of State" as they would say in the West. The {p. 10} demands of international politics will force us to hide the whole truth, the "real truth" ... Whatever may be the course of the trial, but governments and peoples will only be told that which they should know. But he who must know everything, Stalin, must also know all this. Therefore, whatever may be your words here they cannot make your position worse. You must know that they will not worsen your crime but, on the contrary, they can give the desired results in your favour. You will be able to save your life, which at this moment is already lost. So now I have told you this, but now let us see: you will all admit that you are Hitler's spies and receive wages from the Gestapo and OKW* {footnote}. Is that not so? R. - Yes. G. - And you are Hitler's spies? R. - Yes. G. - No, Rakovsky, no. Tell the real truth, but not the court proceedings one. R. - We are not spies of Hitler, we hate Hitler as you can hate him, as Stalin can hate him; perhaps even more so, but this is a very complex question. G. - I shall help you ... By chance I also know one or two things. You, the Trotzkyists, had contacts with the German Staff. Is that not so ? R. - Yes. G. - From which period? R. - I do not know the exact date, but soon after the fall of Trotzky. Of course before Hitler's coming to power. G. - Therefore let us be exact: you were neither personal spies of Hitler, nor of his regime. R. - Exactly. We were such already earlier. G. - And for what purpose? With the aim of giving Germany victory and some Russian territories? R. - No, in no case. G. - Therefore as ordinary spies, for money? R. - For money? Nobody received a single Mark from Germany. Hitler has not enough money to buy, for example, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, who has at his disposal freely a budget which is greater than the total wealth of Morgan and Vanderbilt, and who does not have to account for his use of the money. G. - Well, then for what reason? R. - May I speak quite freely? G. - Yes, I ask you to do so; for that reason you have been invited. R. - Did not Lenin have higher aims when he received help from Germany in order to enter Russia? And is it necessary to accept as true those libellous inventions which had been circulated to accuse him? Was he not also called a spy of the Kaiser? His relations with the Emperor and the German intervention in the affair of the sending to Russia of the Bolshevik destroyers are quite clear. {footnote} * OKW - Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Supreme Command of the German Army - Transl. {end footnote} {p. 11} G. - Whether it is true or not does not have any bearing on the present question. R. - No, permit me to finish. Is it not a fact that the activity of Lenin was in the beginning advantageous to the German troops? Permit me ... There was the separate peace of Brest-Litovsk, at which huge territories of the USSR were ceded to Germany. Who had declared defeatism as a weapon of the Bolsheviks in 1913? Lenin. I know by heart his words from his letter to Gorky: "War between Austria and Russia would be a most useful thing for the revolution, but it is hardly possible that Francis-Joseph and Nicholas would present us with this opportunity." As you see, we, the so-called Trotzkyists, the inventors of the defeat in 1905, continue at the present stage the same line, the line of Lenin. G. - With a small difference, Rakovsky; at present there is Socialism in the USSR, not the Tsar. R. - You believe that? G. - What? R. - In the existence of Socialism in the USSR? G. - Is the Soviet Union not Socialist? R. - For me only in name. It is just here that we find the true reason for the opposition. Agree with me, and by the force of pure logic you must agree, that theoretically, rationally, we have the same right to say - no, as Stalin can say - yes. And if for the triumph of Communism defeatism can be justified, then he who considers that Communism has been destroyed by the bonapartism of Stalin and that he betrayed it, has the same right as Lenin to become a defeatist. G. - I think, Rakovsky, that you are theorizing thanks to your manner of making wide use of dialectics. It is clear that if many people were present here, I would prove this; all right, I accept your argument as the only one possible in your position, but nevertheless I think that I could prove to you that this is nothing other than a sophism. But let us postpone this for another occasion; some day it will come. And I hope that you will give me the chance to reply. But at the present moment I shall only say this: if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its object the restoration of Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism, then, insofar as we have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the enthronement of some Führer or fascist Tsar. Is that not so? R. - It is true. Without flattery on my part - your deduction is splendid. G. - Well, if, as I assume, you assert this sincerely, then we have achieved a great deal: I am a Stalinist and you a Trotzkyist; we have achieved the impossible. We have reached the point at which our views coincide. The coincidence lies in that at the present moment the USSR must not be destroyed. R. - I must confess that I had not expected to face such a clever person. In fact at the present stage and for some years we cannot think of the defeat of the USSR and to provoke it, as it is known that we are at present in such a position, that we can not seize power. We, the Communists, would derive no profit from it. This is exact and coincides {p. 12} with your view. We can not be interested now in the collapse of the Stalinist State; I say this and at the same time I assert that this State, apart from all that has been said, is anti-Communistic. You see that I am sincere. G. - I see that. This is the only way in which we can come to terms. I would ask you, before you continue, to explain to me that which seems to me a contradiction: if the Soviet State is anti-Communistic to you, then why should you not wish its destruction at the given moment? Someone else might be less anti-Communistic and then there would be fewer obstacles to the restoration of your pure Communism. R. - No, no, this deduction is too simple. Although the Stalinist bonapartism also opposes Communism as the napoleonic one opposed the revolution, but the circumstance is clear that, nevertheless, the USSR continues to preserve its Communistic form and dogma; this is formal and not real Communism. And thus, like the disappearance of Trotzky gave Stalin the possibility automatically to transform real Communism into the formal one, so also the disappearance of Stalin will allow us to transform his formal Communism into a real one. One hour would suffice for us. Have you understood me? G. - Yes, of course; you have told us the classical truth that nobody destroys that which he wants to inherit. Well, all right; all else is sophistical agility. You rely on the assumption which can be easily disproved: the assumption of Stalin's anti-Communism. Is there private property in the USSR? Is there personal profit? Classes? I shall not continue to base myself on facts - for what? R. - I have already agreed that there exists formal Communism. All that you enumerate are merely forms. G. - Yes? For what purpose? From mere obstinacy? R. - Of course not. This is a necessity. It is impossible to eliminate the materialistic evolution of history. The most that can be done is to hold it up. And at what a price? At the cost of its theoretical acceptance, in order to destroy it in practice. The force which draws humanity towards Communism is so unconquerable that that same force, but distorted, opposed to itself, can only achieve a slowing down of development; more accurately - to slow down the progress of the permanent revolution. G. - An example? R. - The most obvious - with Hitler. He needed Socialism for victory over Socialism: it is this his very anti-Socialist Socialism which is National-Socialism. Stalin needs Communism in order to defeat Communism. The parallel is obvious. But, notwithstanding Hitler's anti-Socialism and Stalin's anti-Communism, both, to their regret and against their will, transcendentally create Socialism and Communism ...; they and many others. Whether they want it or not, whether they know it or not, but they create formal Socialism and Communism, which we, the Communist-Marxists, must inevitably inherit. G. - Inheritance? Who inherits? Trotzkyism is completely liquidated. R. - Although you say so, you do not believe it. However great may be the liquidations, we Communists will survive them. The long arm of {p. 13} Stalin and his police cannot reach all Communists. G. - Rakovsky, I ask you, and if necessary command, to refrain from offensive hints. Do not go too far in taking advantage of your "diplomatic immunity." R. - Do I have credentials? Whose ambassador am I? G. - Precisely of that unreachable Trotzkyism, if we agree to call him so. R. - I cannot be a diplomat of Trotzkyism, of which you hint. I have not been given that right to represent it, and I have not taken this role on myself. You have given it to me. G. - I begin to trust you. I take note in your favour that at my hint about this Trotzkyism you did not deny it. This is already a good beginning. R. - But how can I deny it? After all, I myself mentioned it. G. - Insofar as we have recognized the existence of this special Trotzkyism by our mutual arrangement, I want you to give definite facts, which are necessary for the investigation of the given coincidence. R. - Yes, I shall be able to mention that which you consider necessary to know and I shall do it on my own initiative, but I shall not be able to assert that this is always the thinking also of "Them." G. - Yes, I shall look on it like that. R. - We agreed that at the present moment the opposition cannot be interested in defeatism and the fall of Stalin, insofar as we do not have the physical possibility of taking his place. This is what we both agree. At present this is an incontrovertible fact. However, there is in existence a possible aggressor. There he is, that great nihilist Hitler, who is aiming with his terrible weapon of the Wehrmacht at the whole horizon. Whether we want it or not, but he will use it against the USSR? Let us agree that for us this is the decisive unknown fact or, do you consider that the problem has been correctly stated? G. - It has been well put. But I can say that for me there is no unknown factor. I consider the attack of Hitler on the USSR to be inevitable. R. - Why? G. - Very simple; because he who controls it is inclined towards attack. Hitler is only the condottiere of international Capitalism. R. - I agree that there is a danger, but from that to the assumption on this ground of the inevitability of his attack on the USSR - there is a whole abyss. G. - The attack on the USSR is determined by the very essence of Fascism. In addition he is impelled towards it by all those Capitalist States which had allowed him to re-arm and to take all the necessary economic and strategical bases. This is quite obvious. R. - You forget something very important. The re-armament of Hitler and the assistance he received at the present time from the Versailles nations (take good note of this) - were received by him during a special period, when we could still have become the heirs of Stalin in the case of his defeat, when the opposition still existed ... Do you consider this fact to be a matter of chance or only a coincidence in time? {p. 14} G. - I do not see any connexion between the permission of the Versailles Powers of German re-armament and the existence of the opposition ... The trajectory of Hitlerism is in itself clear and logical. The attack on the USSR was part of his programme already a long time ago.The destruction of Communism and expansion in the East - these are dogmas from the book "Mein Kampf," that Talmud of National-Socialism ..., but that your defeatists wanted to take advantage of this threat to the USSR that is, of course, in accordance with your train of thought. R. - Yes, at a first glance this appears to be natural and logical, too logical and natural for the truth. G. - To prevent this happening, so that Hitler would not attack us, we would have to entrust ourselves to an alliance with France ..., but that would be a naivete. It would mean that we believe that Capitalism would be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of saving Communism. R. - If we shall continue the discussion only on the foundation of those conceptions which apply for use at mass meetings, then you are quite right. But if you are sincere in saying this then, forgive me, I am disappointed; I had thought that the politics of the famous Stalinist police stand on a higher level. G. - The Hitlerist attack on the USSR is, in addition, a dialectical necessity; it is the same as the inevitable struggle of the classes in the international plane. At the side of Hitler, inevitably, there will stand the whole global Capitalism. R. - And so, believe me, that in the light of your scholastic dialectics, I have formed a very negative opinion about the political culture of Stalinism. I listen to your words as Einstein could listen to a schoolboy talking about physics in four dimensions. I see that you are only acquainted with elementary Marxism, i.e. with the demagogic, popular one. G. - If your explanation will not be too long and involved, I should be grateful to you for some explanation of this "relativity" or "quantum" of Marxism. R. - Here there is no irony; I am speaking with the best intentions ... In this same elementary Marxism, which is taught even in your Stalinist University, you can find the statement which contradicts the whole of your thesis about the inevitability of the Hitlerist attack on the USSR. You are also taught that the cornerstone of Marxism is the assertion that, supposedly, contradictions are the incurable and fatal illness of Capitalism ... Is that not so? G. - Yes, of course. R. - But if things are in fact such that we accuse Capitalism of being imbued with continuous Capitalistic contradictions in the sphere of economics, then why should it necessarily suffer from them also in politics? The political and economic is of no importance in itself; this is a condition or measurement of the social essence, but contradictions arise in the social sphere, and are reflected simultaneously in the economic or political ones, or in both at the same time. It would be absurd to assume fallibility in economics and simultaneously infallibility in {p. 15} politics - which is something essential in order that an attack on the USSR should become inevitable - according to your postulate - absolutely essential. G. - This means that you rely in everything on the contradictions, fatality and inevitability of the errors which must be committed by the bourgeoisie, which will hinder Hitler from attacking the USSR. I am a Marxist, Rakovsky, but here, between ourselves, in order not to provide the pretext for anger to a single activist, I say to you that with all my faith in Marx I would not believe that the USSR exists thanks to the mistakes of its enemies ... And I think that Stalin shares the same view. R. - But I do think so ... Do not look at me like that, as I am not joking and am not mad. G. - Permit me at least to doubt it, until you will have proved your assertions. R. - Do you now see that I had reasons for qualifying your Marxist culture as being doubtful? Your arguments and reactions are the same as any rank and file activist. G. - And they are wrong? R. - Yes, they are correct for a small administrator, for a bureaucrat and for the mass. They suit the average fighter ... They must believe this and repeat everything as it has been written. Listen to me by way of the completely confidential. With Marxism you get the same results as with the ancient esoteric religions. Their adherents had to know only that which was the most elementary and crude, insofar as by this one provoked their faith, i.e. that which is absolutely essential, both in religion and in the work of revolution. G. - Do you not now want to open up to me the mystical Marxism, something like yet another freemasonry? R. - No, no esoterics. On the contrary, I shall explain it with the maximal clarity. Marxism, before being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the revolution. And as for us the revolution is the only absolute reality, it follows that philosophy, economics and politics are true only insofar as they lead to revolution. The fundamental truth (let us call it subjective) does not exist in economics, politics or even morals: in the light of scientific abstraction it is either truth or error, but for us, who are subject to revolutionary dialectic, it is only truth. And insofar as to us, who are subject to revolutionary dialectic, it is only truth, and therefore the sole truth, then it must be such for all that is revolutionary, and such it was to Marx. In accordance with this we must act. Remember the phrase of Lenin, in reply to someone who demonstrated by way of argument that, supposedly, his intention contradicted reality: "I feel it to be real" was his answer. Do you not think that Lenin spoke nonsense? No, for him every reality; every truth was relative in the face of the sole and absolute one: the revolution. Marx was a genius. If his works had amounted to only the deep criticism of Capitalism, then even that would have been an unsurpassed scientific work; but in those places where his writing reaches the level of mastery, there comes the effect of an apparently ironical work. "Communism" he says "must win because Capital will give it that victory, though its enemy." Such is the magisterial thesis of Marx ... {p. 16} Can there be a greater irony? And then, in order that he should be believed, it was enough for him to depersonalize Capitalism and Communism, having transformed the human individual into a consciously thinking individual, which he did with the extraordinary talent of a juggler. Such was his sly method, in order to demonstrate to the Capitalists that they are a reality of Capitalism and that Communism can triumph as the result