Top

The Sunic Journal: Interview with Constantin von Hoffmeister

October 26, 2010

Constantin von Hoffmeister

Constantin von Hoffmeister discusses:

  • His life and travels;
  • National Bolshevism and Eurasianism;
  • National Socialism vs. Fascism;
  • Experiences in Russia.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic@hotmail.com

Comments

45 Responses to “The Sunic Journal: Interview with Constantin von Hoffmeister”

  1. gcawthorn on October 27th, 2010 3:06 pm

    A very interesting interview thanks. Constantin’s thoughts on Russia were particularly valuable: Russia does not deserve the lionization it receives in some circles. Its current regime stands for nothing except power and power politics.

  2. Norman Lowell on October 28th, 2010 7:04 am

    What an interesting personality Constantin is.
    What a Free Spirit.
    Parading all his Fs at school – so open and honest.

    He may not have been a star student – but he certainly is a highly educated man.
    “Been there” type of Education, together with a sharp eye for observation:
    from ideology, to politics, race, culture…

    And so well read, well connected – an asset to The Movement.
    An ambassador to pan-Europeanism.
    Gratified that I can count him as a friend.

    Thank you Dr Sunic for interviewing such an interesting personality.

  3. johnUK on October 28th, 2010 9:38 am

    Good interview.

    I knew corruption in Russia was bad but I didn’t know it was that bad although it is nowhere near as bad as during the Yeltsin era with the Jewish Oligarchy lead by Berezovsky where running it as a private criminal enterprise into the ground and attempted to literally destroy the country colluding with Chechen terrorists groups. It was Jewish Oligarch Guisinky through the World Jewish Congress in Russia that was responsible for resettling tens of thousands of Chechens into Moscow and other Russian regions after the first war.

    Actually the Eurasian movement is a counter to pan-Turkish nationalist movement supported by the CIA, MI6 and western intelligence, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Mid East countries mainly through CIA man Fatullah Gullen who finances Universities, mosques, etc and the Wahabbi Islamic movement financed by the Saudi royal family, Bin Ladin family and Saudi businessmen through mosques and NGO’S, etc. There is also western and Mid East supported Islamic movements in Russia and Eurasia supported by the EU and Mid East countries. That is what the Al Qaeda movement really is.

    Mr Enaam Arnaout who ran the Benevolence International Foundation who Mohammed Atta has been working through since the Bosnian war was caught red handed by Croatian authorities in 93 smuggling weapons to Bosnian Mujahedeen who miraculously escaped prison after contacting US Senator Carol Moseley Braun.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun

    Extract from indictment in the US v. Benevolence International Foundation, et al court case in the US.
    Chicago, IL

    15. CW2 also explained that in 1989, ARNOUT was involved with directing convoys of trucks carrying weapons and ammunition into Afghanistan.
    16. CW2 later learned that ARNOUT was driving a convoy of trucks in Croatia in or about 1993 and was arrested by Croatian authorities but after some time escaped from Croatian jail.
    (Investigation has determined that on or about October 13th 1993, ARNOUT wrote United States Senator Carol Moseley Braun to seek her assistance regarding “our unfortunate problem with the Croatian authorities” noting that Croatian officials “insist that BIF or one of its employees are involved in illegal arms activities.”)

    I don’t agree with the no borders, racial integration of Dugin’s thesis if accurate but if much better than some half assed WN movement that really does not have any structure and doomed to failure in whatever country it is implemented never mind Russia which has 160 different ethnic groups.

  4. A German on October 30th, 2010 12:46 am

    I agree that Russia is ruled by political nihilism.
    Their only goal is power and to maintain the oligarchy.
    That’s a very good observation.

    I also subscribe to the idea that we shall not be hostile to Chritianity.
    That’s counter productive.
    Some may be agnostics and some even atheists but we cannot abolish religion in Europe or re-introduce an artificial neo-heathendom.
    Europe has the tradition of cultural-Christianity and that has to stay, even for non-believers.

    And it’s also a great tool against the Islamic colonisation.

    But to what I don’t agree is National Bolshevism!
    BOLSHEVISM IS JUDAISM FOR NON-JEWS.

    I will never subscribe to such nonsense.
    I know of these crazies in Russia who praise Stalin and wave swastika flags without a swastika but a black hammer and sickle.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/National_Bolshevik_Party.svg/800px-National_Bolshevik_Party.svg.png
    All they want is a revival of the Communist USSR, nothing near to real Nationalsocialism.
    Just lunacy.

    And then “Herr von” tells us something of an alliance with the Soviets, with Stalin?!?
    Stalin wanted to attack us in 1941!!!
    “Herr von” is just talking like that because he became excessively russophile while living for years in in Putinland.

    From 1917 on he and Lenin had the plan to conquer Germany and by that Europe, so the Red Army would wash their boots in the English Channel.

    So Conni don’t come to me with such nonsense!
    It’s as nonsensical as this Multi Cult Eurasianism.

    And a last side note: Islam Karimov is a frickin’ inner asiatic dictator!
    Former Communist, now islamic autocrate.

    And Gottfried Benn was a traitor.

    And why does a so-called white nationalist have an Usbek girl friend?

  5. johnUK on October 30th, 2010 11:18 am

    “And then “Herr von” tells us something of an alliance with the Soviets, with Stalin?!?
    Stalin wanted to attack us in 1941!!!

    LOL!

    “And a last side note: Islam Karimov is a frickin’ inner asiatic dictator!
    Former Communist, now islamic autocrate.”

    So. He is fighting one of the largest, most radical Islamic groups in the world who wants to establish a caliphate across the entire Eurasian cotenant from the whole of Central Asia, regions of China and Russia controlling the largest untapped energy reserves in the world support by western intelligence and there Saudi, Pakistani vassal states.

    No he is not an Islamic autocrate he is an anti-Islamic leader like Saddam was.

    You’re hero Hitler wanted to have a NWO alliance between Germany and Britain and praise of the British Empire.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Second_Book:_The_Unpublished_Sequel_to_Mein_Kampf

  6. A German on October 30th, 2010 12:06 pm

    @JohnUK

    Karimov is an autocratic dictator who uses Islam for his power grap!
    That’s a fact.

    Of course he’s not a Pan-Turanist nor Jihadist,
    but he uses Islam to secure his rule.

    Usbekistan became much more islamic under him!

    And even Sadam in his last years used Islam to secure his rule.
    Do you remember when he attached “Allahu aqbar” between the three stars on the Iraqi flag?

    And what you wrote about Hitler is again the usual nonsense which enduringly comes from you.

