Bitter Harvest

Thursday, February 23, AD 2017

 

 

 

On one side, millions of starving peasants, their bodies often swollen from lack of food; on the other, soldiers, members of the GPU carrying out the instructions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They had gone over the country like a swarm of locusts and taken away everything edible; they had shot or exiled thousands of peasants, sometimes whole villages; they had reduced some of the most fertile land in the world to a melancholy desert.

Malcolm Muggeridge – British foreign correspondent, War on the Peasants, Fortnightly Review, 1 May, 1933 

Eighty-five years too late, a movie on the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in the Soviet Union is being released tomorrow.  Some six million people were murdered by starvation in Stalin’s man made famine, and almost all of these people died in the most agriculturally fertile areas of the Soviet Union, especially the Ukraine.  This was Stalin’s way of imposing collectivization on the recalcitrant farmers of his empire, while eliminating the opposition to Communist rule in the countryside.  For Stalin the mass deaths were a feature not a bug.  While all this was going on most Western journalists in the Soviet Union actively attempted to conceal the existence of the famine.  Only a few brave journalists like Malcolm Muggeridge, then a partisan of the left, had the courage to speak out and tell honestly what they had seen with their own eyes.  Walter Duranty, who was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his reports from the Soviet Union,  of the New York Times denounced journalists who reported on the famine.  “Fake news” has a long pedigree on the left in this country.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Bitter Harvest

  • Stalin said: ” to kill one man is homicide. To kill 30,000,000 is a statistic.” Stalin enjoyed the death and dying of other people. The Russians tore up floor boards to get at grandma’s hidden preserves.

  • The Reds killed approximately 100 million of their people during the 20th century. In 1973, five (?) US Supreme Court justice set in motion the killings of 57 million and counting American gestational human persons. “And the beat goes on.”

  • We know a lot about the Holocaust and little about the Great Famine because there were few cameras in the Ukraine.

  • John Schuh: Too many Americans justify what Stalin did. One person cannot own another person” A. Lincoln. I was once told that Russia was justified because Russia needed the food. Ebeneezer Scrooge said, that many years ago: “Let Tiny Tim die and reduce the population.+ Nothing new here.

  • Watch “The Soviets” when it’s rerun on your local PBS. It’s chilling. At first Stalin selected specific groups and areas like the Ukraine to be anihilated. Then it got so Kruschev and the like would just ask Stalin for a quota of humans to kill…a 100,000 here, 200,000 there. Depravity.

  • This looks like the year for genocide films. The Promise, a film about the Armenian Genocide, will be out in April.

    https://youtu.be/zwut1DUXaZc

  • Bitter Harvest is getting panned all over the place. Too bad. It is the kind of film that needed to have been made. Perhaps the DVD edition could be used in fast forward to get a good presentation of the real events.

Arise Ye Russian People!

Sunday, May 10, AD 2015

The Russians are celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany this weekend.  It is fair to say that in that defeat the Soviet Union did the lion’s share of the fighting, the Soviets suffering more than twenty million war dead.  For all their heroism and suffering , the Soviets were still enslaved to a tyranny just as bad as the Third Reich, with that system now extended throughout Eastern Europe.  This cold fact is why Churchill entitled the final volume in his World War II history:  Triumph and Tragedy.

The clip from the  film Alexander Nevsky at the beginning of this post underlines the tragedy for the Russian people of World War II.   A true work of genius by Sergei Eisenstein, who somehow pulled off the feat of making a film about an Orthodox Saint, an aristocratic Prince and pillar of the Church, and ladling it with Communist and anti-religious propaganda, and yet having the final result not be laughably absurd.  The film was among the first efforts of Stalin to rally traditional Russian patriotism against the looming threat of Nazi Germany.  Poor Eisenstein found himself in the doghouse soon after the release of the film due to the Nazi-Soviet pact.  After the onset of Operation Barbarossa, the film was once again released and played to packed houses throughout the war.  The Russian rallying song in the film was composed by Sergei Prokofiev.  The lyrics roughly translated are :

Arise, ye Russian people,
to glorious battle, to a battle to the death:
arise, ye free people,
to defend our beloved country!
All honour to the warriors who live,
and eternal glory to those slain!
For our native home, our Russian land,
arise, ye Russian people!

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Arise Ye Russian People!

  • The Russian people endured tremendous hardship to defeat nazism, and are
    right to be proud of their sacrifices and their accomplishment. They will never
    forget.

    What about here in America? At the national VE 70th anniversary celebrations
    held in DC yesterday, our president declined to attend, instead choosing to fund
    raise on the west coast and visit Nike headquarters. Vice-president Biden was
    also conspicuous in his absence. The administration did send a national
    security advisor as its representative, so I suppose we can’t say VE Day was
    completely blown off…

  • I could write a thesis about this subject if I wanted to. To sum it up, the Russian people have, for many centuries,suffered greatly under the oppressive yoke of whoever was or is in charge in the Kremlin. Often overlooked is that the USSR instigated World War II in Europe as the ally of Nazi Germany. Stalin, not satisfied at having starved millions of Ukrainians to death in the Holodomor, jumped at the opportunity to exact revenge upon the Polish nation who humiliated him in the Polish Soviet War of 1920-21. Stalin supplied Hitler with raw materials and the USSR shared intelligence with the Nazis.

    Great Britain warned the Kremlin of a German invasion, advice ignored by Stalin-that almost cost the USSR its existence. Had Germany had capable leadership instead of the madman Hitler,the Germans would have finished the job instead of being beaten at Stalingrad.