of inborn idiocy; since without the presence of immortal idiocy in homo economico there could not appear in him continuous contradictions as proclaimed by Marx. To be able to achieve the transformation of homo sapiens into homo stultum is to possess magical force, capable of bringing man down to the first stage of the zoological ladder, i.e. to the level of the animal. Only if there is homo stultum in the epoch of the apogee of Capitalism could Marx formulate his axiomatic proposition: contradictions plus time equal Communism. Believe me, when we who are initiated into this, contemplate the representation of Marx, for example the one which is placed above the main entrance to the Lubianka, then we cannot prevent the inner explosion of laughter by which Marx had infected us; we see how he laughs into his beard at all humanity. G. - And you are still capable of laughing at the most revered scientist of the epoch? R. - Ridicule, me? ... This is the highest admiration! In order that Marx should be able to deceive so many people of science, it was essential that he should tower above them all. Well: in order to have judgements about Marx in all his greatness, we must consider the real Marx, Marx the revolutionary, Marx, judged by his manifesto. This means Marx the conspirator, as during his life the revolution was in a condition of conspiracy. It is not for nothing that the revolution is indebted for its development and its recent victories to these conspirators. G. - Therefore you deny the existence of the dialectical process of contradictions in Capitalism, which lead to the final triumph of Communism? R. - You can be sure that if Marx believed that Communism will achieve victory only thanks to the contradictions in Capitalism, then he would not have once, never, mentioned the contradictions on the thousands of pages of his scientific revolutionary work. Such was the categorical imperative of the realistic nature of Marx: not the scientific, but the revolutionary one. The revolutionary and conspirator will never disclose to his opponent the secret of his triumph ... He would never give the information; he would give him disinformation which you use in counter-conspiracy. Is that not so? G. - However, in the end we have reached the conclusion (according to you) that there are no contradictions in Capitalism, and if Marx speaks of them then it is only a revolutionary-strategical method. That is so? But the colossal and ever-growing contradictions in Capitalism are there to see. And so we get the conclusion that Marx, having lied, spoke the truth. R. - You are dangerous as a dialectician, when you destroy the brakes of scholastic dogmatism and give free rein to your own inventiveness. So it is, that Marx spoke the truth when he lied. He lied when he led into error, having defined the contradictions as being "continuous" in the history of the economics of capital and called them "natural and {p. 17} inevitable," but at the same time he stated the truth because he knew that the contradictions would be created and would grow in an increasing progression until they reach their apogee. G. - This means that with you there is an antithesis? R. - There is no antithesis here. Marx deceives for tactical reasons about the origin of the contradictions in Capitalism, but not about their obvious reality. Marx knew how they were created, how they became more acute and how things went towards general anarchy in Capitalistic production, which came before the triumph of the Communist revolution ... He knew it would happen because he knew those who created the contradictions. G. - It is a very strange revelation and piece of news, this assertion and exposal of the circumstance that that which leads Capitalism to its "suicide," by the well-chosen expression of the bourgeois economist Schmalenbach, in support of Marx, is not the essence and inborn law of Capitalism. But I am interested to know if we will reach the personal by this path? R. - Have you not felt this intuitively? Have you not noticed how in Marx words contradict deeds? He declares the necessity and inevitability of Capitalist contradictions, proving the existence of surplus value and accumulation, i.e. he proves that which really exists. He nimbly invents the proposition that to a greater concentration of the means of production corresponds a greater mass of the proletariat, a greater force for the building of Communism, is that not so? Now go on: at the same time as this assertion he founds the International. Yet the International is, in the work of the daily struggle of the classes, a "reformist," i.e. an organization whose purpose is the limitation of the surplus value and, where possible, its elimination. For this reason, objectively, the International is a counter-revolutionary organization and anti-Communist, in accordance with Marx's theory. G. - Now we get that Marx is a counter-revolutionary and an anti-Communist. R. - Well, now you see how one can make use of the original Marxist culture. It is only possible to describe the International as being counter-revolutionary and anti-Communist, with logical and scientific exactness, if one does not see in the facts anything more than the directly visible result, and in the texts only the letter. One comes to such absurd conclusions, while they seem to be obvious, when one forgets that words and facts in Marxism are subject to strict rules of the higher science: the rules of conspiracy and revolution. G. - Will we ever reach the final conclusions? R. - In a moment. If the class struggle, in the economic sphere, turns out to be reformist in the light of its first results, and for that reason contradicts the theoretical presuppositions, which determine the establishment of Communism, then it is, in its real and true meaning, purely revolutionary. But I repeat again: it is subject to the rules of conspiracy, that means to masking and the hiding of its true aims ... The limitation of the surplus value and thus also of accumulations as the consequence of the class struggle - that is only a matter of appearances, an illusion, in order to stimulate the basic revolutionary movement in the masses. A strike is already an attempt at revolutionary mobiliz- {p. 18} ation. Independently of whether it wins or not, its economic effect is anarchical. As a result this method for the improvement of the economic position of one class brings about the impoverishment of the economy in general; whatever may be the scale and results of the strike, it will always bring about a reduction of production. The general result: more poverty, which the working class cannot shake off. That is already something. But that is not the only result and not the most important one. As we know, the only aim of any struggle in the economic sphere is to earn more and work less. Such is the economic absurdity, but according to our terminology, such is the contradiction, which has not been noticed by the masses, which are blinded at any given moment by a rise in wages, which is at once annulled by a rise in prices. And if prices are limited by governmental action, then the same thing happens, i.e. a contradiction between the wish to spend more, produce less, is qualified here by monetary inflation. And so one gets a vicious circle: a strike, hunger, inflation, hunger. G. - With the exception when the strike takes place at the expense of the surplus value of Capitalism. R. - Theory, pure theory. Speaking between ourselves, take any annual handbook concerning the economics of any country and divide rents and the total income by all those receiving wages or salaries, and you will see what an extraordinary result emerges. This result is the most counter-revolutionary fact, and we must keep it a complete secret. This is because if you deduct from the theoretical dividend the salaries and expenses of the directors, which would be the consequence on the abolition of ownership, then almost always there remains a dividend which is a debit for the proletariat. In reality always a debit, if we also consider the reduction in the volume and quality of production. As you will now see, a call to strike, as a means for achieving a quick improvement of the well-being of the proletariat is only an excuse; an excuse required in order to force it to commit sabotage of Capitalistic production. Thus to the contradictions in the bourgeois system are added contradictions within the proletariat; this is the double weapon of the revolution, and it - which is obvious - does not arise of itself: there exists an organization, chiefs, discipline, and above that there exists stupidity. Don't you suspect that the much-mentioned contradictions of Capitalism, and in particular the financial ones, are also organized by someone? ... By way of basis for these deductions I shall remind you that in its economic struggle the proletarian International coincides with the financial International, since both produce inflation, and wherever there is coincidence there, one should assume, is also agreement. Those are his own words. G. - I suspect here such an enormous absurdity, or the intention of spinning a new paradox, that I do not want to imagine this. It looks as if you want to hint at the existence of something like a Capitalistic second Communist International, of course an enemy one. R. - Exactly so. When I spoke of the financial International, I thought of it as of a Comintern, but having admitted the existence of the "Comintern," I would not say that they are enemies. G. - If you want to make us lose time on inventions and phantasies, I must tell you that you have chosen the wrong moment. R. - By the way, are you assuming that I am like the courtesan from {p. 19} the "Arabian Nights," who used her imagination at night to save her life ... No, if you think that I am departing from the theme, then you are wrong. In order to reach that which we have taken as our aim I, if I am not to fail, must first of all enlighten you about the most important matters, while bearing in mind your general lack of acquaintance with that which I would call the "Higher Marxism." I dare not evade these explanations as I know well that such lack of knowledge exists in the Kremlin ... Permit me to continue. G. - You may continue. But it is true that if all this were to be seen to be only a loss of time to excite the imagination, then this amusement will have a very sad epilogue. I have warned you. R. - I continue as if I have heard nothing. Insofar as you are a scholastic with relation to Capital, and I want to awaken your inductive talents, I shall remind you of some very curious things. Notice with what penetration Marx comes to conclusions given the then existence of early British industry, concerning its consequences, i.e. the contemporary colossal industry: how he analyses it and criticizes; what a repulsive picture he gives of the manufacturer. In your imagination and that of the masses there arises the terrible picture of Capitalism in its human concretization: a fat-bellied manufacturer with a cigar in his mouth, as described by Marx, with self-satisfaction and anger throwing the wife and daughter of the worker onto the street. Is that not so? At the same time remember the moderation of Marx and his bourgeois orthodoxy when studying the question of money. In the problem of money there do not appear with him his famous contradictions. Finances do not exist for him as a thing of importance in itself; trade and the circulation of moneys are the results of the cursed system of Capitalistic production, which subjects them to itself and fully determines them. In the question of money Marx is a reactionary; to one's immense surprise he was one; bear in mind the "five-pointed star" like the Soviet one, which shines all over Europe, the star composed of the five Rothschild brothers with their banks, who possess colossal accumulations of wealth, the greatest ever known ... And so this fact, so colossal that it misled the imagination of the people of that epoch, passes unnoticed with Marx. Something strange ... Is that not so? It is possible that from this strange blindness of Marx there arises a phenomenon which is common to all future social revolutions. It is this: we can all confirm that when the masses take possession of a city or a country, then they always seem struck by a sort of superstitious fear of the banks and bankers. One had killed Kings, generals, bishops, policemen, priests and other representatives of the hated privileged classes; one robbed and burnt palaces, churches and even centres of science, but though the revolutions were economic-social, the lives of the bankers were respected, and as a result the magnificent buildings of the banks remained untouched ... According to my information, before I had been arrested, this continues even now ... G. - Where? R. - In Spain ... Don't you know it? As you ask me, so tell me now: Do you not find all this very strange? Think, the police ... I do not know, have you paid attention to the strange similarity which exists between the financial International and the proletarian International. I would say that one is the other side of the other, and the back side is the proletarian one as being more modern than the financial. {p. 20} G. - Where do you see similarity in things so opposed? R. - Objectively they are identical. As I had proved, the Comintern, paralleled, doubled by the reformist movement and the whole of syndicalism, calls forth the anarchy of production, inflation, poverty and hopelessness in the masses. Finances, chiefly the financial international, doubled, consciously or unconsciously by private finances, create the same contradictions, but in still greater numbers ... Now we can already guess the reasons why Marx concealed the financial contradictions, which could not have remained hidden from his penetrating gaze, if finances had not had an ally, the influence of which - objectively revolutionary - was already then extraordinarily important. G. - An unconscious coincidence, but not an alliance which presupposes intelligence, will and agreement ... R. - Let us leave this point of view if you like. Now let us better go over to the subjective analysis of finances and even more: let us see what sort of people personally are at work there. The international essence of money is well known. From this fact emerges that the organization which owns them and accumulates them is a cosmopolitan organization. Finances in their apogee - as an aim in themselves, the financial International - deny and do not recognise anything national, they do not recognize the State; and therefore it is anarchical and would be absolutely anarchical if it - the denier of any national State - were not itself, by necessity, a State in its own basic essence. The State as such is only power. And money is exclusively power. This communistic super-state, which we are creating already during a whole century, and the scheme of which is the International of Marx. Analyse it and you will see its essence. The scheme of the International and its prototype of the USSR - that is also pure power. The basic similarity between the two creations is absolute. It is something fatalistic, inevitable, since the personalities of the authors of both was identical. The financier is just as international as the Communist. Both, with the help of differing pretexts and differing means, struggle with the national bourgeois State and deny it. Marxism in order to change it into a Communist State; from this comes that the Marxist must be an internationalist: the financier denies the bourgeois national State and his denial ends in itself; in fact he does not manifest himself as an internationalist, but as a cosmopolitan anarchist ... That is his appearance at the given stage, but let us see what he really is and what he wants to be. As you see, in rejection there is a clear similarity individually between Communist-internationalists and financial-cosmopolitans; as a natural result there is the same similarity between the Communist International and the financial International... G. - This is a chance similarity subjectively and objective in contradictions, but one easily eroded and having little significance and that which is most radical and existing in reality. R. - Allow me not to reply just now, so as not to interrupt the logical sequence ... I only want to decipher the basic axiom: money is power. Money is today the centre of global gravity. I hope you agree with me? G. - Continue, Rakovsky, I beg of you. R. - The understanding of how the financial International has gradually, right up to our epoch, become the master of money, this {p. 21} magical talisman, which has become for people that which God and the nation had been formerly, is something which exceeds in scientific interest even the art of revolutionary strategy, since this is also an art and also a revolution. I shall explain it to you. Historiographers and the masses, blinded by the shouts and the pomp of the French revolution, the people, intoxicated by the fact that it had succeeded in taking all power from the King and the privileged classes, did not notice how a small group of mysterious, careful and insignificant people had taken possession of the real Royal power, the magical power, almost divine, which it obtained almost without knowing it. The masses did not notice that the power had been seized by others and that soon they had subjected them to a slavery more cruel than the King, since the latter, in view of his religious and moral prejudices, was incapable of taking advantage of such a power. So it came about that the supreme Royal power was taken over by persons, whose moral, intellectual and cosmopolitan qualities did allow them to use it. It is clear that this were people who had never been Christians, but cosmopolitans. G. - What is that for a mythical power which they had obtained? R. - They had acquired for themselves the real privilege of coining money ... Do not smile, otherwise I shall have to believe that you do not know what moneys are ... I ask you to put yourself in my place. My position in relation to you is that of the assistant of a doctor, who would have to explain bacteriology to a resurrected medical man of the epoch before Pasteur. But I ca