    Yes he wanted an aliance with the Brits, on the base of racial kinship and not a weird “NWO”.
    That’s Jew stuff occidentphobe.

    I now Stalin is your hero, as he is for these crazy “National” Bolshevists,
    That’s why you immediately go crazy like a mad dog if one denies your overlord uncle Joe Stalin.

    But tell me John, are you a genuine Scotsman infected with the mental disease of Neo Sovietism and Occidentphobia, or are you a Russian who immigrated to Scotland and who isn’t able to differentiate between mother Russia and Stalin?

    Or are you a reincarnated Bolshevik commissar in the body of a pale skinned, red haired, skirt wearing, bagpipe playing Scotsman?

    Ay me lad!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDJMn-534Y
    1:45

  7. Carolyn on October 30th, 2010 5:01 pm

    Wikipedia John wrote to A German:

    “And then “Herr von” tells us something of an alliance with the Soviets, with Stalin?!?
    Stalin wanted to attack us in 1941!!!

    LOL!

    Is LOL the best you can ever come up with, Wikipedia John? Every other thing you come up with on VOR is a link to Wikipedia! It’s like a school kid who gets all his answers, writes all his school papers from the encyclopedia set he has at home. Whatever the encyclopedia says, that’s it, he goes no further.

    If he can’t find it in the encyclopedia, he just says LOL!

    The truth about Stalin and 1941 is getting stronger legs all the time. Pretty soon, Wikipedia will cave in too. Then what will you do?

  8. johnUK on October 30th, 2010 6:12 pm

    With respect to Hoffmeister he does not know the geopolitical history of Russia and the region especially since the collapse of the USSR and how Dugin and the Eurasia movement is involved in this which is power politics but is a counter to the power politics of US/NATO and there allied states for control of Eurasia. Since the collapse of USSR states have been exerting there influence and power most noticeably Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, NATO and Britain.

    Dugin’s Eurasianist movement dating back to the time of Catherine the Great is a counter to Brzezinski’s pan Turkish movement across Eurasia, the Balkans and the Mid East.

    @Carolyn

    I have addressed the issue before and refuted the points you made by referencing Suvorov’s books which has been widely debunked by any serious historian that has researched both German and Soviet military archives including David Glantz the premier western historian on Soviet military affairs preceding and during WW2 who addressed this issue of Stalin preparing to attack German forces and Soviet capabilities in the lead up to WW2 in his book Stumbling Colossus.

    http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glastu.html

    Only individuals and Hitler’s second book do I cite Wikipedia as a reference which includes a link to his book online.

    Non-Wiki link to how the book was discovered and its history.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3603289/Revealed-the-amazing-story-behind-Hitlers-second-book.html

    “The truth about Stalin and 1941 is getting stronger legs all the time. Pretty soon, Wikipedia will cave in too. Then what will you do?

    They had about 2 decades to find evidence of your “truth” about Stalin and 1941 and they have not found any evidence of a planned attack against German forces. On the contrary it reinforces the notion that Stalin had never the will or ability to launch a disastrous war against the best organised and largest union of states in the world as well as demolishing the most basic myths regarding Stalin.

    As the Neocons Trotskyite like Daniel Pipes, Anne Applebaum and Neocon organisations like the Heritage foundation and the mass media push Stalinist lies and history to attack Russia they will no doubt “discover” some new document in the archives preparing for Barbarossa 2 after their total failure of operations from supporting terrorism, colour revolutions, trying to export Russia economy abroad and proxy war.

  9. A German on October 30th, 2010 7:04 pm

    “They had about 2 decades to find evidence of your “truth” about Stalin and 1941 and they have not found any evidence of a planned attack against German forces.”

    Now I “LOL”!

    Aren’t millions of captured Soviet soldiers and thousands of destroyed Soviet tanks at the new German-Soviet border of 1941 enough proof????

    How can you ignore this fact Johnashvili?

    And then I don’t understand why you as a Stalin, USSR, Soviet, Communism lover are on VOR at all?

    I don’t waste my time on Commie or Jew sites.

    And lad, you didn’t answer me last question yet!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08jOGYFZCkM

  10. Carolyn on October 30th, 2010 10:24 pm

    Wikipedia John wrote:
    Carolyn, I have addressed the issue before and refuted the points you made by referencing Suvorov’s books which has been widely debunked by any serious historian that has researched both German and Soviet military archives including David Glantz …

    to Wikijohn:

    You are claiming to have refuted something you did not refute … except in your dreams. You reference one man only, and always–David Glantz — as though anything Glantz writes we must all accept without question.
    Like all good stalinists, you ignore the direct evidence of what transpired in favor of constructing scenarios to match your political views.
    Please don’t insult me and the people reading comments on VOR by saying you “refuted” either me or Suvorov. You haven’t.

    Is posting a link to The Telegraph, a totally anti-German newspaper and Jewish mouthpiece, your idea of an alternative to Wikipedia? Don’t answer until you answer the German’s last question on how you became a Scotsman.

  11. johnUK on October 31st, 2010 12:32 am

    ”You are claiming to have refuted something you did not refute … except in your dreams. You reference one man only, and always–David Glantz — as though anything Glantz writes we must all accept without question.”

    David Glantz is the foremost expert on Soviet military history especially WW2 and addressed the Stalin was preparing to attack Germany thesis directly in his book Stumbling Colossus that’s why I reference him.

    If anybody should know it would be him.

    I also wrote that virtually every major historian agrees that Suvarovs book is crap.

    ”Like all good stalinists, you ignore the direct evidence of what transpired in favor of constructing scenarios to match your political views”.

    No that’s what you do.

    What evidence? There is no direct evidence. All the direct evidence affirms that it was not a pre-emptive strike.

    ”Please don’t insult me and the people reading comments on VOR by saying you “refuted” either me or Suvorov. You haven’t.”

    Link I provided to the book shows some of the sources both Russian and German used by Glantz and testimony from other historians and the Wikipedia link that I have posted before lists the points by various historians why Suvorovs thesis is bunk.

    “Suvorov’s view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of historians.

    A noteworthy rebuttal of Suvorov’s thesis is contained in Colonel David Glantz’s work Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War. Glantz views Suvorov’s argument as “incredible” on a variety of fronts: first, Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. Glantz points to this as a serious methodological flaw. Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov’s thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[1] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz’s conclusion is that “Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic.”