    The Red Army and the Russian people did the most bleeding and dying in World War II because it was fine with Stalin that millions of Russians die so that Hitler would be destroyed AND so that Stalin could expand the Soviet empire. Let’s not forget that the USSR took the Baltic states in the Molotov-von Rippentrop Treaty and took Polish territory east of the Curzon Line (the Kresy) which Poland never got back. Poland did get some formerly German territory. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, eastern Germany and Bulgaria became captive nations for 44 years.

    I won’t start about Katyn now.

    So, for all of their sacrifice and suffering, the Russian people got more of Stalin, then Khruschev, etc. and now Putin, who fashions himself as another Peter the Great.

    The real reason for victory in WWII was the United States of America. Russian troops fought Germany between Stalingrad and Berlin. American troops fought Germans in North Africa and Italy, led the invasion at Normandy on D-Day, hunted U-boats in the North Atlantic, rebuilt its Navy and fought in the Pacific as well as the China-Burma-India theater against a crazed Japanese military all at the same time. American factories and American workers built most of the war materiel used to win the war. Tanks, planes, Jeeps, bombs, ammunition and the Manhattan Project, which kept the USSR out of Japan. Great Britain fought longer and was almost bled white by WWII and its troops fought valiantly but the UK wasn’t going to beat Japan and Germany by itself.

    I did not know but I am unsurprised that King Putt didn’t bother to show up at any ceremony celebrating VE Day, I can deal with Barack Obama only by completely ignoring what he says and does.

  • I have no sympathy at all for the Russians. As a person of Finnish descent on my mom’s side, and a student of Finnish history, I learned these people and their various governments can never be trusted. My Finnish grandfather always told my mother and her siblings never to trust the Russians. Apparently, Grandfather had some very bad experiences with the Rus. When he was filling out his alien registration form at the post office, somebody hear his surname, and asked him if he was Russian. Grandpa said “No, I hate the G**D*** Russians!” My grandsire was a very devout Lutheran, so what happened to him in Finland must have been terrible for him to swear like that!
    BTW, the major thing that bugs me about the Russians is their attitude toward the Non-Russians they used to lord it over. When they pulled out of the Baltic states, the Russians who moved into to those countries during the Soviet years became outraged at a demand the governments of those newly freed countries were making on them. To be a citizen of those countries, they had to learn the native tongue! Horrible!

  • There was a facinating programs about the 10 most game-changing weapons of WWII on the History Channel. One of the weapons was the Studebaker Truck, made in South Bend, IN. The US shipped hundreds of thousands of them to the USSR, and because they made the Soviet army more mobile, enabling troops, supplies, and artillery to reach danger points in the line quickly, the Soviets were able for the first time to stop the blitzkrieg. This was what made Soviet victory possible, especially at Kursk and Stalingrad.
    I don’t remember who said it, but I agree with the statement: “Too bad they couldn’t both lose”.

  • Two items in lend lease were most valuable for the Soviets: the trucks you mention and endless tins of spam that kept the Soviet troops fed. Also the Anglo-American bombing campaign caused the Germans after 43 to cede air superiority to the Soviets by drawing huge numbers of German fighters from the Eastern front to air defense duty in Germany.

  • BPS, the quote “it’s a pity they both can’t lose” is from a comment Kissinger made
    regarding the Iran-Iraq war. And he was right.

  • At the national VE 70th anniversary celebrations
    held in DC yesterday, our president declined to attend, instead choosing to fund
    raise on the west coast and visit Nike headquarters.

    ==
    I wouldn’t mind if he just doesn’t do ceremonial. The fundraiser is retch-inducing (and his signature). He and Biden remind you of our achievement of the classless society: no one has any class at all.

  • “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.”

    Harry Truman, June 24, 1941

Devils’ Bargain

Friday, August 23, AD 2013

Polite Devils

The 74th anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet agreement.  Two of the three great mass murderers of the last century, Mao would complete the trio, the marriage of convenience of Hitler and Stalin signaled the onset of World War II.  Communists who had been calling for a common front with democrats to oppose Hitler immediately turned on a dime and denounced any involvement in an “imperialist war” against Hitler.  When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, communists around the globe turned on a dime again and called for all out war of all free peoples against the Hitlerian  threat.

Orwell had the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and the quick double flips that Communists did in response to it, and the later invasion by Germany of the Soviet Union, when he wrote this passage in 1984:

At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) — the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Devils’ Bargain

  • Reality control.
    Perfect.

    The evil of our day will be crushed.
    The liar does not win the final battle.
    Those Spin Doctors of the past, present and future will be enjoying themselves in everlasting torment, a world they created. A hell on Earth they forged, yet eternal hell is their reward.

    Yes. Rant 101 and counting.

  • Compared to Uncle Joe, Hitler was an amateur. Koba had been in business far longer from 1905 or thereabouts and outlasted Hitler by nearly a decade. By every measure he can claim to be the mightiest dictator the world has ever seen, whose crimes are as monumental as they are unbelievable. Hitler was as Gen Manstein – who served the devil faithfully – wrote merely a gifted amateur, someone who is good when everything works well. Hitler could rant about world conquest as he had the best Army, and the technical genius of the Germans behind him. Short of that he would have been only another rabble-rouser. Stalin on the other hand had to contend with an army that largely hated him, which he kept under ruthless control with SMERSH. In the depths of defeat he could still direct Mao an overall strategy. It is now very clear, contrary to the Lattimores and Edgar Snows that Mao was effectively directed from Moscow (as the book Mao the Untold Story, based on Soviet archives affirms). What the anticommunists in the US had always suspected – that agents of influence continued to undermine Chiang Kai-Shek and thereby lose China, is more or less confirmed. But we’ll have to wait for hell to freeze over before we get any kind of apology from the fellow-travelers. If anyone answers the description of the Devil’s lieutenant, one Joseph D. may well be the genuine article.

