By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Russia’s dictator-for-life Vladimir Putin is every bit as sinister and evil as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse-tung.[2] He is a ruthless killer—of his own people and others, and of the human spirit.  Recently, he warned against despotism and chaos in Russia[3], which is equivalent to Hitler warning against the death camps, or Stalin and Mao warning against the ravages of communism.  Putin is the face of America’s enemies today, personified, as well as the enemy of free peoples everywhere.  He is responsible for the dismantling of Russia’s incipient democracy.[4] Despots like him are destroyed ultimately.  However, in the interim, the death and destruction they bring about are savage, barbaric and tragic.  Like a Mob boss, Putin is apt to die a cruel and horrible death, mirroring the cruelty that he and his ex-KGB lackeys have brought to so many in Russia and elsewhere.

He was born in Leningrad, now St. Petersburg; and he joined the KGB officially when he was 23, and rose through its ranks.  He came to prominence as a KGB operative in East Germany—or the DDR, as it was known before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Erich Honecker’s government—which was one of the most repressive regimes in the Soviet Union’s orbit, or the Evil Empire.  Russia has a brutal history, especially since the rise of communism; and Putin is a product of that system.  Stalin and Mao were the most ruthless killers of their own people[5], and that is Putin’s heritage.  He learned his craft well; and he must be viewed in this context, not as some Westernized Russian democrat, which he is not.  Under Putin, Stalin’s reputation has undergone a renaissance, despite being the killer of more than 30 million men, women and children who were his own countrymen.[6] Putin is Stalin’s heir.

Some people argue there is a “soft side” to Putin, and that he has been principled and acted in the best interests of Russia.  Indeed, it is argued that he fended off his ex-KGB lackeys in the selection of Dmitry Medvedev as Russia’s President, when Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term because of constitutionally-mandated term limits.  Stalin, Hitler and Mao had soft sides too.  Like Putin, they smiled and were shown in “photo ops” befriending children and women.  In reality, they were butchers just as Putin is.  Yes, the numbers of innocent people killed may differ among the four of them.  However, each one brutally repressed democratic forces, systematically killed their own countrymen and others, and decimated the human spirit.[7] When Putin was coming to power, I was told by an old friend on Capitol Hill that he was a “smoother version” of Stalin, and I will never forget those prescient and ominous words.

Russia is not a Third World country today, but it is close—and certainly it is no longer a superpower.  Based on its gross domestic product (GDP), it ranks behind Italy, Brazil, Spain and Canada; and it is less than nine percent the size of the United States.[8] Its military expenditures are 9.5 percent of the American spending[9]; and its antiquated Soviet-era conscript military was on display in Georgia.  Indeed, Putin left the Olympic games in Beijing and traveled to the Georgian border, where he directed the Kremlin’s cruel aggression against its vastly smaller neighbor.  Today, the U.S. military has no peers; and when arrayed against “paper tigers” and backlot bullies like Putin’s Russia, Americans can be proud of what George W. Bush accomplished.

He kept American safe and strong; however, there are serious questions whether Barack Obama is building on and not diminishing that strength.  The idea that the U.S. and Russia would agree in principle on a deal to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) with a new agreement that would cut each side’s nuclear arsenal is absurd.[10] The Russians cannot be trusted; and Obama’s weakness is on display when he cuts any deals with Putin.  China must be America’s focus of attention, not the backwater country of Russia.  China must be included in any agreement, or else the cart is placed before the horse.  Also, Obama surrendered to Putin by scrapping Bush’s proposed antiballistic missile shield for Eastern Europe—in the Czech Republic and Poland—which emboldened Putin and sent the worst signals possible to our allies in “New Europe.”[11]

Those who “scold” Putin are subjected to harsh dictatorial rebukes, at the very least.[12] His treatment of others is strikingly similar to how Stalin, Hitler and Mao treated their adversaries.  Prison without trial—or “kangaroo trials”—has been commonplace.[13] More often than not, they disappear or are ruthlessly killed to send loud and clear messages to those who challenge the dictator, or otherwise might be considered “enemies of the state.”  Like Stalin before him, the full extent of Putin’s atrocities will never be known; and his “fingerprints” will not be found on the “murder weapons.”  However, make no mistake about it: none of it would have happened without him.