    Commenting on the existing plans for Soviet preemptive strike Robin Edmonds argues that “the Red Army planning staff would not have been doing its job if it had not devoted some time between 1939 and 1941 to the possibility, at some future date, of a pre-emptive strike against Wehrmacht”[2]. David Brandenberger notes that recently published pre-1941 German analysis of Soviet military readiness also do not support the major Icebreaker’s thesis demonstrating that Soviet preparations were assessed to be “defensive” by German intelligence.”[3]

    Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 8, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the evidence as presented by Glantz and others. There were no stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted. Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile. Air Force aircraft were parked in neat, tightly-packed rows along their airfields rather than dispersed. Over 50% of all Soviet tanks required major maintenance on June 22, 1941. If an invasion were being planned, these maintenance tasks would have been completed. Most Soviet armor units were in the process of re-organizing into new Tank Corps; the German invasion caught these units in the midst of this reorganization. Such a large-scale reorganization is inconsistent with an impending invasion.

    The origin of Suvorov’s thesis may lie in the fact that Marshal Zhukov did suggest a pre-emptive strike on Germany early in 1941. Zhukov recalled this plan later but claimed either that the plan was rejected by Stalin or didn’t reach the leader at all. This doesn’t sound too convincing, though, as military historian Mikhail Meltyukhov has pointed out. First, it is hard to believe Zhukov’s claim that he had given the top secret document to a secretary so that the latter could deliver it to Stalin. Second, the claim by Suvorov rejectors that the document doesn’t have signatures really proves nothing. It is known that during those years official military documents were almost exclusively passed without proper formatting.[4]

    Another major Icebreaker’s issue in a lack of documentary evidences.[5] Cynthia A. Roberts notes that the book contains “virtually no documentary sources”, and therefore “has been viewed in the West as an anti-Soviet tract”. [6]

    Summarising the western scholars’ opinion on Icebreaker Hugh Ragsdale concludes that the book is “generally considered discredited” by now,[7] whereas Jonathan Haslam notes that Suorov’s claims “would be comical were it not taken so seriously”.[8] According to the latter, “there is a significant segment of opinion in Germany that wishes to rehabilitate the Nazi past, and the end of the Soviet regime created an atmosphere favorable to the publication of the book.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29

    I didn’t want to post what he said in the e-mail exchange I had with him without asking his permission but this is what he said regarding Suvorov.

    ”The Suvorov (his real name is Rezin) theses surfaces “Phoenix-like” each and every year, regardless of the many works that refute it. In fact, I wrote Stumbling Colossus with the specific intent to counter his wild thesis. At the same time, the historial Gabriel Gorodetsky (an Israeli) also did so on the basis of diplomatic records. In short, Suvorov, who previously wrote several sensationalist accounts of the Soviet Army in the Cold War, changed course sharply after the fall of the Soviet Union and wrote his first account of Stalin’s supposedly aggressive plans, a book entitled Icebreaker. It and all of Suvorov’s subsequent books cite loads of information, primarly from older Soviet memoirs, but utterly out of context. I have read all of these books and none of them say what Suvorov claims. As for the infamous 15 May proposal submitted by chief of the General Staff, Zhukov, which proposed a preemptive Soviet attack on the Germans, I have seen the hand-written document. Meant for Stalin, as were all such contingency plans prepared by the General Staff, there is no evidence that Stalin ever saw it (no marginal comments, which Stalin always wrote on such pieces). And, if he had seen it, there is no reason to assume he acted upon it. Since the Red Army was in no state to conduct such an offensive, at least in summer 1941, the General Staff ultimately used his proposal to form the basis for a counterstroke (“answering strike”) the Kiev Special Military District (wartime Southwestern Front) included in its part of Soviet Defense Plan 1941 (in short, DP-41). That is why, two days after the Barbarossa invasion, Stalin sent Zhukov to the Southwestern Front to organize the counterstroke based on his plan. The rest is history — the counterstroke, conducted by six mechanized corps failed and did so miserably.

    In short, nothing amidst the thousands of pages of Soviet documents, either officially-published as secret and top secret studies from 1946-1970 or in unclassified format since 1991, supports Suvorov’s thesis. In addition to my book, Stumbling Colossis, my new two-volume study of the Battle for Smolensk (to be published shortly by Helion Press), shows the real state of the Red Army during the first summer of the war, at a point where it was only halfway through the so-called Timoshenko reform program . Finally, no reputable historian, Soviet or Western, supports Suvorov’s theses. Nonetheless, senstationalism still sells and will likely continue to sell, in spite of the evidence.”

    ”Is posting a link to The Telegraph, a totally anti-German newspaper and Jewish mouthpiece,”

    Do Jews own The Telegraphy? I thought that was a Murdoch newspaper?

    Please cite as an example The Telegraph being anti-German?

    Anyway what does that have to do with the interview they had with the person that discovered the book he was just recalling how he discovered it?

  12. adspi on November 2nd, 2010 2:15 pm

    Constantin, so young yet so sane and valid.
    Thanks for interviewing him Dr Sunic.

    Jews betrayed the Christians at Toledo and Constantinople, siding with the Moslems.
    Jews have always sided with anybody else fighting the Whites.
    Jews started the First World War by assassinating (Prinzyp) the heir to the Kaiser.
    Jews started the 2nd WW by assassinating (Grynspan) the German first Secretary at the Embassy in Paris.
    Jews bombed and tried to sink the USS Liberty to blame it on the Egyptians.
    Jews were betraying the West in the Lavon affair.
    Pollard the Jew sold top secrets to Israel which in turn sold to China.
    Jews (Mad Albright) forced the West to bomb Serbia, helping the Bosnians.
    Jews gave us Iraq 1 & Iraq 2.
    Jews are pushing for war in Afghanistan.
    Jews are behind pornography.
    Jews are behind White slavery.
    Jews own Hollywood and the World’s media – propaganda chiefs.
    Jews own/owned every President since Roosevelt (except Kennedy).

    Facts or fiction? He is right in stating that no one is interested in following a victim.

    But who are the deceived ones (the victims) I ask?
    Us, the White Race
    Us, who constitute a tiny portion of the Worldwide population.
    Us, a race of inventors, philosophers, thinkers and what not
    Us who gave the world almost everything
    Us, the racialists, the only racists in today’s terminology
    Us who can say nothing but get blamed for anything.

    Let us distinguish between conspiracies and facts.
    Then let us call ourselves victims if need be, but carry on.
    We shouldn’t follow victims nor allow ourselves to be,
    we should be radical in our thoughts and ruthless in our actions,
    bring unity amongst the four cousin sub-races and transcend.

    Take Care Constantin.

  13. Kurt K. on November 3rd, 2010 3:57 pm

    Constantine is not a White Nationalist. He is simply a European Neo-Con. Capitalism aside, his views mirror the sentiments and vision of the now defunct PNAC think tank headed by William Kristol and a long list of Jewish Supremacists.

