Archive for the Winston Churchill Category

Stalin Caught in Liberal Cobweb [Strategic Culture Foundation]

Posted in Anti-communism, Chile, Fascism, France, Germany, Nazism, Pinochet, Psychological warfare, Russia, Stalin, U.K., US - Nazi connection, US imperialism, USA, USSR, Winston Churchill on June 30, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手


by Nil Nikandrov

Progressive revision of the principal results of…WWII [is] a very dangerous sign. Never before [have] the endeavors to depict Hitler and Stalin as equally responsible for unleashing the war…been so obstinate, purposeful and bluntly hostile towards Russian people and Russian state…

No doubt that the propagandistic identification of Stalin as a totalitarian-style leader is aimed to justify the secret diplomatic maneuvers made by the West in the late 1930s to provoke German-Soviet conflict. The appeasement policies and permanent British and French concessions to Berlin eventually prompted the aggression of the Nazi monster. Following a series of military triumphs in Europe, on June 22, 1941 Nazi Germany invaded Russia and started realizing Operation Barbarossa supposed to defeat and break down the USSR. Another top secret Nazi plan Ost proposed to ‘depopulate the barbarian country’ turning the survivors into lunatic [sic] manpower serving…the German ‘masters’.

Most likely the liberal hawks among historians and sovietologists ‘specialized’ in Stalin’s period are preparing basis for a new blitzkrieg, now without bombings and tank attacks. Today Hitler’s strategic schemes are being realized using new media technologies, manipulations of facts and senses, demonization campaigns against Soviet leaders, first of all Stalin, being portrayed as ‘war criminals who avoided Nuremberg’.

The brainwashing is going on in a systematic, comprehensive, aggressive manner. Principal intellectual centers elaborating [a] contemporary version of Generalplan Ost are located in the United States and the UK. They obviously do not suffer any shortage in resources. The allegation that the USSR was a totalitarian state equally responsible for the outbreak of World War II with Nazi Germany is being routinely knocked, hammered, drummed into the heads of Americans, Europeans, Asians and even citizens of the post-Soviet countries.

They want Russia as the successor of the USSR to admit equal responsibility with Nazi Germany for the onset of the global drama. Apparently the consent of the new Russian elites to ‘de-Stalinization’ of the Soviet history would eventually lead to enormous and totally unfair compensation claims from the ‘occupied’ countries. The West believes that concessions and capitulation – habitual stereotype behavior of the Russian ruling class since Gorbachev – are inevitable now as well. They are convinced that the Russian elite’s private financial considerations would outweigh the national interests of the country again.

The anti-Stalin rhetoric by the troops of historians, political scientists and commentators inside Russian generously nurtured by Western donors already dominates the public discourse. They insist on ‘Stalin’s guilt to be expiated’, his ‘criminal accord with Hitler’, ‘Eastern Europe occupation’, ’40 million of repressed/assassinated’ in the USSR. I remember a surprised Chilean journalist saying to me once: ‘If I believe everything they talk about Stalin, Pinochet comparing to him would represent a sample of a righteous humanist.’

Collecting materials for my book about prominent Soviet intelligence agent Iosif Grigulevich who was stationed in South America in 1940-1946, I spent a lot of time reading war-time newspapers in libraries of Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Santiago de Chile and Caracas. These sources irrefutably testified that for Latin Americans Stalin used to be a symbol of Soviet heroic resistance to Hitlerism and a beacon of social progress and historical optimism. In that epoch, even Stalin’s fiercest opponents could not think of likening him to Hitler.