In addition to what has been described above, it is useful to catalog some of the more heinous crimes and horrors that have happened since he came to power, for which he is responsible directly or indirectly:

•  Russian apartment bombings in September 1999, which led the country into the Second Chechen War, and brought Putin to power.[14]

•  The assassination in London of former Russian state security officer Alexander Litvinenko who claimed, inter alia, that Putin ordered the Russian apartment bombings.[15]

•  The Dioxin poisoning of Victor Yushchenko, which left the Ukrainian President’s face greatly disfigured, jaundiced, bloated, and pockmarked.[16]

•  The brutal “Second Chechen War,” in which Russian troops entered Chechnya and took control over the country, with unofficial estimates ranging from 25,000 to 50,000 dead or having “disappeared.”[17]

•  A widespread crackdown on media freedoms, with Russian reporters being killed and muzzled—such as the shooting death of Anna Politkovskaya[18]—and media outlets being shut down.[19]

•  Miscellaneous jailings, killings and disappearances—including one of Putin’s mistresses.[20]

At some point in time, he will be eliminated and disappear from the pages of history, just like so many other two-bit, tinhorn despots before him.  Again, it is apt to happen violently, in an instant.  Regardless of how he departs, one can only hope that it happens soon—and his reign of terror and that of his ex-KGB lackeys ends, like it did for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and their thugs.  The sooner the better.[21]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[2] See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/StalinMaoHolocausts.pdf

[3] See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4578e814909f0ad722594e6c798584f9.4c1&show_article=1

[4] See, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-russia-democracy24-2010jan24,0,3025105,full.story (“[A] democracy museum about Putin, the man whose ascent to power was marked by the loss of a free press, the unsolved killings of political critics and harsh crackdowns on antigovernment protests”)

[5] See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/StalinMaoHolocausts.pdf (“Aside from ordering the killing of those in the Soviet hierarchy, it is estimated that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen—including millions during the collectivization of the Soviet farms in the 1930s.  . . .  [A]s the Soviets moved through Germany, they raped at least two million German women in what is now acknowledged as the largest case of mass rape in history.”)

[6] See id.

[7] See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118463398015768385.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (“Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state.  It does not matter here, as the Kremlin’s apologists are so fond of pointing out, that Mr. Putin is wildly popular in Russia: Popularity is what competent despots get when they destroy independent media, stoke nationalistic fervor with military buildups and the cunning exploitation of the Church, and ride a wave of petrodollars to pay off the civil service and balance their budgets.  Nor does it matter that Mr. Putin hasn’t re-nationalized the ‘means of production’ outright; corporatism was at the heart of Hitler’s economic policy, too.”)

[8] See, e.g., https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html (2009 est.) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 (2009 est.)

[9] See, e.g., http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/05/05A and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Chart_by_country_or_organization

[10] See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7013042.ece; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/

[11] See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama; http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america%E2%80%99s-second-emperor; http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start; http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan%E2%80%99s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

[12] See, e.g., http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/58572/ (“Few Russians in positions of power dare to openly criticise Putin. . . .”); http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6145UJ20100205 (“Putin told the leaders [of his United Russia party] to warn voters of the consequences of voting for untried opposition parties.  United Russia must always explain that ‘proper and well organized leaders are always capable of solving any problems and that in the absence of such leaders, anarchy prevails,’ he said.”)

One of the “untried opposition parties” to which Putin was referring is former World Chess Champion—many people consider him the greatest chess player of all time—Garry Kasparov’s “The Other Russia,” a coalition that opposes Putin’s government.  See http://www.theotherrussia.org/ Indeed, Kasparov has vowed to “restore democracy” to Russia by toppling Putin, of whom he is an outspoken critic.

Kasparov has said: “An anti-democratic regime can be neither reformed nor modernized; it can only be dismantled.  All the hope that goes into finding a way to somehow reform or perfect the current system is in vain.  It’s impossible, because the essence of the system will remain the same.”  See http://www.theotherrussia.org/2010/02/03/kasparov-russias-european-choice/ He adds: “After a year and a half of [Dmitry] Medvedev’s tenure as president of Russia, Putin’s authoritarian regime has only become more severe.”  See id.