  • “What the anticommunists in the US had always suspected – that agents of influence continued to undermine Chiang Kai-Shek and thereby lose China, is more or less confirmed.”

    There were Communists in the State Department and they had zero to do with Chiang losing. He lost because of his own gross incompetence and the corruption of the Kuomintang which often operated as a gigantic, and incompetent, criminal conspiracy. Chiang and his party received immense aid from the US during the War and it all went down an immense rat hole. By the end of the War, as demonstrated by their huge Operation Ichi-Go offensive of April to December 1944, the Japanese could still advance at will against Chiang’s armies that usually specialized in retreating in terror.

    As for Mao and Stalin they hated each other, and Stalin would not have wept a tear if Chiang had destroyed Mao.

  • Stalin may have hated Mao and used one faction against the other, as that was his default position with anyone. Mao on the other hand worshipped the Vodzh. He sent off a few millions to fight the Americans in Korea at the behest of Stalin and against the advice of many. The story of Chiang Kai-Shek’s incompetence and corruption has been seriously exaggerated by those who had to cover their tails. This is the same man who had to fight against Japanese collaborators, warlords and Communists for well on twenty years. True, the Nationalist could have given a better account in their fight against the Japanese, but they did fight. As opposed to the communists, who followed the Stalin line of letting the imperialists duke it out. The bad conscience of the communists stinks to this day. Whenever the Chicoms need to whip a little distraction by picking on the Japanese, they are caught in dilemma as all the newsreels from that era show fighting only between the Nationalists and Imperial Japan.

    We all know about the advanced weaponry the Americans supplied Chiang through the Tigers, little of which could match what the Japanese had. But what about the great transfer of weapons to Stalin for his firework display against the Kwangtung Army, (needless after the atom bombs), all of which found their way to Mao.

    It was the same story when South Vietnam fell, then it was all about their corruption and incompetence, nothing at all to do with the duplicity of the American left who did all they could to freeze out the ARVN of much needed supplies and air and moral support. No doubt the massive transfer of T-72s and Mig-23s by the Soviets to the NVA had no impact on the outcome. The bare-footed North won only by their grit and the genius of Giap.

  • Mao and Stalin never got along. Whatever cooperation they engaged in was a marriage of convenience only:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/10/world/stalin-mao-alliance-was-uneasy-newly-released-papers-show.html

    “He sent off a few millions to fight the Americans in Korea at the behest of Stalin and against the advice of many.”
    Most of Mao’s Generals would eventually come to view the Korean War as a mistake, but Mao did not get involved because of Stalin but rather because he feared an American controlled Korea on his doorstep. He assumed that the US, sooner or later, would back Chiang on an attempted return to the mainland. A mistake on his part, but that was why he went into Korea and not because Stalin asked him.

    “The story of Chiang Kai-Shek’s incompetence and corruption has been seriously exaggerated by those who had to cover their tails.”

    Nope, the corruption was absolutely stunning without any exaggeration. When General Wedemeyer was sent out to replace General Stillwell in later 44 he initially did not believe that the corruption was as bad as painted by Vinegar Joe. Within a few months he was sounding just like Stillwell on the issue of corruption.

    “This is the same man who had to fight against Japanese collaborators, warlords and Communists for well on twenty years.”

    And doing a miserable job at it. Against the Communists he held all the aces and he blew it. The Japanese were always a secondary consideration for Chiang since they got him immense supplies from America and they posed no threat to his rule. In regard to the warlords, he “solved” that problem by bribing them so they would pay lip service to his government.

    “but they did fight.”

    Barely. The war was always low on Chiang’s list of priorities. After Pearl Harbor he knew the Japanese were doomed, and his policy was to use American aid to solidify his reign.

    “Weall know about the advanced weaponry the Americans supplied Chiang through the Tigers, little of which could match what the Japanese had. But what about the great transfer of weapons to Stalin for his firework display against the Kwangtung Army, (needless after the atom bombs), all of which found their way to Mao.”

    The Flying Tigers and the American air effort in China was merely the tip of a huge iceberg of aid given to Chiang, all of it wasted. Most of Mao’s advance weaponry came from the US, courtesy of what he seized after Nationalist units surrendered which they did with appalling regularity during the Chinese Civil War. Thus was lost the 4.43 billion in aid, most of it military, supplied by the US to Chiang after World War II. The only way that the US could have saved Chiang would have been with five million US troops in China, a price which the US people were not going to pay.

  • Donald, Mao’s deference to Stalin is obvious in all the pictures. He went into a snit over Khrushchev’s Secret Speech as he had worshipped Stalin. The book I mentioned, based on newly available archives makes this clear. The overall impression is one of subservience to Moscow. This is no surprise to me as I usually put the worst constructions on the actions of communists. The positions long maintained by the anticommunists (of the 40s and 50s) to the ridicule of the Left, are substantiated when checked against the archives. I have to defer to you on Chiang’s military ineptitude, as I do not know much about it.