[guderian 1]

با تشكر فراوان از آقاي mostafa-by گرامي متاسفانه ما در جهاني زندگي مي كنيم كه از ابتداي خلقت بشر رنگ آرامش و خوشبختي به خود نديده است. آري ،‌ چه زيبا بود اگر ما در جهاني پر از صلح و آرامش و شادي مي زيستم و چيزي به اسم اتوپيا ( آرمان شهر )يك رويا نبود. ولي با كمال تاسف گردش دوران ها ثابت كرده كه در اكثريت ابناي بشر غرايز حيواني بر وجدان و معرفت غلبه دارد و با آنكه 124 هزار پيامبر در اصلاح وضع كوشيدند تنها عده اندكي راه درست را پيدا كردند. خداوند متعال خود نيز در قرآن مي فرمايد كه بندگان واقعي ام بسيار اندكند. من نيز مانند شما به وجدان و عقل ايمان دارم، ولي بايد پذيرفت كه روال كلي جهان آن است كه در كنار خير، شر نيز وجود دارد و اگر چنين نبود ديگر حق و باطل معنايي نداشت و قيامت و بهشت و جهنم بي معنا مي نمود. قدرت بسيار وسوسه گر است، براي مثال همين فيدل كاسترو يار قديمي چه گوارا، كه زماني اسطوره آزادي ملت هاي محروم تلقي مي شد پس از مدتي وعده هايش در مورد انتخابات و جامعه باز را فراموش كرد و اكنون پس از چهل و اندي سال حكومت هنوز بر كرسي رهبري كوبا تكيه زده و خود و برادرش رائول حاضر به واگذار كردن جايگاه خود به جوان ترها نيستند. چه رسد به حاكم جاه طلبي مثل هيتلر ‌، وقتي او قدرت نظامي خود را عظيم يافت كاملا عادي بود كه خود را همپاي چنگيز خان و ناپلئون ببيند و به فكر كشورگشايي بيفتد. من هرگز نازي ها را تبرئه نمي كنم ولي متفقين را نيز از آنها بهتر نمي دانم. توازن قوا هم بهانه اي است كه قدرت هاي بزرگ براي حفظ قدرت خود تدارك ديده اند ، وگرنه با اين حرف ها كه ايشان مي زنند ،‌از اول خلقت بشر تا كنون همان قدرتي سرپا مي ماند كه از ابتداي تاريخ وجود داشته است و چيزي به نام فاتحان بزرگ و افول و سقوط قدرت ها وجود نداشت. با همين بهانه است كه امروزه كشور اسراييل را تجهيز مي كنند. باز هم مي گويم كه قدرت گيري حزب نازي مرهون نا اميدي و سرخوردگي ملت آلمان از شكست هايش بوده است مي توانيد ميزان كرسيهاي اين حزب در رايشتاگ ( پارلمان آلمان) را قبل و بعد از ركود اقتصادي مشهور سال 1929 مقايسه كنيد. در مورد يهوديان: خاندان ابرثروتمند و اشرافي روچيلد كه شاخه هايش در سراسر اروپا وجود داشت،‌ چون دوستان خوبي در ميان آنگلوساكسونها يافته بود، حامي و پشتيبان مالي و تبليغاتي ايشان محسوب مي شد . مي توانيد با مراجعه به كتب تاريخي حتي دخالت ايشان در دوران جنگهاي ناپلئوني را ببينيد. افرادي از جمله لرد نورثكليف ( صاحب امتياز مشهور و ثروتمند مطبوعات بريتانيا) و وينستون چرچيل كه در دوران جنگ اول جهاني و چندي قبل از آن وزير درياداري انگلستان ( و مشوق اصلي آن كشور به استفاده از نفت در صنايع و در نتيجه نفوذ بيشتر در خاورميانه) بود جو ضد آلماني عجيبي را به وسيله مطبوعات در ميان مردم انگلستان رواج دادند ‌، زيرا چشم ديدن كشوري قدرتمند در خاك اصلي اروپا( امپراتوري آلمان) را نداشتند. كوچ دادن يهوديان به فلسطين هم نقشه مشترك آنگلوساكسونها و سرمايه داران يهود براي حفظ قدرت در خاورميانه و بلعيدن دلارهاي نفتي كشورهاي خاورميانه اي در برابر فروش اسلحه(‌‌ صد البته با حفظ برتري نظامي اسراييل) بود. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ دوست عزيز ، آقاي PERSPOLIS ، لطفا فارسي بنويسيد تا متوجه شويم.