    You cannot advocate for the interest of Whites and fawn over Jews simultaneously, they are incompatible interests.

    Constantine an ironist and thus an enemy of ideology. His major accomplishments are befriending visible WN figures and traveling.
    He should be writing in a travel periodical not offering opinions to white racial audiences.

  14. xcommander on November 8th, 2010 5:11 pm

    I’m sorry to answer with a “list”, but I had no idea on how to structurate my paragraphs.

    On corruption: Policemen in Russia have ridiculously low wages, so to survive they have to take the money where it is (even though I’m not justifying it)

    On eurasianism: Dugin really should be interviewed here, I’m sure he’ll shake some of Dr. Sunic’s listeners with his refreshing point of view.

    A German, you really shouldn’t tackle National-Bolshevism, Niekisch wasn’t Jew at all, indeed he opposed the imperial figure to the Jew figure and the roman one (he was very anti-Latin). And Stalin didn’t attack Germany, indeed Germany attacked the USSR (I’m French and in France, the communists were collaborating with nazis until Operation Barbarossa). Niekisch was a damn rightist, he was a close friend to Ernst Jünger (not really a leftist Jew). Indeed, everything Niekisch liked in the USSR was all the leftist hated about it: sense of authority, defense of nationalities (the USSR did help to maintain local identities, as opposed to today multicultiralism), austerity (“USSR is Luther in Russia” as he used to say)… I don’t know if you know or read Armin Mohler’s book about the Conservative Revoluation in Weimar Republic, but honestly there are a lot of interesting stuffs in it about national bolshevism. And as you seem to like NS, I don’t understand why you criticize so much Islam, it was Hitler’s favourite monotheism (the only religious SS group was a muslim one, in Croatia if I remember well ; the Great Mufti of Jerusalem was openly pro-nazi). Savitri Devi, “Hitler’s priestess”, even pointed connections between Islam and NS (however, the Wikipedia article doesn’t mention it).

    Now I’m sorry for any mistake I could have made before, I’m open to discussion and I’m sorry if I offended anyone.

  15. A German on November 8th, 2010 6:57 pm

    @xcommander
    Salut!
    First of all you my French friend should differentiate between the idea of National Bolshevism of the 1920s and the today Stalin-hailing National Bolshevism in Russia!

    And for me personally BOLSHEVISM IS JUDAISM FOR NON-JEWS!
    So I despise it. PERIOD.
    I dont force anyone to think the same.

    I am for a Folkish Socialism. social care among kinsmen.
    No International Socialism=Marxism, no Communism, no Bolshevism!

    And yes Germany attacked the USSR, you’re right!
    But it was a preemptive strike, weeks later Stalin would have attacked. Otherwise it’s not plausible why he massed millions of Soviet soldiers, 25,000 tanks, 19,000 planes at the new German-Soviet border!

    Only by this secret plan of Stalin it was possible that the Germans captured millions of Soviet soldiers in the first weeks and that the Stuka pilots could destroy thousands of tanks and enemy planes!

    You should take a deeper look into this issue.

    And Islam was not Hitler’s favorite religion!
    His favorite religion was Christianity! He believed in GOD and Christ, despite that he criticized the institutional Church and some liberal priests as “ancient Communism”, that does not mean that he was anti-Christianity!

    Himmler had some sympathies for Islam, but only because he wanted the Bosniaks and Albanians as auxiliaries in the Waffen SS! And because for future alliances when the Africa Korps would have advantaged to the Holy Land and Arabia.
    But it was not meant seriously, only tactics.

    I once have read a piece where Himmler made fun of the Bosnian Muslims, after they sent him a letter and declared they were Germanics, Goths, who migrated to Bosnia and became Bogomils (rogue Christians like the Cathars) and then decided to become Muslims.

    Himmler just laughed about this legend.

    And Savitri Devi, if you listened to Bowden’s speech here on VOR, was a nationalistic Hindu who hated Islam!
    So you’re quote cannot be right.

    The Great Mufti issue was also just a publicity act and not “true love”.

    So you shouldn’t put too much belief in this NS-Islam legend!

    And even if NS would have promoted to convert to Islam, it is a fact that today Islam tries to conquer and colonize Europe.
    So they’re my mortal enemy!

    As Turkey, who was once our ally in WW1, but as they try today to conquer Germany they’re my mortal enemy too!

  16. A German on November 8th, 2010 6:57 pm

    @Kurt K
    I think your judgement is totally right!

  17. xcommander on November 10th, 2010 6:46 am

    A German, Stalin was paranoid, no doubt about that, but the fact that he isolated himself in his datcha after Hitler’s attack during 7 days without talking to anyone prove, somehow, that he wasn’t ready for such a war, he even had to stop adressing to the people as “comrades” but as “brothers and sisters”. Stalin in today’s Russia is still a very praised figure among most of the nationalists, no matter whether they’re national-bolsheviks or not.

    As for national-bolshevism, I repeat what I said earlier, they’re not in favour of internationalism but of a “national socialism” (not to be confused with NS though), since they opposed to internationalism. They didn’t wanted to apply the Russian model to Germany or to include Germany to the USSR, but to inspire themselves from such model in order to fight globalism and the “Order of the Versailles treaty”. Russian national-bolshevists (like the “changing signposts” movement) had a different point of view, though not antagonistic, to their German counter-parts: they thought that the USSR was just continuing the Czarist goals, no more no less.

    Of course, if you’re talking about Limonov and the NBP, it’s not exactly that, but it’s still a better party than most of the parties in the West (including the NDP which is for me well to obsessed with Germany’s past and not that concerned about building a new alternative).

    As for Devi, she was fighting islam spreading in India, but did highlit some common features of Islam and NS. Claudio Mutti somehow continued her work, basing his ideas on Evola’s approach of Islam.

    As for today’s islamization of Europe, of course it has to be fought, but the real question is; is islam the main enemy or just an adversary? Isn’t islamization linked to globalization? (after all, the Muslims moved massively in Europe from the 1960s). What has to be fought in Islam is definitively wahabitism, salafism & the different manipulations of islam made by some countries (like Turkey, Algeria, …) who are responsibles for this islamization, but as for the Muslims themselves, as long as they don’t impose their traditions to me & respect mine, I don’t see why I should attack them. In fact, some of them are even ready to team up with nationalists to get rid of zionism and are opposed to decadence.

    I really hope to see Alain Soral or Dugin interviewed here by Dr. Sunic, I’m sure they’ll explain better than me what I’m trying to explain.