[13] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Relations_with_.22oligarchs.22 (e.g., the criminal prosecution and imprisonment of Russia’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, president of Yukos oil company, as payback for his support of Putin’s opponents); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky

[14] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_terrorism_accusations (“The chain of command was as follows: Putin (former director of the secret service, future president) – Patrushev (Putin’s successor as director of the secret service) – secret service General German Ugryumov (director of the counter-terrorism department).  Maxim Lazovsky (the owner of Lanako, the company that employed the secret service agents behind the 1994-5 terrorist attacks) and Lieutenant-Colonel Abubakar were two secret service operatives directly responsible for the practical organization of the bombings.” [Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, "The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin," Gibson Square Books, London, 2008, p. 106]); see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

[15] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_terrorism_accusations; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_up_Russia:_Terror_from_within and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubyanka_Criminal_Group; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

[16] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Yushchenko#Dioxin_poisoning (“On September 27, 2009 Yushchenko said in an interview . . . that the testimony of the three men who were at a dinner in 2004 at which he believes he was poisoned were staying in Russia.  Ukrainian prosecutors said Russia has refused to extradite one of the men, the former deputy chief of Ukraine’s security service, Volodymyr Satsyuk, because he holds both Russia and Ukrainian citizenship.”)

[17] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War; see also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#Human_rights (“In 2006 Human Rights Watch reported that pro-Moscow Chechen forces under the effective command of President Ramzan Kadyrov, as well as federal police personnel, used torture to get information about separatist forces.  ‘If you are detained in Chechnya, you face a real and immediate risk of torture.  And there is little chance that your torturer will be held accountable,’ said Holly Cartner, Director Europe and Central Asia division of HRW.”); http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/12/chechnya-research-shows-widespread-and-systematic-use-torture; see id. (“On July 1, 2009, Amnesty International released a detailed report covering the human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation against Chechnyan citizens.  Among the most prominent features was that those abused had no method of redress against assaults, ranging from kidnapping to torture, while those responsible were never held accountable.  This lead to the conclusion that Chechnya was being ruled without law, being run into further devastating destabilization.”); see http://www.naegele.com/documents/AmnestyInternational-RussianFederation-Rulewithoutlaw.pdf

[18] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Allegations_of_political_assassinations_and_muzzling_of_reporters (“On October 7, 2006, Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who ran a campaign exposing corruption in the Russian army and its conduct in Chechnya, and a strong critic of Putin and the FSB, whom she had accused of trying to set up a Soviet-style dictatorship, was killed.  She was shot dead in the elevator of her apartment building in Moscow.”); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya

The Federal Security Service—or FSB—is the main domestic security agency of the Russian Federation, and the successor agency of the dreaded Soviet-era Cheka, NKVD and KGB.

[19] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Kabayeva#Marriage_controversy

[20] See, e.g., http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/08/mumof-vladimir-putins-love-childvanishes.html (“The woman who gave birth to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s love child[, Russian gymnast, Alina Kabayeva,] is said to have vanished”); see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Kabayeva#Marriage_controversy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#Family_and_personal_life

[21] See also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/georgia (Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has described Putin as “following a course that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s”)

Hitlers 2. Zähne mit Motiven des Führers. Kam daher sein starker Mundgeruch? Brauchte er deshalb Prothesen?

(Als Sprecher des Textes kann ich mir sehr gut die Erzählstimme
aus dem Film „Der Schuh des Manitu“ vorstellen).

Baustelle in Berlin. Es ist Nacht. Man sieht Stiefel, Arbeitskeidung für Bauarbeiter, Schaufeln und Spitzhacken. Mehrer Männer sind mit Grabungsarbeiten beschäftigt. Konform mit dem Sprechertext finden sie dann ein schmuddeliges Einmachglas. Sie wischen den Dreck vom Glas, um das Etikett freizulegen. Die Aufschrift in geschwungener Schreibschrift: Hitlers dritte Zähne.