[mostafa_by 5,726]

ممنون از نظرات آقا ساشاي عزيز. همچنين از پرسپوليس عزيز كه متأسفانه اينقدر مطلبشون طولاني بود كه حتي اگه زبون مادري‌ام هم انگليسي بود، نمي‌شد حالا حالاها اين متن رو تموم كرد (هرچي اسكرول مي‌خورد، مگه تموم مي‌شد icon_frown ). ------------------------------------------------- همچنين ممنون از نظرات دوست خوبم guderian. مي‌شه گفت تقريباً با همه‌ي حرف‌هاي شما موافقم. مسلماً توازن قدرت، بحثي است كه تنها ابرقدرت‌ها، براي حفظ و بقاي بيشتر حكومت ننگين خودشون بوجود ميارن! اين امر، تنها به يك منظور بوده! اگه ابرقدرت‌ها بخوان قدرتشون رو عليه همديگه به كار بگيرن، همه‌شون دير يا زود نابود مي‌شن و جاي خودشون رو به ديگر كشورها مي‌دن. به همين دليل هم هست كه همواره سعي كردن در كنار هم، هرچقدر هم كه دشمن خوني هم باشن، با صلح و صفا زندگي كنن! درست مثل امريكا و شوروي كه در زمان جنگ سرد، تنها كشورهايي كه از اين نبرد آسيب نديدن، خود امريكا و شوروي بود!! متأسفانه، همون‌طور كه شما هم فرمودين، قدرت بسيار وسوسه كننده هست! شايد چه‌گوارا، بيشتر يه ديوانه بود! چرا كه كسي بود كه قدرت رو رها كرد و رفت تو كنگو و بوليوي، براي آزادي ساير ملل جنگيد و آخر سر هم جونش رو در اين راه فدا كرد! وجود همچين آدمي، تو همچين قرني، شايد بشه گفت بيشتر شبيه به يه معجزه بوده! ولي حداقل با اين كارش، تبديل به افسانه‌اي شد كه نشون داد انسان‌ها، مي‌تونن انسان باقي بمونن! فقط بايد خودشون بخوان! درمورد حزب نازي، شما صحيح مي‌فرمايين. اما تشكيل حزب نازي رو بايد در دو برهه‌ي زماني ملاحظه بفرمايين. اولي‌اش، قبل از كودتاي نافرجام هيتلر و زنداني شدن و غيرقانوني شدن فعاليت‌هاي حزب نازي بود و دومي، بعد از تلاش مجدد هيتلر و قول به صدر اعظم و رئيس جمهور آلمان، مبني بر صلح‌آميز و صادقانه شدن رفتارهاي حزب نازي! اما در كل، تندروي‌هاي حزب نازي، به مزاق اون موقع ملت آلمان، خيلي خوش ميومد. دليلش هم اين بود كه خيال مي‌كردن كه اين حزب، دوباره داره حيثيت لكه‌دار شده‌ي آلماني، پس از جنگ جهاني رو دوباره زنده مي‌كنه و آبروي ملت آلمان هست. شايد اگه جنگ‌ دوم جهاني رخ نمي‌داد، آلماني‌ها خيلي زود متوجه مي‌شدن كه ناسيوناليسم شديد و سعي در اعاده‌ي حيثيت، به تنهايي براي كشورداري كافي نيست! تمام تلاش هيتلر براي تصاحب صندلي‌هاي رايشتاگ توسط اعضاي حزب نازي هم دقيقاً امري بود كه در سال 1933 (اواخر‌) و 1934 اتفاق افتاد! يعني كسب تمام قدرت توسط هيتلر و كنترل تمام امور. ملت آلمان، خودشون حزب نازي رو پذيرفتن. خودشون بزرگش كردن و متأسفانه دود فعاليت‌هاي اين حزب هم نهايتاً تو چشم خودشون رفت! اما اشاره‌هاي بسيار خوبي به روچليدها كردين. همچنين به خاندان چرچيل (گويي كه فقط وينستون‌شون رو گفتين. ولي قضيه خيلي عميق‌تر از اين حرفاس). درمورد تشكيل اسرائيل هم دقيقاً درست فرمودين و اصلاً‌ پنتاگرام آنگوساكسون، براي تبديل به آنگلوزاينس، نياز به يه محور تقارن داشت و سرزمين فلسطين هم دقيقاً به همين دليل مدنظر بود. اما بحثي كه بنده داشتم، درمورد حمايت مالي يهوديان از آلمان، مبني بر مدارك هست. دليل اون امر هم كاملاً مشخص هست. در اون زمان، درست مثل جنگ اول جهاني، پيكان حملات آلمان، به طرف روسيه تزاري بود. اگه ليست 32 نفره‌ي رهبران انقلاب بلشويكي روسيه رو يه بار ملاحظه بفرمايين (در پست بعدي‌ام قرارش مي‌دم)، مي‌بينين كه به جز لنين، بقيه‌شون يهودي بودن و اصل حاميان مالي اين انقلاب هم بانكدار بزرگ يهودي امريكا (بزرگترين تا سال 1904) بوده. هدف يهودي‌هاي حامي دولت آلمان، نابودي سرزمين روسيه (و به قدرت رسيدن دولت حامي يهودي در اونجا كه به لطف بلشويك‌ها محقق مي‌شد) بود. اگه هم دقت كرده باشين، زمان قرارداد بالفور، درست چند روز پس از به قدرت رسيدن بلشويك‌ها بود و جالب اينكه لنين، پس از به قدرت رسيدن، تمامي تلاشش رو كرد كه با آلمان به صلح برسه و حتي يه قرارداد وحشتناك، چيزي شبيه به قرارداد ورساي، براي صلح پذيرفت!!! در اينكه خاندان‌هاي يهودي - انگليسي، همواره بازي دهنده‌ي دنيا بوده و هستن، كمترين شكي نيست. اگه هم بنده گفتم حمايت يهودي‌ها از آلمان، چون در اون برهه، اين اتفاق افتاده بود. قصد من هم ريشه‌يابي مسئله نبود! والا اصل ماجرا در اصل چيز ديگه‌اي بود!

[mostafa_by 5,726]

نقش يهوديان در انقلاب كبير روسيه

* منظور از مليت در اينجا٬ بيشتر اصليت هست. والا تقريباً همه‌ي اين افراد، روسي هستن.

* طفلك لنين! مثل اينكه بين يه مشت يهودي تك افتاده بود icon_frown icon_frown !

* اولين كشوري كه اسرائيل رو به رسميت شناخت، اتحاد جماهير شوروي بود!! حتي قبل از امريكا!!!