  • Mao hated Stalin at least from the time of the Chinese Civil War when Stalin attempted to oversee a peace which would leave Chiang in control of China. Mao’s disastrous trip to Moscow in 1949 underlined his hatred for Stalin and the Soviet Union.

    http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2008/11/maos-humiliation-in-moscow-1949.html
    In public he still would mouth friendly platitudes, but when he was strong enough he seized upon the de-Stalinization policy of Khrushchev as a pretext to break with the Soviet Union.

2 Responses to Song of the Volga Boatmen

  • Robeson: The voice of evil.

  • Much as I like Paul Robeson’s voice, I think Leonid Kharitonov’s version of the Volga Boatmen [You ho heave ho] is far better. It is on You Tube.

    One can sympathize with Paul Robeson, forbidden as we was to sing in his own country. But the banal English words of the Soviet anthem should have given him a clue.
    “Long live our [sic] Soviet motherland / built by the people’s mighty hand”.
    Indeed! Pfui!

Fighting the Evil Empire

Tuesday, February 16, AD 2010

Whether as a sign of intellectual curiosity or general aimlessness, I often find myself reading about random subjects late at night. The other night, I found myself reading about Finland in World War II.

It’s an interesting subject. Finland was invaded by the USSR in 1939, at pretty much the same time they occupied the Baltic states and split Poland with Germany.

In the Winter War of 1939-1940, the Finns successfully slowed the Soviet advance, and eventually the USSR agreed to a peace treaty. Finland was forced to cede the parts of her territory she had not yet won back from the Soviets, but 90% of the country’s territory remained intact. This itself was an amazing military feat for such a small country. It’s also interesting in that they essentially out-Russianed the Russians. Just as Napoleon’s and Hitler’s armies bogged down and froze while trying to invade Russia, the Soviets bogged down and froze while trying to attack Finland, which was even better versed in winter warfare than Russia.

Continue reading...

51 Responses to Fighting the Evil Empire

  • Finland was fighting a just war from beginning to end.

  • For Finland, it was either ally with Germany, or revert to being another Russian province.

    I applaud what the Finns did in beating back an atheist regime.

    I’m curious as to how Finland resolved their “war” with Britain?

  • There are also parallels here with Franco’s Spain.

  • I see absolutely no parallels whatsoever.

  • There are if you consider that Franco received assistance in his war efforts from Germany and Italy. Much to the chagrin of the Axis powers Franco didn’t return the favor. The parallel being that Franco fought a just a war while having bad allies who waged an unjust war.

  • That would be the *only* parallel.

    Franco was fighting for the freedoms of the Spanish people against atheist enemies that were determined to “transform” Spain.

    /begin sarcasm of Henry K. connecting Finland’s war with Soviet Russia to Franco’s war against the atheistic “Republican” regime.

    Just like Obama and Rahm Emmanuel want to “transform” America into another European socialist state.

    /end sarcasm;

  • Franco was fighting for the freedoms of the Spanish people against atheist enemies that were determined to “transform” Spain.

    Describing Franco as fighting for the freedoms of the Spanish people is a bit much, I think.

  • Franco was fighting for the freedoms of the Spanish people against atheist enemies that were determined to “transform” Spain.

    Not much unlike Finland was, right? Granted it was civil war rather than war against an invading army, but invading army in Finland was also knee deep in supporting one or more of the SCW factions.

  • Wars do make strange friends but I am not sure the lines are ever clear. the USSR was allied with Nazi Germany until it was decided that Leninist Communism was less masculine that National Socialist Communism. Then the evil special interests within our borders who financed both the Nazis and the Soviets decided that German Communism should be painted as right-wing fascism and the Soviet Communism should be painted as Democratic Socialism so that the USA would become the ally of the Soviets against the Nazis who were destined to lose and then the USA and the USSR could divide Europe and eventually the USA/USSR European alliance would become the USSA. Of course all this happened before Obama was born otherwise they just might have tried him from the beginning. 🙂

    Nothing new under the sun.
    Wasn’t Finland ruled by Catholic Sweden before and after the Protestant Heresy? I also think Sweden ruled Finland until she was conquered by the Russians, Orthodox Czars not atheist Leninists.

    Sadly, it is unlikely that nation would be able to mount a successful, just war against such fierce foes today. For that matter I don’t know if we have what it takes to liberate the world from the Axis powers either.

    Rome died due to diminishing warrior capacity which was preceded by the moral debasement of her young men by effete Greeks – sounds like a typical college campus today, especially where ROTC is not welcome. I wonder if that is why the president wants his own ‘civilian corpsmen’ (pronounced CORPSE-MEN).

  • RL,

    I don’t know what SCW is.

    BA,

    That or be executed for practicing Catholicism. Religious freedom.

  • “Franco was fighting for the freedoms of the Spanish people against atheist enemies that were determined to ‘transform’ Spain.”

    Franco’s rebellion was an effort to preserve “traditional” Spain, which was rather loosely defined inasmuch as his coalition included both the agri-traditionalist Carlists and the more revolutionary Falange, with a broad swath of rightist elements in between. As far as the Falange goes, he pretty well neutered it before the end of the war, and it was a mere adjunct to his government. It was to his great fortune that the Republic was even more fractious than the Nationalist coalition.

    If you had told Franco that he was fighting for “freedom,” he probably would have blinked in utter incomprehension. I guess to the extent good Spaniards were free of the Reds and anarchists, yes, he was fighting for that kind of freedom–freedom *from*. He was fighting for a Spain rooted in its traditional past, including the Church, the monarchy and what was left of her overseas possessions. Which is why Hitler’s adventures interested him not at all, even when Nazi Germany looked to be victorious.