  18. Carolyn on November 10th, 2010 12:06 pm

    @xcommander:

    Prove?!
    “Stalin isolated himself in his datcha after Hitler’s attack during 7 days without talking to anyone prove, somehow, that he wasn’t ready for such a war …”

    This you call proof? Whether he didn’t talk to anyone is questionable, but that he wasn’t ready for “such a war” makes A German right, not you. Stalin was ready for an offensive war, not defensive. That is the whole point. He miscalculated and that’s why he was so upset and thought the politburo would arrest him.

    The whole picture is clear as a bell, except to those who insist on protraying Hitler as the villian, and Russia as the victim. It all comes down to nationalist interests after all, doesn’t it?

  19. xcommander on November 10th, 2010 5:29 pm

    I really don’t understand why you’re being so sensitive, I’m sure we can discuss that quietly. I’m not saying “Hitler was a bad guy, not Stalin”. It’s unbelievable this trend to create dissensions among people sharing the same ideas and values just because some (think) they know the absolute truth and they don’t want to hear the others.

    Now let’s talk about those soldiers at the border: if they were preparing a war, then why were they made prisonners so soon? Some (if not all of them) simply found a way there to escape the Soviet union. You can’t capture millions soldiers with such ease, they would have at least slowed down the German offensive (and that didn’t happen).

  20. johnUK on November 10th, 2010 6:20 pm

    @xcommander

    You should read my previous comment

    If you want I could provide you with a link to Glantz the senior western Soviet WW2 military historians e-mail address so you can ask him questions on the outbreak of WW2.

    I don’t know if he will respond although did when I e-mailed him as he is busy doing further research on a new book.

    Wikipedia entry gives a good account as to why Stalin was going to attack Germany first thesis is nonsense.

    Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 8, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the evidence as presented by Glantz and others. There were no stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted. Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile. Air Force aircraft were parked in neat, tightly-packed rows along their airfields rather than dispersed. Over 50% of all Soviet tanks required major maintenance on June 22, 1941. If an invasion were being planned, these maintenance tasks would have been completed. Most Soviet armor units were in the process of re-organizing into new Tank Corps; the German invasion caught these units in the midst of this reorganization. Such a large-scale reorganization is inconsistent with an impending invasion.

    I doubt Dugin would give an interview to Sunic I wouldn’t see much of a point as the Eurasian idea deals with the Eurasian sphere.

    Perhaps Sunic can interview Benoist again and talk about his presentation “Against Modern Times” at the Centre for Conservative Research of Moscow State University (MSU) Faculty of Sociology

    “Alain de Benoist paid special attention to the task of proper understanding the terms «globalization» and «modern times», and defining their identity and main characteristics. He underlined such a qualities of globalization as abolition of time and space.”

    http://evrazia.org/article/753

    @Carolyn

    To quote a comment posting on another forum:

    “If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, read “Lost Victories” by Field Marshall Eric von Manstein. Von Manstien, the Germans’ greatest planner and operational leader during the Second World War, thoroughly debunked this theory, stating that Stalin was neither deployed to defend or attack. Instead, Manstein looked at the Soviet deployment and concluded that Stalin was trying to have it both ways in his dispositions–putting his forces in between a distant defensive position and a forward offensive one. Then, if German collapsed, he would go on the offensive but otherwise would try to defend from this middle ground. Manstein concluded that by trying to have it both ways, Stalin put himself in a terrible, exposed position.

    Given that Manstien commanded the 56th Panzer Corps of Army Group North, I think he was in a position to know.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein

  21. Carolyn on November 10th, 2010 6:34 pm

    I’m not being “so sensitive.” I’m simply pointing out that what you are saying doesn’t hold water. And what you have just said above is also nonsensical. Why should intelligent people want to discuss with someone who is advancing such careless ideas.

    If you are set up for an offensive operation, you cannot defend yourself against the other who attacks offensively first. You are wide open, with no defense. They tried a few offensive attacks but they failed. Stalin’s generals knew they could do nothing until the time-consuming switch to a defensive mode was made. This they eventually did.

    “Some (if not all of them) simply found a way there to escape the Soviet union.”

    Do you really think they had such a choice? In reality, they knew they were in attack mode and were told they would be capturing Berlin and have all of Germany to loot from. You need to study up on military matters before you call yourself commander.

  22. Carolyn on November 10th, 2010 6:49 pm

    @ Wikipedia John:

    Have you read Manstein’s book? Are you sure about what he said? You are someone who just looks for snips and clips to bolster your anti-Hitler/Germany, pro-Stalin/Russia feelings.

    It’s very clear that the Soviet military was amassed at the border for an invasion — thousands of planes and tanks, millions of soldiers. That would never be done unless the invasion was imminent — for several reasons. That’s common military understanding. Your friend Glanz works for the Allies, and they above all have to keep Hitler as the aggressor, no matter how many lies they have to tell.

    Maybe that’s why they allow the Jews to run the media.

  23. xcommander on November 10th, 2010 7:38 pm

    Well I guess if you’re sure you’re intelligent and I’m not, there’s no point in loosing our time discussing then.

    Just for the record though, Baltic populations did welcome the nazis as liberators, like some of the Ukrainians, Bosniacs… and even if soldiers were ready for an offensive, I still don’t know why they couldn’t/didn’t counterattack in a more efficient way.

  24. Giorgo T on November 10th, 2010 8:31 pm

    For real! I’ve been in suspended animation since the article and audio about Athanasios SCHopenhauer.

    It’s a hour course on the The World as WIll and Idea and irrationalism.

    Wheres this weeks audiocast??

  25. Carolyn on November 10th, 2010 10:09 pm

    @xcommander,

    Look, what you said was not intelligent. That doesn’t mean you are not intelligent, but you are saying silly things. If you don’t know why they didn’t counterattack in a more efficient way, the answer is: they couldn’t. You can’t successfully counterattack once the enemy has the upper hand. All you can do is put up a defense, which they didn’t have the right equipment OR training for. You need to read about it.

    That’s why the German attack of June 1941 was pre-emptive. It was the luckiest thing they ever did, and it can be said that it saved Europe. But the Allied “history” won’t allow that to be said.

  26. Carolyn on November 10th, 2010 10:22 pm

    Again @Wiki John:

    “Given that Manstien commanded the 56th Panzer Corps of Army Group North, I think he was in a position to know.”

    As commander of the 56th Panzer Corps, he was not involved in the overall planning of the operations. He was not at OKW or OKH. You do not know that he was “in a position to know.”