Sprecher
An einem Ort, wo Blut und Boden einst regierte,
eine Schreckensherrschaft quasi über Nacht
sich etablierte und alles inspizierte, konfiszierte,
was die Tyrannen diskriminierte; an diesem Orte
fand neulich eine Bautruppeskorte,
versenkt in tiefer Erde und sorgsam eingemacht
ein Glas – so wie ich’s hier erwähne,
und als Inhalt: Hitlers dritte Zähne!

Schnitt. Es werden nun Restaurationsarbeiten an den Zähnen gezeigt, die man im Anschluß daran im Einmachglas in einer Vitrine präsentiert. Schließlich werden sie von dort entwendet. Auch hier gehen die Bilder synchron mit dem Text.

Sprecher
Eine Sensation war dieser Fund,
die Welt stand Kopf, die Berichte bunt:
Zunächst hat man die Zähne restauriert
und hinter Glas museal präsentiert,
doch dann ist es passiert –
irgendwie haben sie sich subtrahiert.

Schnitt. Wir befinden uns nun im „Hauptquartier“ der Neonazis. Zunächst CU auf das Einmachglas. Die Kamera zieht langsam auf und entfernt sich vom Glas, bis in der Totalen die gesamte Truppe, so vier bis fünf Mann, zu sehen ist. Sie sitzen in geheimnisvoller Atmosphäre um den Tisch herum, auf dem mittig das Einmachglas steht, in dem sich Hitlers dritte Zähne befinden und magisch leuchten. Die Szene sollte Spiritualität und Esotherik auf der Basis von „guter, deutscher Hausmannskost“ vermitteln. Das Einmachglas orakelt.

Sprecher
Dieser Diebstahl läßt sich leicht ertragen und benoten,
doch was soll ich sagen, hier seht Ihr die Idioten,
die die Zähne klauten, bevor sie sich verhauten,
weil sie einer Idee vertrauten, von der sie glaubten,
binnen nächster Tage wie von Sinnen an Stärke zu gewinnen:

Anführer
(klingt wie Hitler)
Nun, manch’ einer hält uns für verrückt,
doch heute ist ein großer Sieg geglückt!
An des Führers Zahnprothesen:
daran muß und wird die Welt genesen.
Diese Zähne sind der Grundstein unserer Pläne,
die wir früher zwar knapp verfehlten
und doch sind und bleiben wir die Auserwählten.
So wird die Geschichte von uns erneut,
fleißig in den Grenzen von 1939 fest vertäut
als Festakt wiedergekäut – und zwar in Bayreuth.

Sprecher
Das erfreut natürlich, hm, einerseits.
Andererseits: Worin liegt denn hier der Reiz,
daß diese Knatschis, diese Neo-Nazis
die Qualen der Reisekosten in den Osten
nicht zahlen läßt. Fest steht nur:
sie stehen vor einem gigantisch großen Test.
Während sie so überlegen, wen sie verwegen
als nächstes verprügeln und vertrimmen
dringen plötzlich bedeutungsvolle Stimmen
von innen durch das Glas:

Einmachglas
Ob in Gläsern, Bechern oder Tassen,
ich bin nur Euer Vermittler,
denn der, dem meine Zähne passen,
wird der neue Hitler!

Zunächst ist man etwas rat- und fassungslos, doch dann wechselt die Stimmung, man gibt sich kampfbereit und siegessicher.

Sprecher
Windungen schmoren in jedem Gehirne:
Der letzte Biß in eine Birne mit eigenen Zähnen?
Knabbern an den Fingernägeln,
um den Zahnverlust zu regeln?
Hahah: Der Chef springt auf, greift sich an die Hoden,
ringt mit sich und spricht gereift:

Chef
Es gibt verschiedene Methoden!
Zwar haben die Dritten arg gelitten:
Hier, sie sind schon stark zerschlissen…
Doch ab 5:45 Uhr wird zurückgebissen!
Es geht um die Erfüllung unseres Traums,
um die Erweiterung des Lebensraums im Osten…

Truppenmitglied
Und was wird das kosten?

Chef
Unterbrich mich nicht, Du Schwachmat,
denn andernfalls hast Du den Salat –
nur ohne Kopf, Du Tropf!
Es geht um die Idee, um diesen anspruchsvollen Posten,
dafür müssen wir, und niemand kann dies ernsthalftlich bestreiten,
noch vergießt er eine Träne, denn das ist der Trend,
unsere zweiten Zähne konsequent vermosten.