  • Say all you want about Franco and some of it may even be true but he supported the Church and killed Communists. At the time, in that context he was the choice to make. It is sad when we have to choose between the lesser of two or more evils but fallen man is likely to put us in that position often.

    Sort of like picking progressive Republicans who want to kill babies despite what the platform says against progressive Democrats who want to kill babies because that is what their platform says.

  • AK,

    Yes, Finland was under Swedish rule and then under Russian rule.

    Through Russian efforts to engender friendly relations with their new Finnish lands, the Russians allowed greater autonomy and widespread use of Finnish (to undermine Swedish).

    This eventually backfired since the Finns actualized a greater sense of nationhood that resulted in independence around 1907, with permanent independence after WWII.

    Rome also died due to abortion. Since many Roman couples saw it as an inconvenience, infanticide rose. Also, male Romans didn’t want to have sons since Patricide began to rise as well. So throw that in with no desire for baby girls and their moral debasement of those children that did “survive” and there you have it, Blue state New York and California, I mean, Rome.

  • Dale,

    We are in agreement then. Franco was fighting for freedom from his atheistic adversaries.

    Franco was also clever enough to sideline the Carlists to the point of making them part of the furniture instead of the process.

  • Here’s to eliminating Communism in all of its manifestations! (raising a bottle of Shiner brew)

  • Within the last week or two, I assured someone (who claimed that conservatives were using rhetoric that suggested they were likely to start a coup) that I’d never heard a conservative compare Obama to the Spanish communists and anarchists in the ’30s. I guess I need to be more careful what I say…

    Two thinks I think it’s important to keep in mind:

    – While I have no doubt in my mind that Franco was preferable to the socialist/communist/anarchist forces on the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War, that’s hardly a ringing endorsement, nor should we make it so. Sure, he defended the Church rather than persecuting it, but to list the Christ Rock line, “You’re supposed to do that.”

    – While Obama’s inside clique would doubtless like to see the US looking much more like modern European social democracies (and I think that would be a bad thing), those social democracies are nothing like as despicable and oppressive the Spanish Republicans. Sure, I think they’re too government heavy, but I think they fall within the range of things which one might in good conscience advocate, while the Republican cause clearly didn’t.

  • Say all you want about Franco and some of it may even be true but he supported the Church and killed Communists.

    He also killed a lot of Catholics.

    I’m having visions, however, of another 100+ comment thread that has nothing to do with the original post, so I’ll leave it there.

  • Tito,

    You bring up a great point re: Roman abortions. It is amazing that the Republic that razed Carthage for her child-sacrifice and salted the land to ensure that the abominable practice did not spread.

    Imagine that the great liberator, honest-broker and moral backbone of the world would raze an entire civilization to prevent the sacrifice of children only to turn around and begin the same practice albeit for convenience and not direct sacrifice to devils. It is a good thing no one else would be so stupid to do that. Wait. Where am I?

  • Darwin,

    To make you feel better I was mocking Henry K. for connecting Finland’s war with Soviet Russia to Franco’s war against the atheistic “Republican” regime.

    I was being sarcastic.

    In no way does Obama’s administration resemble that of the God-hating Spanish Republicans.

  • BA,

    And leave all the fun of dissecting Finnish Nationalism contra Soviet Expansionism!

    Or how about the only time in history that a democracy declared war on another democracy, ie, Britain declaring war on Finland!

    Gerald Naus may even make a guest comment appearance.

    😉

  • SCW – Spanish Civil War.

    Why was Franco’s betrayal of the Carlists seen as a good thing? In my mind, it was one his greater faults.

  • BA,

    Franco killing Catholics is like shooting fish in the barrel to get to the crabs.

    By default 99% of Spaniards were *Catholic* by baptism alone in Civil War Spain.

  • RL,

    I didn’t say it was a good thing.

    I was just “showing off” my Spanish Civil War knowledge.

    I myself think it of a very bad thing indeed.

    Imagine how Spain would have turned out if the Carlists had any influence at all by the end of the war, *sigh*.

  • Tito,

    To make you feel better I was mocking Henry K. for connecting Finland’s war with Soviet Russia to Franco’s war against the atheistic “Republican” regime.

    Henry’s comment wasn’t out of line. I thought I demonstrated that. Parallel doesn’t indicate same. Finland was fighting an atheistic republic too. ironically enough, that athiestic republic had the most influence on Spain’s atheistic republic. There’s another parallel.

  • DC,

    I suspect that modern social democracies in Europe are considerably less oppressive than those envisioned by the perpetrators at the end of WWII. I suspect that Commies intended more Soviet-style governments than the namby-pamby nanny-state welfare of Europe today. It is a ruse, the nice social democracies like the UK, Sweden and the USA are designed to get us used to servitude so we will be happy in a global feudal order. You know those nice scientific dictatorships that medicate and indoctrinate you into being a happy slave.

    Makes you wonder why the Finnish and the Spanish bothered fighting for liberation at all.

  • RL,

    You have to admire the Finns though.

    A small republic of barely 3-4 million fought to a standstill the then 70 million strong (or more) Soviet Empire.

    Put it in the context that the USSR was also able to absorb Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, in addition to half of Poland and a sliver of Romania.

    Contrast that to what Finland did and it is utterly amazing.