    A. Hitler was in a position to know, and he said they were amassed at the border, and they were. Unfortunately, my article/translation [with W. Mann] on Barbarossa won’t be out until Janurary. I recommend to you and xcommander to read it when it does come out. But “Operation Sea Lion” just came out in the Nov/Dec TBR (Barnes Review). It has some interesting material.

  27. Giorgo T on November 10th, 2010 10:59 pm

    Hey Mike, I listened to your show with Mishko the other night. Was a good episode very much anticipate the New Right now program your planning.

  28. johnUK on November 11th, 2010 9:14 am

    @Carolynbaum

    It’s very clear that the Soviet military was amassed at the border for an invasion — thousands of planes and tanks, millions of soldiers. That would never be done unless the invasion was imminent — for several reasons. That’s common military understanding

    They were massed on the border because Germany which was conspiring to attack the USSR prior to Germany’s war with Poland with Poland and if the Polish state collapsed in which it did on September the 17th there would be no buffer zone between Germany and the USSR.

    Where is this smoking gun evidence then that the USSR was about to attack Germany?

    Surely if that were the case Germany’s attack in June 41 they would have captured and seized deployment orders and attack plans as evidence?

    “In February 1941, von Manstein was appointed commander of the 56th Panzer Corps. He became involved in Operation Barbarossa, serving under General Erich Hoepner. Attacking on June 22, 1941, von Manstein advanced more than 100 miles in only two days and seized two vital bridges over the Dvina River at Dvinsk.”

    He was involved in the initial phase of the operation I think he would have some insight if there was information regarding a planned attack against Germany.

    All the documented evidence points to the fact that the USSR was not going to attack Germany.

    “A. Hitler was in a position to know, and he said they were amassed at the border, and they were.”

    Yes because leaders don’t lie about a pretext for war.

    I’m sure we will find those elusive WMD’s someday in Iraq.

  29. Carolyn on November 11th, 2010 11:24 am

    Wiki John writes:
    They were massed on the border because Germany which was conspiring to attack the USSR prior to Germany’s war with Poland with Poland and if the Polish state collapsed in which it did on September the 17th there would be no buffer zone between Germany and the USSR. —————-

    Your meaning is not clear. Again, if you are Scottish, as you claim, why is your English so bad? Did you drop out of school? You make less and less sense as you try to keep your faulty argument alive.

    About Manstein, Wiki John writes:
    He was involved in the initial phase of the operation I think he would have some insight if there was information regarding a planned attack against Germany.

    Haha. What a weak statement. I’m checking out what Manstein really said. It will take a little time.

    I’m going to discuss some of these questions on my Heretics’ Hour program Monday night. So tune in.

  30. johnUK on November 11th, 2010 2:12 pm

    @Carolyn

    There is no documented evidence of a pre-planned attack against the Germany. If you can find any that has eluded the world’s best historians for decades who have researched and looked over hundreds of wartime material both Germany and Soviet then I will be interested to see it.

    Meant to write amassed instead of massed.

    I should have phrased it better I meant to say that there was a heavy Soviet army presence because Germany and Poland prior to the outbreak of war in 39 signed a non-aggression treaty and conspired to attack the USSR and annex its western territories.

    Why would they not have a strong army presence along it’s western border against a far more advanced and capable foreign military if not the best in Europe other than Britain perhaps.

  31. Carolyn on November 11th, 2010 2:15 pm

    WikiJohn has written the following very dishonest comment addresses to me above:

    @Carolyn

    To quote a comment posting on another forum:

    “If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, read “Lost Victories” by Field Marshall Eric von Manstein. Von Manstien, the Germans’ greatest planner and operational leader during the Second World War, thoroughly debunked this theory, stating that Stalin was neither deployed to defend or attack. Instead, Manstein looked at the Soviet deployment and concluded that Stalin was trying to have it both ways in his dispositions–putting his forces in between a distant defensive position and a forward offensive one. Then, if German collapsed, he would go on the offensive but otherwise would try to defend from this middle ground. Manstein concluded that by trying to have it both ways, Stalin put himself in a terrible, exposed position.

    Given that Manstien commanded the 56th Panzer Corps of Army Group North, I think he was in a position to know.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein
    End of WikiJohn’s comment

    First, he quotes something from “another forum” without identifying it. Someone’s opinion.
    Then, he gives the link to the Manstein page on Wiki, which does not corroborate the forum comment at all.
    On top of that, the Wiki-Manstein page is biased and has huge chunks of text with no citations. There are very few citations on that page, meaning it was written by a person(s) who just put in what he/they wanted to.

    WikiJohn abuses the privilege of posting here with his outright tricks. He hopes to fool people who are not sharp enough to catch on to what he’s doing.

  32. A German on November 11th, 2010 6:43 pm

    @Carolyn

    “WikiJohn abuses the privilege of posting here with his outright tricks. He hopes to fool people who are not sharp enough to catch on to what he’s doing.”

    What do you expect? He’s a Stalin worshipping Neo-Soviet.

    I still don’t get why he’s on VOR at all.
    Because VOR surely is not Communistic, Bolshevistic or Stalin admiring.

    So I don’t get what the heck he does here.
    Posting several pages of lies, which the most here don’t buy anyway.

    And then he calls you “Carolyn Baum”.
    What did he mean by that?
    You’re a Jewess because you don’t agree to his Neo-Soviet lies?
    That was one extreme foul!

  33. johnUK on November 12th, 2010 2:29 am

    @Carolyn

    http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Victories-Erich-Von-Manstein/dp/0891411305

    Von-Manstein was commander of the 56th Panzer Corps which was involved in Operation Barbarossa serving under General Erich Hoepner. I think he would know if there was any indication that the Red Army was going to attack German forces.

    Where is the documented proof that Stalin was going to attack Germany?

    @A German

    “What do you expect? He’s a Stalin worshipping Neo-Soviet.”

    Yawn.

    Just because I don’t think your hero Hitler was great or believe the lies about Stalin that have been debunked by the release of archive material by professional western Soviet historian does not make me pro-Stalinist/Neo-Soviet.

    And then he calls you “Carolyn Baum”.
    What did he mean by that?

    She sounds like Anne Applebaum.

    Perhaps if Carolyn decides to write a book about how Stalin was going to attack Germany she could apply for a grant from the Olin foundation like Mrs Applebaum did with her book GULAG.

  34. A German on November 12th, 2010 4:34 am

    @JohnUK
    Of course you’re a Neo-Soviet and Stalin worshipper!
    That’s the only topic in all your posts!

    In page-long posts you’re eager to apologize the monster Stalin and try to explain away the 66 million victims, which Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky caused!