--------------------------------------------------------

نام انقلابي‏ \ نام اصلي‏ \ مليت‏

لنين‏ \ اوليانوف‏ \ روس‏

تروتسكي‏ \ بورنشتاين‏ \ يهودي‏

مارتوف‏ \ زدرباوم‏ \ يهودي‏

كامنف‏ \ روزنفلد \ يهودي‏

ساگرسكي‏ \ كروشمال‏ \ يهودي‏

اوريتسكي‏ \ راديوميسسكي‏ \ يهودي‏

كامكوف‏ \ كاتكس‏ \ يهودي‏

دان‏ \ گوره‏ويتچ‏ \ يهودي‏

پارووس‏ \ هلفاند \ يهودي‏

مارتينوف‏ \ زيبار \ يهودي‏

زولن زيف‏ \ بلايش لدن‏ \ يهودي‏

آبرامويچ‏ \ راين‏ \ يهودي‏

ماكلا \ كوويسكي‏ \ رزن بلوم‏ \ يهودي‏

بابروو \ ناتاتسون‏ \ يهودي‏

گارين‏ \ گارفلد \ يهودي‏

لوفه‏ \ لوفه‏ \ يهودي‏

براوم‏ \ براوم‏ \ يهودي‏

استكلوف‏ \ ناخامكس‏ \ يهودي‏

زينوديف‏ \ آمفلباوم‏ \ يهودي‏

زوخانوف‏ \ گيمسل‏ \ يهودي‏

باگدانف‏ \ زيبرشتاين‏ \ يهودي‏

گانتسكي‏ \ فورستنبرگ‏ \ يهودي‏

مشكووسكي‏ \ گلدنبرگ‏ \ يهودي‏

ريازانف‏ \ گلدنباخ‏ \ يهودي‏

چرنومورسكي‏ \ چرنومورديك‏ \ يهودي‏

فاتنيسكي‏ \ زيوين‏ \ يهودي‏

زوسدين‏ \ وين‏ \ شتاين‏ \ يهودي‏

لاپينسكي‏ \ لوون شاين‏ \ يهودي‏

اكسلورد \ ارتدكس‏ \ يهودي‏

گلاسونوف‏ \ شولتز \ يهودي‏

[IRIAFtomcat 43]

پیش از جنگ
به جرات می توان گفت جنگ در سایر جبهه ها مقدمه و پیشتاز جنگ آلمانها علیه شوروی بود. جنگ جهانی دوم واقعی، مبارزه ای به مقیاس بی نظیر، با حمله آلمان به شوروی آغاز شد. در سه سالی که به دنبال آمد، تا هجوم نورماندی، بیش از 90 درصد تلفاتی که بر آلمان وارد آمد در این صحنه جنگ بر آن تحمیل شد. 193 لشکر آلمانی در اتحاد شوروی در پایان سال 1942 می جنگیدند. حتی در آخرین سال جنگ، بعداز هجوم نرماندی، ارتش سرخ همچنان با دوسوم لشکرهای آلمان روبرو بود.
هیتلر در روز 18 دسامبر 1940 فرمان شماره 21 برای آغاز تهیه و آمادگی عملیات علیه شوروی به اسم رمز بارباروسا(Barbarossa) را صادر نمود. در سخنرانیهای هیتلر که در روز هشتم و نهم ژانویه 1941 در حضور امرای ارتش آلمان ایراد کرد، کوشید تصمیم خود در حمله به شوروی را برای آنها توجیح کند. ((هالدر)) که خود در این کنفرانس حضور داشته، نوشته است: ((که هیتلر در این کنفرانس اعلام کرد که استالین فرد غیر قابل اعتمادی است، و به هیچ عهدنامه و قرار وی نمی شود اطمینان کرد، پیروزی آلمان برای روسیه غیر قابل تحمل شده است، در نتیجه آن کشور را هرچه زودتر باید به زانو درآورد)).
هیتلر آنقدر دلیل و برهان برای حمله به شوروی ارائه کرد، که نکته ای که باید توضیح داده شود، این نیست که چرا آلمانیها سرانجام به شوروی حمله کردند بلکه این است که چرا در این مدت که از آغاز جنگ(1 سپتامبر 1939) می گذشت نزدیک به دو سال منتظر ماندند و به شوروی حمله نکردند.دلیل اصلی البته این بود که هیتلر می خواست، اول کار جبهه غرب(انگلیس و فرانسه) را فیصله دهد، آنگاه وارد جبه شرق شود. اینک نیز هیتلر همین گمان را داشت، یعنی فکر می کرد، انگلستان عملا از صحنه کارزار خارج شده است، و دیگر نمی تواند برای آلمان خطر جدی محسوب شود.
هیتلر برای حمله به شوروی یک هدف مهم سیاسی هم داشت، به این مفهوم که تضاد هیتلر با شوروی پیش از آنکه یک مسئله مرزی یا اقتصادی باشد، یک مسئله عقیدتی بود. در چنین شرایطی کاملا طبیعی بود، که آلمانیها گمان کنند که حمله ارتش آلمان به خاک شوروی موجب فروپاشی نظام شوروی از درون خواهد شد و مردم شوروی علیه نظام حاکم بر خود خواهند شورید، همچنین که فیلد مارشال کلیست یکی از رهبران نظامی آلمان گفته است: ((امید پیروزی عمدتا بر این احتمال نهاده شده بود که حمله به یک تحول سیاسی درون روسیه بیانجامد.
سوالاتی مهم در مورد رفتار معمایی رهبران شوروی قبل از وقوع جنگ مطرح می باشد. چرا ارتش سرخ قبل از فرا رسیدن حمله به حال آمادگی در نیامد؟ هرچه بود، در ماه سپتامبر 1939، که اوضاع خیلی کمتر خطرناک بود، ارتش بطور کامل بسیج شد. چرا هنگامی که جنگ نزد ناظران خارجی قریب الوقوع بنظر می رسید نقشه های جنگ ترسیم نشد؟ چرا استالین عمده نیروهای خود را آنقدر نزدیک به مرز گمارد که دفاع در عمق در صورتی که چنین دفاعی ضرورت فوری میافت مشکل می شد؟ استالین همیشه بد گمان، که در همه جا و در همه چیز خطر مشاهده می کرد، اکنون نسبت به مبارزه و مصیبت قریب الوقوع نا بینا می نمود.
در این زمان نزدیکی با آلمان، که ((بریا)) (دستیار اول استالین و کمیسر خلق در امور داخلی N.K.V.D) و دستیارانش آن را تشویق کرده بودند، رو به خرابی نهاد و هیتلر در تدارک حمله به شوروی بود. منابع روسی نشان داده اند که استالین و رهبری حزب شواهد زیادی از اینکه هیتلر در تدارک حمله به اتحاد شوروی است دریافت کرده بودند. نخستین بار در اوائل 1940 هم ان.کا.و.د و هم کمیسریای امنیت دولتی گزارشهای فراوانی در باره نقشه های هیتلر ارائه دادند و این گزارشها به آگاهی استالین و رهبران شوروی رسید. یک منبع مهم دکانوزوف سفیر شوروی در آلمان بود که وسیله اصلی روابط میان دو کشور را فراهم می آورد. از فوریه 1941 به بعد دکانوزوف در باره تدارکهای جنگی آلمان بطور مداوم به مولوتوف کمیسر امور خارجه(یا همان وزیر امور خارجه) گزارش می داد، به گونه ای که در باره مقاصد هیتلر تردیدی باقی نمی گذاشت. بسیار نا محتمل است که مولوتف این گزارشها را به آگاهی استالین نرسانده باشد، اما امکان دارد که میل نداشته در باره آنها پا فشاری کند. با توجه به نقشی که مولوتف در اتحاد با آلمان بازی کرده بود دلایل خوبی داشت که گزارشهای دکانوزوف را کم اهمیت جلوه دهد.
البته دکانوزوف می توانست از بریا(توجه داشته باشید بریا در آن زمان تا هنگام مرگ استالین قدرت شماره 2 شوروی محسوب می شد) بخواهد که کاری در مورد این اطلاعات انجام دهد و حتی این وظیفه را به عهده گیرد که استالین را در مورد حمله قریب الوقوع قانع سازد. موقعیت سیاسی دکانوزوف از وقتی که سفیر شوروی در آلمان شده بود بطور قابل ملاحظه ای بالا رفته بود. او در کنفرانس هجدهم حزب در فوریه 1941 به عضویت کامل کمیته مرکزی ارتقا یافت، و سه ماه بعد در رژه سنتی اول ماه مه درست در کنار استالین ایستاد؛ و سفیر آلمان در شوروی در گزارشی به وزارت خارجه آلمان به این نکته بعنوان نشانه ای از اهمیت دکانوزوف اشاره کرد.(و این موضوع بدرستی به عنوان نشانه اهمیتی که روابط دیپلماتیک با آلمان برای استالین داشت مورد تفسیر قرار گرفت). مدتی بعد در همان سال استاینهارت سفیر ایالات متحده در شوروی نظر داد که ((دکانوزوف احتمالا بیش از هر کس دیگر در حکومت مورد اعتماد استالین است)). اما دکانوزوف ظاهرا مایل نبود با کوشش برای منصرف کردن استالین از این اعتقاد که هیتلر حمله نخواهد کرد موقعیت سیاسی خود را به خطر اندازد. هیلگر دیپلمات آلمانی حکایت می کند که چگونه او و کنت شولنبرگ سفیر آلمان در شوروی در مه 1941 در ملاقاتی محرمانه با دکانوزوف از نقشه های هیتلر برای حمله به اتحاد شوروی به او خبر دادند و از او خواستند استالین را قانع کند که برای پیشدستی بر هیتلر کاری انجام دهد:
((از همان آغاز به دکانوزوف گفتیم که ما به مسولیت خود و بدون آگاهی مافوقهای خویش عمل می کنیم. او دائما تکرار می کرد: ((شما باید با وزیر خارجه صحبت کنید)). ظاهرا او نمی توانست تصور کند که ما دانسته و فهمیده، بمنظور آخرین تلاش برای نجات دادن صلح، بزرگترین خطر را به جان می خریم. شاید تصور می کرد ما به نمایندگی هیتلر عمل می کنیم و می کوشیم کرملین را برای برداشتن گامی وادار سازیم که به اعتبار و منافع واقعی آن لطمه بزند))
محتمل تر آن است که دکانوزوف می دانست آنچه آنان می گویند حقیقت دارد ولی مایل نبود در این مورد کاری انجام دهد. او سرانجام ماجرا را به مولوتف گزارش داد و مولوتوف نیز به نوبه خود آن را به استالین گفت. واکنش استالین قابل پیش بینی بود : ((چنین به نظر می رسد که دادن اطلاعات نا درست اکنون به سطح سفیران رسیده است)). دکانوزوف نه تنها با مشکل استالین بلکه با مشکل بریا نیز روبرو بود. هنگامی که او در روز 21 ژوئن به مسکو اطلاع داد که حمله آلمان روز بعد آغاز خواهد شد واکنش بریا ظاهرا این بود که به استالین توصیه کند دکانوزوف را برای پاسخ گویی در مورد ((بمباران)) آنها با اطلاعات نا درسست احضار کند.
دشوار می توان واکنش بریا را توضیح داد زیرا او در مورد حمله قریب الوقوع آلمان منابع اطلاعاتی عالی دیگری نیز در اختیار داشت. او از آوریل 1940 ساعتهای متمادی با یک ژنرال لهستانی زندانی گفتگو کرده بود و او در مورد نقشه های آلمان بارها به بریا هشدار داده بود. بریا بویژه از این اظهار نظر که نازیها بخاطر دست یافتن به نفت نخست به قفقاز حمله خواهند برد سخت آشفته بود. در اوائل 1941 زیر دستان بریا در ان.کا.و.د، بر اساس اطلاعات نظامی و نیز سیاسی، درباره تدارکات جنگی هیتلر گزارشهای روزانه می دادند. دستگاه اطلاعاتی وزارت دفاع نیز شواهدی به همان اندازه معتبر فراهم می آورد. همه این گزارشها بدست بریا و دیگر اعضای رهبری، و البته استالین، می رسید.
بعضی از مورخان روسی استدلال کرده اند که استالین در واقع متوجه آنچه اتفاق می افتاد شده بود، اما از آنجا که می دانست ارتش شوروی پس از تصفیه های ویرانگر تا چه اندازه فاقد آمادگی است همچنان در انتظار یک راه حل دیپلماتیک بود. حتی اگر چنین می بود خوش خیالی او همان نتیجه را داشت، بدین معنی که او بر اساس این فرض عمل می کرد که حمله پرهیز ناپذیر نیست و بنابراین در خوداری از این که به شواهد روز افزون در مورد نقشه های هیتلر برای حمله اعتباری بدهد پا فشاری می کرد. مثلا در نیمه ژوئن 1941 رئیس جاسوسی خارجی پ. م. فیتین از یک منبع مطلع در ستاد نیروی هوایی آلمان گزارشی به مرکولف داد که در آن آخرین اقدامات نیروی هوایی آلمان شرح داده شده و گفته شده بود: ((تمام تدارکات برای هجوم مسلحانه به اتحاد شوروی تکمیل شده و هر لحظه انتظار می رود که حمله صورت گیرد.)) استالین در جواب گزارش با خط خود نوشت: ((رفیق مرکولف، می توانید منبع خود را در ستاد نیروی هوایی آلمان به... مارش بفرستید. این منبع نیست بلکه اطلاعات نادرست دادن است.)) فیتین بعدها حکایت کرد که استالین روز بعد او و مرکولف را به دفتر خود احضار کرد و این نکته را روشن ساخت که به منابع آنها اعتماد ندارد زیرا آنان کمونیست نیستند.
با این همه رهبران ارگانهای اطلاعاتی ممکن بود برای پیشبرد نظر خود اقدامات بیشتری انجام دهند. فیتین می گوید افراد او تحلیلی دقیق از گزارشهای تهیه کرده نتیجه گیریهای مناسب را انجام دادند تا در میان اعضای رهبری توزیع شود. اما مرکولف حاضر نشد آن را امضا کند و گفت: ((بالایی ها بهتر از ما می توانند تحلیل کنند.)) مرکولف بی شک از سرمشق بریا پیروی می کرد که ظاهرا به این نتیجه رسیده بود که منافعش در این است که به هر قیمت از استالین اطاعت کند. بریا حتی ممکن است خود را فریب داده و به خط و مشی استالین اعتقاد پیدا کرده باشد. او چنان هوادار دو آتشه همکاری با هیتلر بود که، مانند استالین، برایش دشوار بود این واقعیت را بپذیرد که این همکاری مصیبت بار از آب درآمده و اقدامات دیپلماتیک نمی تواند نقشه های آلمان را عوض کند. این امر ممکن است این نکته را توضیح دهد که چرا بریا، تا آخرین لحظه قبل از حمله، استالین را در حماقت باور نکردنی خود تشویق می کرده است. بریا در 21 ژوئن، علاوه بر محکوم کردن دکانوزوف، گزارش گولیکف رئیس جاسوسی نظامی را که می گفت آلمان 170 لشکر در مرز غربی اتحاد شوروی متمرکز کرده محکوم ساخت. بریا در یادداشتی برای استالین گولیکف را دروغگو نامید و ایمان خود را به رئیس ابراز داشت: ((ژوزف ویساریانویچ، من و افرادم این پیشگویی خردمندانه شما را خوب بخاطر داریم که : هیتلر در 1941 به ما حمله نخواهد کرد!)) چنانکه در صحنه سیاسی استالین بارها اتفاق افتاده بود، بریا و زیردستانش بخاطر کارهای بد فرجامشان دچار عواقبی نشوند. جنگی که بیخردانه به پیش آمدن آن کمک کردند برایشان پاداشها، ترفیع ها و اعتباری تازه به ارمغان آورد.
ادامه دارد...
منابع:
1- تاریخ اتحاد شوروی از آغاز تا پایان نوشته پیتر کنز ترجمه علی اکبر مهدیان، موسسه انتشارات امیر کبیر، چاپ اول 1381.
2- بریا دستیار اول استالین، نوشته امی نایت ترجمه جمشید شیرازی، انتشارات نشر پژوهش فرزان روز، چاپ اول 1374.
3- ایدئولوژی و روابط بین الملل تالیف دکتر علی صادقی عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه اصفهان، نشر قومس، سال 1376 چاپ اول.