Sprecher
Wohlan, laßt sie bloß nicht rosten!
Er macht seins, und ich, ich mach’ meins..

Schnitt. Bilder illustrieren nun passend zur Erzählung – oder umgekehrt.

Sprecher
So ist Methode eins: Das kippende Erlebnis,
mit erstklassigem Ergebnis!
Will sagen: dem ersten geht es an den Kragen,
denn er will was ganz Spezielles wagen.
In diesem System nehme man aus besseren Tagen
eine Führerstatue mit ausgestrecktem Gruß
als Grundlage für diesen Zahn-weg-Blues.
Hitler, der so beigesteuerte, wird adrett und nett,
quergelegt auf das blankgescheuerte Parkett.
Und nun, mit vorbezeichnetem Elan,
nebst ungeheurlichem Schmiss,
wirft sich der erste in den ausgestreckten Arm
mitsamt seinem Gebiß. Das ist durchaus gewagt,
denn es ragt des Führers grußgestärkter Griffel zum Hinterkopf hinaus.
Mit anderen Worten: für den ersten ist das Spiel schon aus!

Schnitt. Fette Faust schlägt in einem Neonazigesicht ein. Wenn die Faust wieder aus dem Gesicht rausgezogen wird, ist es völllig blau.

Sprecher
Die zweite Version ist kurz gehalten,
sie legt die Gestalten straight in Falten,
und zwar so blau wie beim Kobaltspalten:
Méthode deux: visage bleu!

Schnitt. Schlafzimmerszene mit Nazipärchen. Sie bestreicht ihm die Zähne mit nutella und verklebt seine Lippen mit einem Hakenkreuz aus Leukoplast geformt. Dann löscht sie das Licht. Am nächsten Morgen entfernt sie ihm den Klebeverband, während er mit errigiertem Penis unter der Bettdecke auf dem Rücken liegend, sehnsüchtig auf seinen Zahnverlust wartet. Sie drückt ihm recht resolut mit dem Daumen die Zahnleiste durch seinen verschlossenen Mund ein.

Sprecher
Die dritte Variante ist mittlerweile stark verbreiten,
sie arbeitet mit der Überzuckerungskonstante,
eine Spezialität, die GröFaZ übermannte,
als er die Farbe braun entsandte,
denn nach diesem Wesen sollte die Welt weltweit genesen.

Schnitt. Gruppe von Neonazis in der Küche versammelt. Einer sitzt angebunden auf einem Stuhl in der Mitte des Raumes. Aus seinem Mund hängen mehrere Nylonschnüre, die von den anderen gemeinsam an einem Türgriff befestigt werden.

Sprecher
Methode 4 arbeitet mit der Küchentür:
Jeder Zahn mit Nylon fest umschlungen,
mit dem Griff verknotet, ein kurzer Treuesong gesungen:

Nazichor
Wir sind die Nibelungen…

Schnitt: Vier Särge, die Neonazis beinhalten, sind aufgebahrt. Aus einem Sarg ragt weiterhin die ausgestreckte Führerhand.

Sprecher
Und die Tür ward zugeschwungen.
Resultat: Aktion gelungen!
Keiner von den Knaben hat noch Fragen,
denn sie verhungern nun mit leerem Magen,
weil: die dritten Laß-das-Kau
sind letztlich nicht so paßgenau.
Einst ein Ort von bitterer Gefahr,
ist nun die Luft so rein, so klar,
und weil dies so geschah
verfiel man der Idee, ein Klischee daraus zu formen,
um den Naziabgang vorzunormen.
Weil der Nazi weltweit wohnt, wird der Zahnersatz betont
millionenfach geklont und so thront das Glas
in jedem Land auf unserer Erde und verschrotet nun die Nazi-Herde.
Kurzer Hand wird es promotet, von Promis und auch VIPs,
wie hier vom Papst, der Hitlers Dritte segnet,
weil er möchte, daß es Zähne regnet.