    You’re disgusting!

  35. Carolyn on November 12th, 2010 1:04 pm

    @WikiJohn

    In your last ridiculous post [each is more ridiculous than the last], you give me a link to Amazon for the book Lost Victories. What is that supposed to accomplish? Have you read the book? Have you even read the Amazon page? You repeat what you’ve already posted from the annonymous forum poster. You have NO VERIFICATION of anything you claim.

    Maybe the following will be enough to have your posting privileges here taken away.

    From Manstein’s book “Verlorene Siege” [Lost Victories] – the chapter “Der Kampf gegen die Sowjet Union” [The campaign against the Soviet Union], Page 172-73:

    “About the question, if – and in the given case – how a campaign against Russia should be carried out, I – as a commanding general (in February 1941) – have naturally never been sounded out . Only very late, as far as I remember May 1941, the general command received its operational order, which was concerned strictly to the limited scope of the Panzer Group of which the [56th]corps was a part.

    Within the framework of my memoir, I have therefore to deny myself to make any statement regarding the operational plan against the Soviet Union, like I was able to do about the planning of the West Offensive by reason of my personal influence in forming that operation plan.”

    [Let me add here, that I recomment my article, with W. Mann, on the West Offensive that appeared in The Barnes Review, July/Aug 2010, "How Adolf Hitler Planned the May 1940 Western Offensive." It covers the relationship between Hitler and Manstein very well.]

    On the following page, 174, Manstein doesn’t mention one word about Stalin’s operational plans or Hitler’s assumptions. He argues primarily about the [German] misjudgment of the strength of the Soviet state system [which Hitler also complained about], the large resources available to the Red Army, the idea of beating Russia by one campaign, and the what-appeared-then difference between the political and military options. He also speaks of his differences with Halder [who disliked or was jealous of Manstein; Hitler also had trouble with Halder], the OKW and OKH, the overall strategic concept, and not considering a two-part campaign.

    So, if truth and facts were held in any esteem, this would be enough to shut WikiJohn’s mouth on this topic of Manstein.

  36. johnUK on November 12th, 2010 4:25 pm

    @A German

    Of course you’re a Neo-Soviet and Stalin worshipper!
    That’s the only topic in all your posts!”

    No it’s not I only talk about Stalin when the topic of Stalin preparing to attack Germany BS and the fake number of people killed.

    66 million my ass no credible historian claims that amount of people.

    And you speak as if Stalin and Trotsky were good allies rather than bitter rivals seeing how Stalin had him killed in exile in 1940.

  37. deandio on November 13th, 2010 2:38 am

    Hey Carolyn, it’s funny how nationalist people from the UK criticize Hitler’s GERMAN nationalist policies. It’s the same scratched record repeating itself over and over. I just heard Nick Griffin going on and on about illegal immigration and almost in the same breath condemn the ‘evil dictatorship’ of Hitler. Look at what the allies won through WWII! The right to be flooded with non-white immigration and the right to have an internationalist banking cartel regulate the west’s money supply. Oh, and isn’t it funny that the UK was so much in favor of all these democratic policies yet keep their own unique currency (The Pound). If Britain is so righteous and Germany is so evil, why are people like Nick Griffin trying to implement policies which Hitler ALREADY had in place? To be honest, there is no reaching these people and it’s useless to try. They live by a double standard and I don’t care if they claim to be for “the white race.” Britons will never admit to their mistake because they want to pride themselves on WWII instead. Britons will always argue with people like yourself who are trying to show that they INDEED made a HUGE mistake and it has brought us to ruin. Do a show on how great England is and how they have always been an asset to the west. Talk about how they would never even think of enslaving other white nations and how they prevented a world dictatorship which would have us all speaking German and you will get no complaints. I swear, phony nationalists are worse than anti-nationalists…

  38. I v a n on November 14th, 2010 12:51 am

    Hitler was a true national leader of the highest order. But he committed two major blunders:

    1. He looked up to the Brits,
    2. He looked down to the Russians.

    Brits betrayed him, and the Russians kicked his ass.

    Stalin knew better – he never trusted the Brits, but he overestimated the smarts of Hitler. Stalin repeatedly rejected numerous warnings, including those coming from Churchill himself, that Hitler was going to attack. But Hitler did, and the great German nation is paying the price for that blunder to this day – 65 years after the end of the WWII.

    You can speculate until you turn blue about the alleged intentions of Stalin to attack Germany, the fact remains – Russia did not invade Germany, Germany did invade Russia.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Stalin was stupid enough to attack Germany when just 2 short years earlier the ‘mighty’ Red Army was kicked in the but by the tiny Finland. Wouldn’t Germany be better off fighting a patriotic war against the evil Russian invaders instead of becoming itself the evil aggressor against the Russian people?

    Hitler was looking for a living space for his people in the East. Don’t take my word for it, read his second book. Who can blame him? But he picked the wrong people to take the land from. And he lost. Not too complicated.

  39. Carolyn on November 14th, 2010 10:32 am

    @Ivan,

    As a Russian partisan, you have taken in a single viewpoint and then put it back out forcefully, hoping to convince people that you know what you’re talking about. You’re using a simple logic that makes sense in your own vacuum, but not when you take in all the factors that existed. In short, you are missing a whole lot.

    You should read all the Hermann Giesler translations, from his book “Ein Anderer Hitler”, that you can find for free on my website. Then you might go beyond where WikiJohn is in exposure to “what really happened.” Hitler was dismissive of Churchill and Roosevelt as fools, but he respected Stalin as the highly intelligent and wiley man he was.

    The Russians did not “kick his ass.” The United States, with it’s vast shipments of arms, food, gold, uniforms, heavy equipment, etc. to the SU defeated Germany. Also, the Japanese decision to not engage Russia militarily in the East, freeing up many, many divisions of Siberian troops which then moved to the Western front, defeated Germany. Another that must be taken into consideration is the treason within the highest levels of the Wehrmacht; the Russians began winning battles because they had the German battle plans in advance! These were things not under Hitler’s control, and if neither one had occurred, it would have been Hitler who “kicked Stalin’s ass,” in your terminology.

    In addition, your relying on what Hitler wrote in 1923 as a long-term solution for Germany, and applying it to 1941, is no different than if I were to rely on what Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin wrote from 1919 to 1925 as to the objectives of their world revolution and apply that to Stalin’s motivation in 1941.

    I would respectfully say, Ivan, that you don’t have the knowledge or experience to claim to know what were “Hitler’s two major blunders.” You have your opinion, which you are entitled to, or maybe you read it in a book, because it’s a pretty popular “explanation” that is found out there. If you put the average Russian soldier up against the average German soldier, he falls far short; that’s why so many millions were decimated in battle.