[Ernesto_Rommel 11,417]

ممنون مطلب جالبی بود که اینبار از دیدگاه نیروهای شوروی مطالبی واقع بینانه رو مطرح کرده

چند سال پیش در مجله جنگ افزار هم به فاصله چند ماه از همدیگه سه مقاله بسیار زیبا راجبه چرایی شروع نبرد المان و شوروی که میشه گفت ابرقدرتهای روزگار بودند و در صورت عدم شروع نبرد و طبق توافقنامه سال 1939 با همدیگه تا اخر راه رو میرفتند (که از نظر تاکتیکی استراتژیکی ایدئولوژیکی امکان پذیر نبود) قطعا جهان امروز تقسیم شده بود بین دو کشور .... که شاید مثل جنگ سرد بعدها می افتادن جون هم !

ولی طبق اطلاعات المان نازی تمامی ارتش شوروی خودشو به خاطر مسایلی که شاید سوتفاهم، شاید واقعیت، شاید دشمنی ایدئولوژیک که کلا قابل درک هست ! در لب مرز اماده حمله کرده و به همین خاطر هیتلر بعد از دست دست کردنای زیاد که فقط چندماه به زمستان مخوف روسیه بهش مهلت میداد تصمیم گرفت خطر شوروی رو برا همیشه نابود کنه

البته شکی نیست که بعد از ماوقع هرکسی بنا به وسع و سواد خویش و اسناد به دست اومده حاصل از نتایج این عملیات نظریاتی رو ارایه میده که به خصوص در بعد چرایی حمله المان و چرایی شکست المان این مساله بسیار بسیار تخصصی تحلیل شده

ولی واقعیت اینجاست که در زمان وقوع نبرد و با توجه به شرایط اون روز ، بلاشک هر دو طرف ناچار بودند برحسب زمان شون تصمیم بگیرند و اطلاعاتی که داشتند و قطعا نتیجه تصمیم شون اگر صدبار دیگه هم تکرار بشه همین نبرد هست !



میخوام اینطور بگم که همونطور که تو دوران جنگ خود ماه با عراق ، فرماندهان تصمیماتی میگرفتند که بعدها مشخص شد میشد بهتر تصمیم گرفت ولی چون اونها در زمان تصمیم میگیرند و با اطلاعات آن زمان مقصر نیستند زمان نبرد دوم جهانی هم از هر زاویه ای نگاه کنی قطعا رای به جنگ این دو ابرقدرت میدی چرا که تازه بعد ده ها سال برخی اطلاعات رو شد که حتی مشخص شد حقیقتا شوروی قصد داشته دخل المان رو بیاره به محض درگیری و سرگردم شدن شدید با انگلیس ...