Papst (Pius XII)
Seid fruchtbar, auf daß Ihr Euch vermehret
und des Nazis Leben so erschweret.

Sprecher
Bald im Land und auf der Welt
ist man wieder friedlich eingestellt.
Gelegentlich hört man‘s hier und dort noch etwas Lästern,
doch prinzipiell ist das Thema jetzt von gestern!
So laßt uns beginnen mit diesen Plänen
unter Zuhilfenahme von Hitlers dritten Zähnen.

© by Hamlet Hamster; hamster&james h.n.c.

It's dead letter week on Foolish Notions, just because. Here's no. 1:

Sir,

According to the Law of Conservation of Matter, every atom is continually recycled in the universe and never lost. In other words, we breathe the same atoms as those breathed by Galileo (approx 4.3 x 109 atoms per breath). Similarly, we drink – in every glass of water – some atoms of Adolph Hitler’s urine, while, on a lighter note, we also drink some atoms of Jennifer Lopez’s body fluids (provided they have had sufficient time to disperse). Conversely, Jennifer Lopez is drinking – in every glass of water she swallows – some of my body fluids. I would, therefore, like to ask Jennifer (if, indeed, she is prone to brush over this esteemed organ) if she would like to try the undiluted variety … purely for the purposes of scientific investigation. Of course.

Yours

R.H. Schmitt

Video Adolf Hitler dan SBY di Youtube.
Heboh,beredar Video SBY dan Hitler di Youtube.Dalam Video tersebut berisi tanggapan Adolf Hitler tentang album SBY yang baru yang bertajuk ‘Ku Yakin sampai di sana’.Ini dia Videonya.

Obama said during his July 2, 2008 campaign speech

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

He has attempted to follow the model of Hugo Chavez, and other dictators thus far in his illegitimate, undocumented ‘presidency.’  He has taken over financial institutions, auto manufacturers, and begun the destruction of all private business and industry.  With the aid of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, the Black Panthers, SEIU, ACORN, all of his communist appointees, and other union supporters, Obama has employed his thug, street organizer, Marxist, Saul Alinsky tactics to intimidate Americans and begin building the framework for his communist state.

What you see exemplified by Hugo Chavez, and quietly being put into place by Barack Obama is EXACTLY like the Nazi Brown Shirts who did Hitler’s bidding in the 30’s and 40’s, and what Lenin did in Soviet Russia.  “Oh, but you’re being too extreme and alarmist by using the Hitler analogy,” some of you will say.  If you HONESTLY examine history, there is no way that you can tell me the analogy does not fit.

Chavez is using his ‘militia’ to intimidate people into doing things his way.  Period.  It has nothing to do with the good of the people.  It is about consolidating power.

Now Chairman Maobama is quietly trying to assemble such a force.  The basis for the force is the corrupt unions that got him elected, predominantly the likes of ACORN and SEIU.  The leadership of other unions such as the UAW are also in bed with Obama, but the rank and file may not be so easily swayed.  Regardless, you have already seen his tactics employed at the voting booth intimidating voters to get him elected by either voting for him, or not voting period.  You see a ‘progressive’ congress attempting to pass laws that would essentially force unionization of the labor force.  You see attempts to publicly attack and humiliate ANYONE who disagrees with Obama’s agenda.

The words of soulless attack dog Rahm Emanuel are a perfect example.  He called those balking at Obama’s health care takeover “F—ing retarded.” This is a pretty mild attack from Mr. ‘Dead Fish’ Emanuel, who mailed dead fish to a pollster who ticked him off.  As an aide to Bill Clinton during his first presidential run, Emanuel shook up a dinner party by plunging a knife into the table and screaming “Dead!” while reciting the names of several Democrats he considered disloyal.  If Obama has a ‘Heinrich Himmler,’ Emanuel will be it.

CNSNews.com

Chavez’s Socialist Worker Militias Swell to 150,000 in Venezuela

Friday, February 05, 2010

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Venezuela’s socialist worker militias have grown to nearly 150,000 members since their formation in 2009. Organized by President Hugo Chavez in May 2009, the “workers’ militias” are intended to allow Chavez’s political party to assert control over key economic sectors.