    Finally, you wrote:
    Wouldn’t Germany be better off fighting a patriotic war against the evil Russian invaders instead of becoming itself the evil aggressor against the Russian people?

    No. The Military Command obviously didn’t think that was so because they didn’t make that decision. I think this shows you are caught up in the emotional jingoism of “The Great Patriotic War” that the communists used to rouse the people. Stalin prepared for a massive offensive attack against Germany because that was the right option for victory. Hitler was ahead of him, but by probably only a few weeks. It was the three factors I listed above that brought about German defeat.

  40. I v a n on November 14th, 2010 11:53 am

    I v a n asked:
    Wouldn’t Germany be better off fighting a patriotic war against the evil Russian invaders instead of becoming itself the evil aggressor against the Russian people?

    Carolyn answered:
    No. The Military Command obviously didn’t think that was so because they didn’t make that decision.

    Well, we all know what was the outcome of that decision, don’t we. But what would have happened if “The Military Command” made a wiser decision? Only a fool can pretend to have answer to my original question and give a definite ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ reply to it as you did.

    You seem to know a lot about me, Carolyn, certainly more than I do. Thank you for explaining to me who I am. But it’s always a good idea to learn something about your opponent before you jump into conclusions based on nothing more than the login name.

    Here is a good place to start:

    http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=1125088#post1125088

  41. Carolyn on November 14th, 2010 7:28 pm

    Thanks for introducing yourself, Ivan. That’s more than most do.

    But it’s certain you don’t know anything about the subject at hand except for some second-hand opinions, as I stated at the outset. So one can ask, what is your purpose in commenting on it, except to promote a tough guy, pro-Russian attitude. That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the truth about the facts on the ground.

    I notice you have not taken on anything I said. I guess that makes you a fool according to your own measuring stick. And what other answer is there to your very silly direct question that I quoted than ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ So keep your muslim opinions on VNN, if they like you there. I’m not interested.

  42. I v a n on November 14th, 2010 10:51 pm

    Let me tell you a little bit more about myself, Carolyn. I decide what I want to talk about, not my opponent. I am not johnUK, jamesUK or whatever name he prefers to go by here and there, I am not interested in jewish sophistry and pointless ad hominem bickering ad nauseam. I do not fall into that trap, and I have no stomach for that. I prefer to go to the heart of the matter in a heartbeat whenever I sense the rot, which I am very good at.

    You don’t like Russians too much, Carolyn, do you? You don’t like Muslims either. What about Germans, Carolyn, do you like them? I don’t think so. What about Iranians? Uh, how silly of me: Iranians are Muslims, therefore they automatically fall into the “must hate” category.

    What is common between Hitler, Stalin, Putin, and Ahmadinejad? What emotions do these guys stir in you, Carolyn? What about Dr.Mahathir Mohamad and Hassan Nasrallah? Do you like these boys?

  43. Chris on November 15th, 2010 3:42 am

    Now you’re getting silly Ivan. I don’t think many white nationalists hate Muslims, they just want them the hell out of white lands.

  44. A German on November 15th, 2010 4:00 am

    @Ivan

    Anti-Sovietism, Anti-Stalinism is not per say anti-Russian!
    That’s a thing JohnUK will never understand as many RT watchers.
    How should they? JohnUK can also not differentiate between the German people and the ZOG controlled German secret service BND, the ZOGovernment in Germany and their geostrategic plans and actions.

    That’s immediately a Western, a NATO conspiracy against Russia for JohnUK and alikes.
    They simply can’t differentiate between criticism to the USSR/Stalin and mother Russia.
    I hope you can do, after all you sound intelligent enough.

    And for the Lebensraum idea:
    That’s the same disconnect as the false quote out of Mein Kampf “put them under the gas”!

    Hitler back then meant the Jewish soldiers in the Reichswehr offices who were draft dodgers and fled from the trenches.
    And in this anger Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
    “these Jews shoud be put under gas – as we’re every day in the trenches!”

    And this quote is today again and again misused as evidence for his plan to gas 6 million Jews from the beginning on!

    Same with the Lebensraum idea.
    This idea is actually very old, has it’s roots in medieval Germany:
    Eastern colonisation, “flags into the eastern wind”…
    and transfered into the 19th century where Germanics worshipping jingoists revisited the topic. The dreamed of it like the Germanic peoples migration in antiquity, Goths at the Black Sea and so on.
    And then it entered the early 20th century after Germany lost its colonies, the famous book “Volk ohne Raum” (nation without space) of Hans Grimm.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Hans_Grimm_-_Volk_ohne_Raum.jpg

    Hitler used this subject in the 1920s because the Grimm fans were also his early followers, Germanics idolizers.

    But in the 1930s Hitler made a personal change, he had won total power in Germany and even could reunite Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938 and even gained back Danzig and Memelland in early 1939.

    From this moment on Hitler became Bismarck-esque, from this moment on he only wanted to conserve the status quo and thought about his retirement in Linz very much.

    What made him finally a “hawk” again was the unbearable situation of the 2 million Germans in the 1919-Poland!
    For years they were supressed and massacred by the Poles, but 1939 was especially bad!
    In only 8 months, until the 1st September 1939, Poles massacred !6,000! German civilians!!!

    And the international community kept silent.
    No word from “democratic” Britain, France nor the USA!

    And think of what the US did in the last 9 years after 3,000 were killed on 911!

    That’s why I always refer to the attack on Poland as the German version of the NATO rescue mission in Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999!

    Back to the Lebensraum topic.
    And because Hitler became a conservator in the 1930s, he made huge achievements in Germany, socially, econimically, he totally discarded the Lebensraum idea.

    That only came on the platter again in mid 1942 after it seemed as Germany has won whole Europe and had to plan for a post-war situation and it mainly was pushed by a Himmler circle.

    But today it’s argued that the Lebensraum idea was the constant driving force for 3 decades without any interruption whatsoever!

  45. Giorgo T on November 24th, 2010 1:49 pm

    Haven’t we listened to the speech in Canada already? The lag on the Journal shows airing is to blame. By the time it comes up the Orthodox Nationalist is already on air. These are the flagship shows of VOR, spacing them out more in the week would be ideal.

    Is there any way I can find out the titles of the introduction and outro song on VOR? When Doc Sunic comes back from the break it’s a Dio song.

    The Orthodox Nationalilst used to have an awesome rock and roll orchestral song after coming back from the break. Could any one tell me what the title and composer was?

    Keep up the top notch work VOR.

Bottom