البته بحث تحلیلی ش زیاده ولی خوب ممنون از مطلب

[IRIAFtomcat 43]

استالین که نقشه های استراتژیک او بر این فرض قرار داشت که می تواند جلوی حمله آلمان بگیرد، در باره تقویت مناطق مرزی تصمیمهایی گرفت. این کار که مسولیت آن با ان. کا. و .د. بریا بود مصیبت بار از آب درآمد. استالین، بجای آنکه مواضع دفاعی مرزی را که در دهه 1930 ساخته شده بود حفظ کند، دستور داد در امتداد مرزهای جدید غربی، که سرزمینهای تازه بدست آمده را دربر میگرفت(این سرزمینها در چهارچوب قرارداد مولوتف-ریبن تروپ بین شوروی آلمان به شوروی رسید که شامل سرزمینهای کشورهای شرق اروپا می شد)، استحکاماتی ساخته شود. اما این فراگردی آهسته بود بویژه آنکه ان. کا. و. د. ظاهرا نیروی کار کافی، که از اردوگاهها بدست می آمد، برای ساختن آنها فراهم نکرده بود. در باره وضع رقت بار دفاع مرزی شوروی شکایتهایی از مسولان نظامی بدست استالین می رسید، اما استالین و بریا کاری برای بهبود اوضاع انجام نمی دادند. نتیجه آنکه در ژوئن 1941 استحکامات مرزی جدید هنوز در نخستین مراحل ساختمان بود، حال آنکه استحکامات در مرز((قدیم)) را برچیده بودند. تا ژوئن 1941 تنها 25 درصد برنامه ساختن گودالهای ضد تانک و مواضع ضد پیاده نظام تکمیل شده بود، و در نتیجه مناطق مرزی شوروی را بویژه آسیب پذیر ساخته بود.
آنچه مسئله را دشوارتر می ساخت این بود که ان. کا. و. د. اخطارهای فرماندهی نظامی را نادیده گرفت و بکار تجدید سازمان شمار زیادی فرودگاه بطور همزمان ادامه می داد. این بدان معنی بود که در زمان حمله آلمان بسیاری از فرودگاهها آماده نبود و هواپیماهای جنگنده در چند فرودگاه معدودی که کار می کرد متمرکز شده بودند، یعنی وضعی که از استتار، قابلیت مانور و پراکندگی هواپیماها جلوگیری میکرد. علاوه بر این، بعضی از فرودگاهها چنان به مرز نزدیک ساخته شده بود که در برابر یک حمله غافل گیرانه آسیب پذیری ویژه ای داشت. نتیجه این شد که در نخستین روزهای جنگ بر نیروی هوایی شوروی تلفات فوق العاده ای وارد آمد. واقعیت دیگری که آسیب پذیری مواضع دفاعی شوروی را در منطقه غربی شدیدتر ساخته بود این بود که به هواپیماهای اکتشافی آلمان اجازه داده شده بود که بی هیچ مانعی به عمق قلمرو هوایی شوروی پرواز کنند و مناطق مرزی و نواحی داخلی شوروی را مورد بررسی قرار دهند. به روایت یک تاریخ نویس شوروی در باره جنگ: ((بریای خائن حتی از مارس 1940 سربازان مرزی را از اینکه به هواپیماهای متجاوز آلمانی تیراندازی کنند بطور صریح ممنوع ساخته بود، و ترتیبی داده بود که واحدهای ارتش سرخ و کشتی های نیروی دریایی نیز با نیروی هوایی آلمان وارد زد و خورد نشوند. او عملا قلمرو هوایی شوروی را در برابر پروازهای اکتشافی دشمن گشود.)) البته این استالین بود که به هیچ روی حاضر نبود درستی گزارشهای مربوط به نقشه های آلمان برای حمله را بپذیرد، و اجازه نمی داد اقدامی علیه هواپیماهای آلمانی صورت گیرد، زیرا تصور می کرد که این کار ممکن است تحریک آمیز تلقی شود. اما بریا سخت مواظب بود که دستورات استالین برای پرهیز از هرگونه اقدام((تحریک آمیز)) مو به مو رعایت شود. مثلا در اوائل ژوئن 1941 ژنرال ((kirponos)) ، فرمانده منطقه ویژه نظامی کیف، به استالین نوشت که آلمانی ها در کنار رود بوگ هستند و احتمال دارد حمله ای صورت گیرد. او توصیه کرد که 300 هزار تن غیر نظامی از مناطق مرزی انتقال داده شوند و مواضع دفاعی با انتقال سربازان تقویت شود. پاسخ مسکو این بود که چنین کاری تحریک آمیز خواهد بود، اما ((kirponos)) قبلا به ابتکار خود دستور داده بود که بعضی از واحدها به مرز نزدیک شوند. هنگامی که فرمانده سربازان مرزی ان. کا. و. د. در اوکراین از این موضوع با خبر شد و آن را به بریا گزارش داد، به ((kirponos)) دستور داده شد که فورا آن دستور را لغو کند.
البته قبل از بسته شدن پیمان مولوتف-ریبن تروپ استالین بخوبی می دانست که هیتلر شخص قابل اعتمادی برای شوروی نیست زیرا او نیک می دانست که هیتلر همواره به مبارزه علیه بولشویسم(شاخه ای از مارکسیسم روسی که در اکتبر 1917 عملا قدرت را بدست آوردند و این قدرت را تا زمان فروپاشی در 1990 در اختیار داشتند) می اندیشد. هیتلر همواره هدف غایی سیاست خارجی آلمان را بسط سرزمین آلمان بطرف شرق می دانست، تا ملت آلمان، محیطی برای زیست یابند، و آلمان بزرگ را پی گیری کنند. بنابر این حمله هیتلر به شوروی در 22 ژوئن 1941 نتیجه منطقی سیاستی بود که هیتلر از آغاز فعالیت سیاسی خود داشته بود. هیتلر همواره به این موضوع در کتاب نبرد من اشاره کرده بود. اما مهمترین دلیل استالین برای بستن اتحاد با آلمان در چهارچوب معاهده مولوتف-ریبن تروپ که شوروی و آلمان را دوفاکتو متحد می کرد این بود که، استالین گمان می کرد پس از شروع تجاوزات آلمان و شوروی به کشورهای شرق اروپا، فرانسه و انگلستان به آلمان اعلان جنگ خواهند کرد و جنگ بین آلمان و آن دو کشور به زودی به بن بست خواهد رسید در نتیجه آلمان دیگر به زودی مجال حمله به شوروی را پیدا نخواهد کرد زیرا او می دانست آلمان هرگز در دو جبهه وارد جنگ نخواهد شد همچنین فرانسه و انگلستان نیز امکان حمله به شوروی را نداشتند چون مرزهای شوروی هزاران کیلومتر دورتر از آن دو کشور بود در نتیجه برای آن دو کشور امکان پیاده کردن نیرو وجود نداشت. در نتیجه شوروی از فرصت به دست آمده استفاده لازم را کرده و نیروهای نظامی خود را تجدید قوا می کند. این موضوع یک دلیل مهم در عدم آمادگی ارتش شوروی برای مقابله با ارتش آلمان بود زیرا استالین هرگز گمان نمی کرد که هیتلر در مدت شش هفته فرانسه، قدرتمند ترین نیروی نظامی موجود در اروپا در آن زمان، را به زانو درآورد و پاریس را فتح کند. همچنین فتح یک روزه دانمارک و نوروژ و پیروزیهای خیره کننده آلمان در شرق اروپا و شمال آفریقا این وحشت را در دستگاه رهبری شوروی بوجود آورد که شوروی از پس آلمان بر نخواهد آمد، مخصوصا که پیروزی فاجعه بار شوروی بر فنلاند نیز مزید بر علت شده بود. به همین دلیل استالین از هرگونه حرکت تحریک آمیز سخت هراس داشت و امید وار به حل دیپلماتیک مسئله بود.
اما دلائل و شواهدی مهم دال بر این هستند که هیتلر درست قبل از حمله خود به شوروی تصمیم گرفته بود، که بار دیگر مسئله روابط خود با شوروی را مورد تجدید نظر قرار دهد، و حتی حاضر بوده از جنگ علیه شوروی دست بکشد، مشروط بر آنکه شرایط او پذیرفته شود، و آنچه را می خواهد، بدست آورد.
بنابراین مولوتف در 12 نوامبر 1940 به برلین رفت، تا با سیاست مداران رایش سوم و بخصوص شخص هیتلر مذاکره نماید. وزیر خارجه آلمان، ریبن تروپ، به مولوتف پیشنهاد کرد، که شوروی نیز قرارداد سه جانبه را امضا کند، که به این ترتیب قرارداد سه جانبه به قرارداد چهار جانبه بین آلمان، ایتالیا، ژاپن و شوروی مبدل می شد. آنگاه هرکدام از طرفین طبق این قرارداد مناطق خاص تحت نفوذ خود را داشتند، و سایر قدرتها ملزم بودند، این مناطق تحت نفوذ را مورد احترام قرار دهند. طبق طرحی که ریبن تروپ اعلام کرد، منطقه تحت نفوذ شوروی از منطقه جنوب مرکزی مرزهای شوروی به طرف هند بود، یعنی آلمان خواهان این بود که شوروی نفوذ خود را بطرف شبه قاره هند بسط دهد. هدف آلمان این بود که اگر شوروی این پیشنهاد را می پذیرفت، در آن صورت دیگر نمی توانست، نیروهای خود را در اروپا مستقر سازد، دیگر اینکه هر حرکتی که شوروی در منطقه شبه قاره هند می کرد، بالطبع یک حرکت ضد انگلیسی بود، و سرانجام بسود آلمان تمام می شد. دولت شوروی در 25 نوامبر، پاسخ پیشنهاد ریبن تروپ را ارائه کرد، و ضمن آن پیشنهاد آلمان را پذیرفت، مشروط بر اینکه، اولا ارتش آلمان از خاک فنلاند خارج شود. ثانیا قرارداد همکاری دو جانبه بین شوروی و بلغارستان امضا شود، و یک مرکز نظامی برای نیروی دریایی و زمینی شوروی در نزدیکی آبراه های بسفر و داردانل به شوروی اختصاص داده شود. البته هدف شوروی از طرح این شرایط و پذیرش شرایط هیتلر واقعا بسط نفوذ به سمت هند نبود، شوروی تنها می خواست مدتی زمان بخرد تا ارتش خود را برای رویارویی با آلمان آماده کند.
آلمان هیچ پاسخ مثبت یا منفی به شرایط شوروی نداد، چراکه هدف اصلی آلمان از طرح پیشنهاد اولیه خود، این بود، که توجه شوروی را به خارج از اروپا معطوف کند. اکنون که شوروی در پاسخ خود، نشان داد، که هدف اصلی شوروی تمرکز اهداف سیاسی خود در اروپای شرقی است، هیتلر دیگر در سر علاقه ای به ادامه چنین بحث بی نتیجه ای از خود نشان نداد، و فهمید که مذاکرات به بنبست رسیده است.
ادامه دارد...
منابع:
1- تاریخ اتحاد شوروی از آغاز تا پایان نوشته پیتر کنز ترجمه علی اکبر مهدیان، موسسه انتشارات امیر کبیر، چاپ اول 1381.
2- بریا دستیار اول استالین، نوشته امی نایت ترجمه جمشید شیرازی، انتشارات نشر پژوهش فرزان روز، چاپ اول 1374.
3- ایدئولوژی و روابط بین الملل تالیف دکتر علی صادقی عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه اصفهان، نشر قومس، سال 1376 چاپ اول.