  • At the risk of starting another bizarre tangent:

    You bring up a great point re: Roman abortions. It is amazing that the Republic that razed Carthage for her child-sacrifice and salted the land to ensure that the abominable practice did not spread. Imagine that the great liberator, honest-broker and moral backbone of the world would raze an entire civilization to prevent the sacrifice of children only to turn around and begin the same practice albeit for convenience and not direct sacrifice to devils.

    I seem to be bad at guaging when people are being arch in this thread, but if this is meant seriously, I’m aware of no evidence that the Roman Republic razed Carthage because of its tendency towards infant sacrifice. The impetus behind Carthago delenda est was more driven by the first two Punic wars, and in particular the lingering memory of Hannibal’s invasion of Italy. Further, exposure of infants was an accepted practice in the Roman Republic back to the earliest days.

    I’m certainly an admirer of the Roman Republic as seen in sources like Polybius, but at a moral level, they were distinctly pagan in their outlook and practices.

  • The little I know about the razing of Carthage is that both Darwin and AK are correct. That or I’ve watched one too many skewed PBS specials on the subject.

    Yes, the Romans practiced infanticide for quite a while, though it may have increased towards the end of its epoch.

    If not, it definitely contributed to Romes decline combined with other factors.

  • I’ll take responsibility for the bizarre tangents, thank you very much.

    I have no source to site for what I wrote above. I think I heard it on radio from the mouth of a priest who was also an historian. But I have no facts to back it up.

    It does make some sense though. Romans were certainly pagans but they seemed to have a deeper insight into the natural law than the barbarian pagans and event he middle-eastern fertility cults. After all, God had Joshua raze the people of Palestine before Israel entered the promised land and yet he allowed the Macabbes to call on Rome to come to the aid of Israel.

    Additionally exposure of infants may have been tolerated and even accepted but that is a more practical discarding of a life rather than a willful sacrifice to demons. I am not excusing child exposure, yet for a non-Christianized pagan society it is understandable and I can see how they would be horrified by sacrificing children to ‘gods’.

    Then again, I may not know what I am talking about.

    To try to bring this back I am fairly confident that modern Finland has gone the way of Carthage and Rome. Abortions are provided ‘free’ in their nationalized ‘health care’ system. Maybe they will be razed soon.

  • I thought the Spanish always had the same liberties as we did? 😉

  • I’m aware of no evidence that the Roman Republic razed Carthage because of its tendency towards infant sacrifice.

    Your the student of the classics. I think he is referring to a thesis advanced by G.K. Chesterton. I cannot remember in which work.

  • BA,

    As of this post we’re about 67 comments short of a 100.

    See you guys later, I have a class to attend to.

  • Both sides in the Spanish Civil War engaged in sickening atrocities during the war. Both sides were none too choosy in regard to who they accepted aid from. Both sides aimed to establish authoritarian regimes, outside of the Basque Republicans on the side of the Republic, and some of the Catholic groups on the side of the Nationalists. The big difference between the two sides was the massive persecution that Catholics suffered in the Republic, outside of the Basque controlled areas.

  • So you’re saying that war is hell and total war is totally hellish.

  • Spanish civil wars certainly tend to be hellish AK. They make our Civil War look like a very well behaved military exercise by comparison. Having said that, I have always found the Spanish Civil War of the last century endlessly fascinating. All that was best and worst in Spain was on full display. Jose Maria Gironella’s magnificent trilogy of novels on the War are an excellent starting point for anyone wishing to understand the war and why Spaniards fought each other so savagely: Cypresses Believe in God, One Million Dead and Peace After War. They are the best novels I have ever read and left me with a much deeper understanding of the War and of Spain.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586170465/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=999741120X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=171T10TQDJRJMH3NJZHR

  • Chesterton made that argument about child sacrifice in Carthage in The Everlasting Man. As usual, Chesterton was a good writer and a poor historian. Horror over Carthaginian child sacrifice played absolutely no role in Rome’s desire to obliterage Carthage.

  • Thanks for clearing that up. OK, so Rome simply razed Carthage because Rome did not want to have to go back and fight them again and again and again. It seems as if North Africa has a war resiliency. I suppose if Jefferson had finished the Barbary Pirates once and for all we would not be dealing with piracy in the same seas today.

    The war in North America of the 1860s (I have yet to be convinced that it was a civil war) was fairly brutal. Many consider it the first war of the pre-nuclear modern age. I am not as familiar with the Spanish Civil War (I am convinced that it was a civil war), but I understand it was extremely brutal. It makes sense that atrocities would occur during a mutli-faction civil conflict then a conflict between the organized armies of two countries (if’n y’all don’t recognize the CSA as a separate country, then at least concede that there were only two sides to the conflict).

  • AK, the organized armies on both sides committed the bulk of the atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. Mass executions, with only the quickest of drum head military trials, if that, was the rule for both sides. Most Spaniards on all sides were convinced that the only way to bring peace was to physically eliminate their adversaries. The Spanish Civil War is an object lesson of what unchecked political hatreds can lead to.

  • I wouldn’t go so far as saying that both sides committed equal amounts of atrocities. The Republicans by far committed more heinous acts in depth and volume with an exceeding amount of enthusiasm.

    According to argueably the best Christian historian alive, Warren H. Carroll, comparing the atrocities of the Nationalists on par with those of the Republicans is a gross error when conveyed against the reputed facts.

    Remember that the overwhelming amount of history written on the Spanish Civil War were written by the Republicans. Which is ironic since it generally known that the victors are the ones who write history.