Communists were indeed the staunchest fighters against fascism at the time. That is why US intelligence networks were seeking contacts with the leaders of communist parties in Latin America to engage them in uprooting the fascist underground there. Stalin approved the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943 to strengthen Soviet Union’s ties with the Allies. He voiced [sic] for the dialog and trust-building in the post-war period, but the West responded with Churchill’s notorious Fulton address which marked the beginning of the Cold War. At that moment, Stalin was branded as an enemy of the Western civilization, and what we witness today is essentially the same approach and the same perception.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:


Rallying round the flag: The King’s Speech – Pro-Nazi monarchs, Royal Family propaganda and falsification of history

Posted in Anti-Arab / Antisemitism, Fascism, FBI, Nazism, U.K., USA, Winston Churchill, World War II on February 5, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手
By Paul Bond
3 February 2011

Directed by Tom Hooper, written by David Seidler

A filmmaker addressing historical events faces certain tasks. Their work need not be a verbatim or literal retelling of events to be successful, but it must have an underlying historical truth and an element of critical engagement.  The King’s Speech, despite the praise and awards heaped upon it, largely fails in this regard.

The King’s Speech displays certain strengths—above all it is well acted. Moreover, it centres relatively sensitively on the portrayal of a man struggling to overcome his stammer through an unexpected and unlikely friendship.  What warmth and charm the film has come from this theme.  Colin Firth gives an impressive performance as Bertie (short for Albert), Duke of York and later King George VI of England (1895-1952), battling a speech impediment he has had since childhood.

Nevertheless, that story rests on an essentially uncritical, and often reverential view of the British monarchy and its role in the 1930s and more generally.  The two themes do not sit comfortably together.

Bertie is the younger son of the stern and bullying George V (Michael Gambon).  Because of his stammer he finds public speaking difficult. The film charts his reluctant trips to a failed actor turned speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who teaches him techniques to try and compensate for his stammer.  In an engaging performance, Rush plays Logue as a decent and generous man, trying to do his best to help those afflicted.

The scenes with Logue offer some critical swipes at royal conceit, but disrespect never goes too far.  There is only gentle teasing of Bertie and his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter).  The attraction for actors of a film about qualities of speech is evident.  The film has an extremely talented cast and is heavy with impressive voices.  Bertie’s speech difficulties are emphasised by the surrounding rich voices of Gambon, Derek Jacobi, Claire Bloom, and others.  This is not, however, My Left Foot with crowns.

Overcoming Bertie’s stammer is portrayed as a directed political act, as indeed it was.  But this portrayal is where the problems lie.  The film’s presentation of events is essentially in line with propaganda constructed during the war and faithfully reiterated ever since—as part of the depiction of wartime national unity against the enemy as “Britain’s finest hour”.

Even with regard to Bertie’s stammering, the film presents a second-hand and false account of the results of his speech work.  Wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill in fact issued instructions to the BBC to edit the stammers out of George’s speeches.

Continue reading

Why America Cannot Win in Afghanistan, by retired Pakistani General Hamid Gul []

Posted in 9/11, Afghan quagmire, Afghanistan, Black propaganda, Blackwater / Xe Services mercenaries, CIA, Connection to drugs and narcotics, Corporate Media Critique, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Karzai puppet regime corruption, Mercenaries / "contractors", National Security Agency / NSA, NATO invasion, NSA, Obama, Pakistan, Pensacola, Pentagon, Philippines, US "War on Terror", US foreign occupation, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR, Vietnam, Wikileaks, Winston Churchill, Yemen on October 5, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Realize that this guy is a former Pakistani Intel head who was arming the Mujahedin-cum-Taliban in a Pakistan proxy war against the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan even before the US got its proxy war going against the USSR; so as a reactionary prop and collaborator with imperialism, he’s up to his neck in setting the stage for the unmitigated and ongoing disaster that engulfs his part of the world.  Still it’s an amazing overview of the current Afghanistan quagmire. – Zuo Shou / 左手

September 24, 2010

Guns and Butter, KPFA-FM, Wednesday, September 8, 2010 1:00-2:00pm


 I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  Today on Guns and Butter, General Hamid Gul.

Today’s show: “Why America Cannot Win in Afghanistan.”