[Ernesto_Rommel 11,417]

متاسفانه مثل همیشه کمی تاریخ این ور و اون ور میشه به دلایل مشخص

1.ارتش شوروی برطبق اسناد کاملا حالت اماده باش داشت در زمان حمله المان ولی به دلیل بلیتزکریگ قوی و نیز دیپلماسی المان نازی روس ها کاری نتونستند از پیش ببرن با وصف اینکه نیروهای رزمی در لب مرز صف ارایی کرده بودند و نیز مهمات کافی داشتند

در دادگاه نورنبرگ شخص اسکورزینی برای اثبات بی گناهی ش از برخی گلوله های خاص که شوروی ساخته بود تا در جنگ احتمالی با المان استفاده کنه پرده برداری کرد

2.ارتش شوروی از نظر نیروی هوایی کاملا بزرگ اما شدیدا بی کیفیت، از نظر اموزش خلبانی وسیع اما شدیدا بی کیفیت بود
در زمان حمله المان عملا به خاک و خون درنوردیدند خلبانان و هواپیماهای روسی و متاسفانه همین خلبانان که رویارویی چند دقیقه ای با یک فروند هواپیمای المانی براشون ارزوی محال بود و به زیر کشیده میشدند اومدند وارد مرزهای ایران شدند و با قصی القلب ترین بمباران ها تاریخ ایران رو باز هم با به خاک و خون کشیدن های خودشون مزین کردند

همین نیروی هوایی فرسوده اما بزرگ شوروی! بارها اقدام به بمباران مناطق مهم حتی مذهبی ما نمود حال اینکه عاجز بودند در نبرد چند به یک هم در نبردهای هوایی با المان شرکت کنند !


3.ارتش شوروی بدون کمک های نظامی متفقین حتی با وصف زمستان های سخت ش از پیش باخته و نابود شده بود و هرچقدرم تلاش کنه بگه نبود بی فایده س

ارتش این کشور با کمک امریکا و .... که البته منافع متقابل بود و همزمانش عین گرگ ! مراقب همدیگه بودند که یهو به خودشون حمله ور نشن برای رفع گرسنگی حمله ور نشن(سرقت انواع هواپیماهای امریکایی از سوی شوروی در طی جنگ بارها کار دست شوروی داد !) سرپا نگه داره و خودشو در مرزهای دور از دسترس المان تقویت مجدد کنه
که در اینجا نقش عدم حمله ژآپن به این کشور مشخص تر از پیش میشه که در عمل فقط شعار میداد با المان هست و بیشتر دنبال استراتژی خودش بود

4.قضیه شوروی مثل قضیه نیروی هوایی ایران هست در زمان نبرد با عراق

اگر نیروی هوایی نبود قطعا صدام به بسیاری از اهدافش رسیده بود ولی شرط تعیین کننده موفقیت نیروی هوایی مکملی به نام نیروی پیاده نظام شامل بسیج و سپاه و تکاورن نیروی دریایی و نیروی زرهی و .... بود
در قضیه شوروی هم قطعا اگر نبود اون حجم انسانی !!! با خوی وحشی گری بالا ! که مکمل نیروهای متفق باشه قطعا نبردهای جنگ جهانی دوم رنگ و بوی دیگری میگرفت !


ارتش المان در هر دو جنگ جهانی به راحتی با سه کشور همزمان می جنگید !!!! ولی وقتی اضلاع قدرت یکی یکی افزایش پیدا کرد فرتوت شد .... قطعا اگر درگیر نبرد با شوروی نبود و نیز امریکا شوروی رو قوی تر نمیکرد به تنهایی هیچ متفقی یارای برابری با المان ها رو نداشت !

5.پس از پایان هر نبرد افسانه سرایی ها شروع میشه ولی واقعیت همون هست که بود
ارتش شوروی با همه دبدبه کبکه ش با همه فرماندهان ش :


ارتشی بود که استالین گرامی !!!! حداقل سه بار تصفیه کامل کرد اونها رو و بسیاری از نیروهای انقلابی و اثرگزار و حتی دوست نزدیکش رو به جوخه اعدام سپرد و قطعا این ارتش در سازماندهی رزمی مشکل پیدا میکنه و اینکه عیب و ایراد رو انداخت گردن یک نفر دیگه اخر توهم و مزخرف بازی هست !!!!

6.قطعا ناهماهنگی هایی در زمان وقوع حمله المان به شوروی بوده حالا به عمد یا غیرعمد یا هر دو ولی چیزیکه مسلم هست اینه که ارتش های هماهنگ تر از شوروی و مجهزتر از اون هم در مقابل بلیتزکریگ هیچ حرفی برای گفتن نداشته ندارند و نخواهند داشت !
کسی که برتری هوایی رو داشته باشه حرف اول و اخر رو حداقل در نبردهای کنونی خواهد زد البته مضاف بر جنگ الکترونیکی که کم کم داره جایگزین میشه



با تشکر مجدد

[IRIAFtomcat 43]

[quote]متاسفانه مثل همیشه کمی تاریخ این ور و اون ور میشه به دلایل مشخص

1.ارتش شوروی برطبق اسناد کاملا حالت اماده باش داشت در زمان حمله المان ولی به دلیل بلیتزکریگ قوی و نیز دیپلماسی المان نازی روس ها کاری نتونستند از پیش ببرن با وصف اینکه نیروهای رزمی در لب مرز صف ارایی کرده بودند و نیز مهمات کافی داشتند


با تشکر مجدد[/quote]
دوست عزیز از حسن توجه و نقدهایی که بر این تاپیک میکنید واقعا ممنونم. .
بله این فرمایش شما کاملا صحیح هستش. ارتش شوروی تا حد زیادی در آماده باش بود ولی از انجام اقدامات تحریک آمیز منع شده بود. چون ارتش شوروی از هر لحاظ ضعیفتر از ارتش آلمان بود و دستگاه رهبری شوروی این رو به خوبی می دونست.به همین دلیل می خواست مسئله رو دیپلماتیک حل کنه. منبعی که من این اطلاعات رو ازش استخراج کردم بر اساس اطلاعات بایگانی های روسیه هستش که بعداز فروپاشی شوروی در اختیار مورخین قرار گرفته پس تو صحت اونا تقریبا شکی نیست.
ارتش شوروی به لحاظ تکنولوژی همونجور که شما گفتید ضعیف بود اما روسها طرحهایی از هواپیماها و کشتی های آلمانی بدست آورده بودن که در مرحله تکمیل قرار داشت. این طرحها به عنوان امتیاز به روسها داده شده بود. روسها به تدریج طی جنگ تونستن تکنولوژی خودشون رو بالا ببرن.به عنوان مثال یک کارخانه تراکتور سازی در لنینگراد به سرعت به کاخانه تانک سازی بدل شد که روزانه 50 تانک تولید میکرد و کیفیت تانکهای تولیدی به مرور بهتر می شد. در مورد کمک آمریکا به شوروی هم باید بگم این تصور کاملا مردود هستش که روسها با کمک آمریکا از پس آلمان بر اومدن. روسها خودشون به تنهایی و بدون هیچ کمکی تونستن از پس ماههای بحرانی سال 1941 بر بیان و بعد از اون هم کمک از طرف آمریکا ناچیز بود و تاثیری در پیروزیهای شوروی نداشت. برای شوروی مهار شدن ژاپن به دست امریکاییها کافی بود چون شوروی وحشت زیادی داشت که مجبور بشه هم زمان با ژاپن و آلمان نبرد کنه. بعد از امضای معاهده عدم تجاوز بین ژاپن و شوروی و درگیری ژاپن با آمریکا، شوروی تونست حدود 3 میلیون نیروی تازه نفس رو از شرق به جبهه غرب انتقال بده که وا قعا تاثیر زیادی در پیروزی شوروی داشت. شوروی اصرار زیادی داشت که آمریکا هرچه زودتر جبهه ای رو از سمت مرزهای غربی آلمان علیه آلمان باز کنه اما آمریکایی ها موافق نبودن. بعدها آمریکایی ها اعتراف کردن باید زودتر این کا رو می کردند تا شرق اروپا تا برلین دست روسها نیفته. اون موقع آمریکاییها هرگز فکر نمی کردند روسها اینقدر سریع به پیروزی برسند.
در مورد شکست آلمان بخاطر سرما باید بگم که این حرف تنها مربوط به مردم کوچه و بازار هستش و کارشناسان این رو رد می کنند به زودی طی دنباله همین تاپیک در موردش مطلب می نویسم