    So when Donald says that “both” sides committed atrocities, I hope that he was saying it rhetorically and not of equal number and depth.

  • Tito

    While I support the Franco side of the civil war, and indeed, own coins of Franco and books written by people who were involved with the war on his side, obviously both sides did commit grave evils. Moreover, Warren Carroll is not arguably the best Christian historian alive; he is far from the best, in fact. He often gets history wrong — look to his discussion on SAINT Photius (yes, he is a Saint in the Catholic Church) and look to any relevant modern historical treatise on the Photian Schism — he shows his rather shallow approach quite well when you compare the two.

    Give me Christopher Dawson any day (alas he is not alive). And if you want a living historian, check out Eamon Duffy!

  • Christopher Dawson is the Ratzinger of Christian history. I need to put the book down and digest what I just read. He is very good and is prominent in my miniature library.

    Eamon Duffy is on my Amazon list of books to buy and I look forward reading his works!

  • In regard to the Spanish Civil War Tito, if you take into account the post war executions, which were massive, by the Nationalists, the body count of the Nationalists was higher. I am sympathetic to the Nationalist cause due to the demonic anti-Catholicism of most of their opponents and the fact that most of the leaders who wielded power within the Republic were intent on setting up a totalitarian state of one sort or another. However, the Nationalist leadership were not saints. They set up a fairly squalid dictatorship, engaged in massive atrocities and showed almost no mercy to their defeated adversaries.

  • The best, and I think most objective, historian of the Spanish Civil War and the Franco regime is Stanley Payne.

    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=stanley+g.+payne

    Warren Carroll’s The Last Crusade is not a bad book on the first year of the Spanish Civil War. He is obviously completely in sympathy with the Nationalists, but his work is a useful corrective to many other historians of the War who are completely in sympathy with the forces of the Left.

    http://www.amazon.com/Last-Crusade-Warren-H-Carroll/dp/0931888670/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266418125&sr=8-1

  • What Donald said about the post-war executions. Franco was not merciful. That his enemies would have been no more merciful had they triumphed is no absolution.

    Alas, it is highly likely that the executions were popular with the Nationalist population at large. A grandson of Spanish Nationalists was an exchange student at my high school, and was delighted to give me the Nationalist perspective on the Civil War. He mentioned that the Republicans had brutally murdered his great uncle and, IIRC, some other members of his family. The exchange student still hated the Republicans, flipping a picture of “La Pasionaria” the bird.

  • “The exchange student still hated the Republicans, flipping a picture of “La Pasionaria” the bird.”

    I would have joined him in that Dale! “La Pasionaria” was a real piece of work. By the end of the Civil War almost all families in Spain, including Franco’s, had a member of the family who had been murdered by the other side. Most of the victims executed by the Nationalists probably had committed hideous crimes. The true injustice of course is that no such justice was ever visited on the Nationalist victors in this world.

  • Excellent links.

    I like reading objective history. Especially when it is on a favorite subject of mine like the Spanish Civil War.

  • My wife is going to be upset with y’all because I won’t take responsibility for all the books that I just put in my Amazon cart that y’all referenced.

  • Pingback: Finlandia Hymn « The American Catholic

The Coming Open Rebellion Against God

Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010

The title of this article almost sounds surreal. At first one could be forgiven for thinking it was some sort of low budget End Times movie seen on some local cable access channel. However, the information contained within this article is real, fortunately, as believers and specifically those of us who are Catholic we know that Jesus promised that His Church would not fall despite the attempts of those working for the evil one. God is the truth and God is love, but the mere fact that He is both has caused many rebellions against him literally from day one. Sadly, those who often claim to be the smartest act the most childish, by at first claiming God doesn’t exist and then claiming if He does exist, He doesn’t make sense at least to them. This article will look at this behavior from the world’s earliest moments, but will mainly focus on what has happened in the last few years, right up until this very moment.

Continue reading...

61 Responses to The Coming Open Rebellion Against God

Poland And Russia Battle Over WWII History

Tuesday, September 1, AD 2009

Today is the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War II as Germany bombarded Westerplatte with canon fire.  Katyn massacre posterEventually Germany made peace with their neighbors by recognizing the role they played in the devastation of Europe.  Since then Europe has experienced only one conflict[1] since the end of World War II.

But Russia remains another matter.

Russia continues to be belligerent in their interpretation of the war.  Denying much culpability in their conflict with Poland and even insinuating of Polish-German designs on the Soviet Union.

In the days leading up to anniversary, Russian media has aired a string of accusations against Poland, claiming that Warsaw intended to collaborate with Hitler in an invasion of the Soviet Union, and that Jozef Beck, Poland’s foreign minister in 1939, was a German agent. Moscow broadcasters have also claimed that there was a “German hand” in the 1940 Katyn massacre of thousands of Polish PoWs, an atrocity generally held to have been the exclusive work of Stalin’s secret police.

In fairness, the de facto ruler of Russia, Vladimir Putin, did offer a conciliatory tone relating to Russia’s aggression towards Poland:

“Our duty is to remove the burden of distrust and prejudice left from the past in Polish-Russian relations,” wrote Mr Putin, who went on to describe the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as “immoral”, and also thanked Poland “from the bottom of my heart” for the 600,000 Poles who fought on the Eastern Front under Red Army command.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Poland And Russia Battle Over WWII History

  • Great post, Tito–and an important reminder of the world-spanning nightmare that began on this day.