 General Gul had a…36-year military career in the Pakistan Army.  At the height of his military career it was expected that he would be promoted to the position of Chief of the Army Staff.  But due to political pressures from abroad, he was not selected, and as a result he resigned from the Army and is now retired.  The highest attainment of his long …career was his command of Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI, from 1987 to 1989, during the fateful period of Afghan jihad against the Soviets…  General Gul faced down riot police when they tried to arrest him at a rally outside the Supreme Court in Islamabad protesting attempts to dismiss Chief Justice Chaudry. He has written hundreds of columns, mostly for Pakistan Urdu Press, but also for the English readership within Pakistan and abroad.

 General Hamid Gul, welcome again.

 Gul:  Thank you, Bonnie.

 Faulkner:  The US appears to be sinking into a quagmire in Afghanistan.  The number of US troops on the ground keeps rising, and the number of troops killed and wounded keeps rising as well.  The much-trumpeted operation in the Helmand River valley around Marja didn’t succeed in permanently removing resistance fighters.  Since that was its sole purpose, it was a failure.  The planned attack on Kandahar has been delayed, and many outlying operating bases have been abandoned by US forces as too costly to hold, such as in Nuristan and Kunar, in the northeast.  Isn’t the United States losing the war on the ground in Afghanistan?

 Gul:  Bonnie, right from the beginning, this war was a lost war.  There was no way that it could be won.   And I think we need to review this.   I want to do this one favor to the American people because I like them, they are so innocent that they are taken up for a ride quite easily, because of the disinformation, because of the propaganda hype by those people who control the sinews of power in America.  So I think this is an opportunity that you are providing me to educate them, that this war was a lost war from the very beginning, from its very inception.   And I want to pass a professional judgment on it, and I would want any American soldier worth his salt, soldier, general, corporal, or whatever it is, to tell me that I am wrong.   I would wish that they tell me that I am wrong.  You know, because wars are fought within a certain environment.   That environment is both political, logistical, and it is the combat environment in which wars are fought and won, or lost for that matter.

 Now, from the beginning, the premise on which the American case stands against Afghanistan was totally wrong, because not a single Afghan was ever involved in any act of terrorism outside the boundaries of Afghanistan.   And inside, it is a freedom struggle.  They are a proud, rather I would describe them as a ferociously proud race, and Americans, who love their freedom, why should they want to curb the freedom of this proud and free nation?  Now that premise was basically an illusion created that we will be able to beat the daylight out of everybody, you know, that revenge motivation, that we will take our revenge.  But this wasn’t it.  I think the latent objectives were very different.  On our last program we discussed this, that the latent objectives were not to serve the American people, but to serve corporate America, to some extent, but more than that, to satisfy the whims and the ambition of the Cold War warriors like Dick Cheney and company.   And incidentally I know them personally, Dick Cheney, and Richard Armitage, Rumsfeld, etc..   I have been dealing with them when I was heading the ISI, in the days of the, the heady days of the Afghan jihad in Afghanistan.   So I know what is their mindset.  And I think it was to satisfy the whims of this coterie of people, who wanted to conquer the world, if you like, or establish a Pax Americana, that means an American century, the 21st century will be an American century.  So these were hyper goals, and they have brought tremendous damage.

 So first, the premise has to be correct for going to war.   That wasn’t correct at all.   And I think it was based on lies.   9/11 is, in my opinion, still a huge, big fraud which has been perpetrated on the world, but more than that, on the American people themselves.   And because they could not win a vote to support a war of this kind, so they had to create an excuse so that there would be world sympathy, which there was after 9/11, and the American people would be so angry, annoyed and alarmed that they would not question their government about their credentials and the veracity of what happened on 9/11. 

 That apart, now we come to the situation and judge it militarily.  So, for going to war, apart from the political support that you need to have, and that is declining as you understand, now it’s more than sixty percent of Americans have turned against the war.   But, after a lot of damage.   As Churchill once said, Americans eventually do the right thing after they have exhausted all the wrong options.  So I think unfortunately that this is a condition that is applicable here. 

Continue reading