    I grit my teeth to say this, given that Putin is nothing short of a murderous thug, but his statement is an excellent one. Given where Russia is now, his opinion counts for more than the increasingly rabid pro-state media’s. Or Dmitri Medvedev’s.

  • I agree, Mr. Medvedev is nothing more than a symbolic leader.

    I don’t see Russia apologizing for anything in the near future. If the current Oil drop in prices hasn’t shaken Russia, then nothing will.

    Russia needs to admit their role in World War II of being more than a ‘benevolent liberator’.

  • I grit my teeth to say this, given that Putin is nothing short of a murderous thug…

    As if the ex-KGB, who himself was responsible for many heinous crimes, could actually be considered anything less than.

  • It’s nitpicking, but I think the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, to cite but one instance, would count as another European conflict post-1945.

  • This is the kind of “nitpicking” I actually appreciate.

    Well done.

  • Putin might also call immoral the fact that the Red Army stood by and did nothing after the Polish Home Army rose in revolt in Warsaw in 1944 while the Soviets were at the very gates of Warsaw. For 63 days the Soviets did nothing to aid the uprising. They allowed the use of Soviet air bases by the Western Allies dropping supplies to the Poles only near the end of the rising after the Soviets knew it was nearing defeat. As ever, Stalin was only too happy to have Hitler kill Poles for him.

  • Don:

    You can hardly blame the Soviets for being the Soviets. A successful Polish Home Army would have been a potential contender for power in post war Poland.

    As Professor Norman Davies points out in his history of the Warsaw Rising much of the blame for the rising failure can be laid at the feet of the British and the US governments which encouraged the Poles to revolt and promised assistance when they had no way to provide such assistance and knew such resistance would be futile but would aid them by tying up German troops.

    http://www.warsawuprising.com/paper/davies1.htm

    The Poles – as before the war – were fools to depend on the assurances of countries that had no means by which to provide assistance.

  • Bloody murderers Awakaman can always be blamed for being bloody murderers. I have read Davies’ book and as usual he mixes insight and rubbish. It was the Polish government in exile in England that was pushing for the revolt. The Americans and Brits could care less since holding down troops in Poland, which never amounted to more than a few low grade Wehrmacht divisions diverted from the Eastern front, was of little consequence to the Western allies. They wanted more recruits for the Polish forces fighting in the West and operations in Poland were a very low priority for the Brits and the Americans.

    As for the Poles being fools, they fought gallantly throughout WW2 against foes seeking to exterminate them. They engaged in no action against Hitler or Stalin in 1939, but they were a marked nation. Against all the odds they have outlived as a people both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I regard them not as fools but as rather one of the more heroic nations that fought in WW2.

  • BA,

    Not at all, it isn’t nitpicking.

    I’m a history aficionado and so I’m surprised that I forgot about the Hungarian Revolution of ’56.

    Good catch!

  • As Professor Norman Davies points out in his history of the Warsaw Rising much of the blame for the rising failure can be laid at the feet of the British and the US governments

    And professors can always be blamed for being professors.

    “What is the function of intellectuals, but to tell us that things are not as ordinary people perceive them?” – Fr. Neuhaus.

  • usa stood by and watched more than 20 million russians getting killed. When the Sovietuning was standing before poland they “interveined”.
    Usa the great liberator….

    Who else when not russia?

  • What complete rubbish. The US provided extensive lend lease aid to the Soviets throughout the war, which included hundreds of thousands of vehicle and extensive food aid to feed the Red Army. The British and the Americans tied down one-third of the Wehrmacht in the West throughout the war, and the bomber fleets of the British and the Americans devastated Germany and forced the Luftwaffe to redeploy from the Russian front many of their fighter squadrons in order to defend Germany from the Allied bombers.

Lenin, Stalin, and the Secret War Against the Vatican

Sunday, August 30, AD 2009

Adolph Hitler’s evil twin in terror, Joseph Stalin, once remarked “How many divisions has the Pope?”.  This was done in response to the  future saint Pope Pius XII’s[1] disapproval of his policies.

Well it wasn’t a mocking tone nor was it a sarcastic remark in reference to the Vatican.  It was a serious concern to the ‘meddling’ of the Catholic Church in thwarting Communism’s attempt at world domination.  Stalin was well aware of the tremendous moral power that the Vatican wielded and Vladimir Lenin implemented the full power of the KGB and the eastern bloc spy agencies to monitor and undermine the mission of the Catholic Church.

A new non-fiction book by John Koehler titled, Spies in the Vatican, has recently come out that documents the final twenty years of the Cold War and how it played out as the Soviet Union and their allies infiltrated the Vatican.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Lenin, Stalin, and the Secret War Against the Vatican

  • The French Revolution must have been a pretty long lasting catalyst, I guess, as the Romonov’s fell more than a half or full century later, depending on how you count such things, with the intervention of minor things like Napolean and WWI, again depending on how you count it.
    And although 70 years of “athiestic terror” may have occured, subsequetly, I can’t say that it was much worse than the centuries of very theistic terror that occurred under the rule of the Romanovs.

  • Lenin, Marx, and most Socialists and Communists have read up and were inspired by headless French intellectuals from the French Revolution.

    It’s an invention called the Gutenberg Press that has been able to facilitate the knowledge of evil.

    As for the Atheistic terror, more people died under Stalin and the Soviet Union in 70 years than all the previous centuries combined under the Romanovs.

  • Pingback: The Secret War Against Iran « comics
  • Pingback: Condition Zero Deleted Scenes Secret War Pt. 1/2 « comics