According to a Jan. 29 report in the Venezuelan El Universal newspaper — translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring – the ranks of Chavez’s workers militias have swelled to around 150,000 members, most of whom work in “strategic” economic sectors, such as oil, electricity, transportation, and “basic companies.”

Orlando Castillo, with the Socialist Workers Front, a Chavez-allied group, was quoted by El Universal as saying that the purpose of the militias was to use the labor troops to “defend the people,” adding that “there need to be many more” troops.  (Obama’s ‘civilian national security force’ anyone?)

“There need to be many more,” he said, “because they represent the idea of the integrated worker who is capable of producing and also of defending the people.”

The workers’ militias are an ideological remnant of the Communist coup d’etat in Russia 1917, whose leaders Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky created the groups and used them to overthrow the Czarist government, eventually turning them into units of the Red Army.

Vladimir Lenin, the Marxist leader who helped establish the Soviet Union, which lasted in Russia from 1917 to 1991

In Venezuela today the militias are made up of individual workers who are armed with guns and trained to ensure that their respective companies comply with the agenda of the ruling United Socialist Party. (As I said, it’s all about CONTROL.)

“With rifles there beside them, in case anybody makes a mistake with us,” Chavez is quoted as saying at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop where he announced the militias’ creation.

So-called socialist patrols are also growing, with an estimated 20,000 separate patrols totaling 300,000 Venezuelans. Each patrol has an average of 15 members. Castillo said the patrols are “forging the party [United Socialist Party] in the middle of the workers [movement].”

Like the militias, these socialist patrols are intended to allow the ruling socialist government to exert greater control over key industries. However, they also operate in Venezuela’s shrinking private sector companies.

The purpose of both is “production control,” according to socialist leader Castillo, allowing members of the ruling party to wield greater influence in economic decisions.

Chavez’s government plans for companies to have a socialist triumvirate of sorts, comprised of socialist patrols, workers’ councils and labor unions. (Do you think Obama’s total support and nurturing of unions in this country is an accident?  Don’t be naive.  It is part of his plan in laying the ground work for his communist state.)

In a game that Clarence was lucky enough to attend, the Boston Bruins reached a level of futility that has not been seen in 85 years as they lost their ninth consecutive game, this time 3-2 in a shootout against the Canadiens in Boston.

85 years ago.

Here’s a little perspective on how long it has been since the Bruins last lost 9 in a row in the 1924-25 season.

In 1924-25:

• A 35-year old Adolf Hitler had just been released from Landsberg Prison and was finishing up Mein Kampf.
• J. Edgar Hoover had just been appointed head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a post he would hold for 37 years until his death in 1972.
• American airman Russell L. Maughan flies from New York to San Francisco in 21 hours and 48 minutes on a dawn-to-dusk flight in a Curtiss pursuit.
• A gallon of gas was 19 cents.
• Calvin Coolidge becomes the first President of the United States to deliver a radio broadcast from the White House.
• In New York City the first Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade is held.
• John T. Scopes is indicted for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution.
• …and Andy Rooney celebrated his 65th birthday.

In any case, here are a few shots from the game:

********************

I have run out of quality Soup(y Sales) clips, as I didn’t expect so many (losses) – so here’s a look back at the golden age of television advertising:

…and how wrong is this?  Fred and Barney hawking Winstons!

********************

The Northwest Division leading Vancouver Canucks visit the TD Garden today, as the Bruins try to avoid their tenth straight loss – as well as falling back to .500 (currently 23-22-10).

In other NHL news, the Ilya Kovalchuk sweepstakes is over – he is now a New Jersey Devil.

********************

With the NHL trading deadline looming on March 3, I am hoping the Bruins don’t do anything hasty.

]]> http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin%e2%80%99s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao%e2%80%99s-chinese-holocaust/ Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:27:24 +0000 naegeleblog http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin%e2%80%99s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao%e2%80%99s-chinese-holocaust/

By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were the most ruthless killers of their own people in the 20th Century, and perhaps in the entire history of mankind.  They were responsible for the world’s deadliest holocausts—or the mass destruction of human beings—yet their victims have never been identified or honored.  It is time for the silent voices of those who died to be heard, and for these human tragedies of epic proportions to be recognized fully.

The famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal once spoke about the duty owed by survivors of the Nazi Holocaust to Jews and non-Jews alike to insure that other holocausts did not occur again, and of course he was correct.  Memorials have been erected to those who died at the hands of Adolf Hitler’s thugs.  However, those noncombatants who were killed by Japan prior to and during World War II, and by the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot in Cambodia, and in Africa and elsewhere are forgotten.

Saddam Hussein’s brutality with respect to the Kurds and Iranians, and those Kuwaitis whose fate has only been determined recently in shallow Iraqi graves, pales beside that of Stalin who was Hussein’s hero.  Aside from ordering the killing of those in the Soviet hierarchy, it is estimated that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen—including millions during the collectivization of the Soviet farms in the 1930s.

History has focused on Hitler’s rise to power during that period, and his atrocities in the Nazi death camps and on the battlefields of World War II.  Memorials have been erected to the fallen of many nations that brought an end to his cherished dream of a “Thousand Year Reich,” and to the Jews who were persecuted and systematically killed by the Nazis.  However, there are no memorials or tributes to those who perished under Stalin.

He was revered in the former Soviet Union for having defeated Hitler on his Eastern Front, and for the Red Army’s capture of Berlin—even though as the Soviets moved through Germany, they raped at least two million German women in what is now acknowledged as the largest case of mass rape in history.  As the truth about him became known following his death, a program of “de-Stalinization” was implemented.  However, never in the Soviet Union’s history were steps taken to honor fully those whose only crime was working on the land.  They were peasant farmers, most of them, but they stood in the way of “progress,” Soviet-style.  To increase agricultural production and to implement the multi-year plans that were being devised for their confiscated farms, which became state-owned lands, they were expendable—and liquidated.

For such a colossal crime to go “unnoticed” outside of the Soviet Union can only be explained by the gathering storm clouds of World War II, and the march of Germany and Japan, which focused the world’s attention elsewhere.  China and other parts of Asia came under attack and were later occupied by Japan, while Hitler marched into Poland and then conquered Europe.  Straddling the Atlantic and Pacific with Hitler in the East and Japan in the West, and still dealing with the Great Depression’s aftermath, the United States was preoccupied prior to World War II.  Also, there was a strong sense of isolationism—that America was an island, bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific—which militated against our involvement in the Soviet Union’s “internal affairs.”

China’s Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960, as a result of what Mao’s regime hailed as the “Great Leap Forward.”  Like Stalin, Mao’s crimes involved Chinese peasants, many of whom died of hunger from man-made famines under collectivist orders that stripped them of all private possessions.  The Communist Party forbade them even to cook food at home; private fires were outlawed; and their harvests were taken by the state.  Those who dared to question Mao’s agricultural policies—which sought to maximize food output by dispossessing the nation’s most productive farmers—were tortured, sent to labor camps, or executed.

More than 60 million human beings are forgotten, seemingly having disappeared without a trace in the Soviet and Chinese Holocausts of the 20th Century, as if they never existed or were swallowed up by history.  Yet they did exist, and they might have produced descendants numbering in the hundreds of millions today.  One can only conjecture as to the contributions they would have made to mankind, which are forever lost like the contributions of those Jews, Gypsies and others who were killed in the Nazi Holocaust, and by Japan, and by Pol Pot, and in Africa.

Approximately 70 years have passed since this human tragedy of epic proportions occurred in the Soviet Union.  Approximately 25 years have passed since the comparable tragedy occurred in China.  It is time for the world to pay tribute to more than 60 million people who perished under Stalin and Mao.  While the precise numbers of the victims may never been known, each of us has a duty to honor their memories and take steps to insure that holocausts do not occur anywhere again.  China, Russia and the other former Soviet-bloc countries whose citizens numbered among the silent voices must take the lead, and other nations must join as well.

It is possible that relatives and people who knew those who died are still alive today, and can bear witness to what happened and give new meaning to their lives.  However, the likelihood of that being true diminishes with each passing day, and it is a race against the clock before they too are gone—certainly in the case of those who might remember victims of the Soviet Holocaust.  It is time for the silent voices to be heard again, so they are not forgotten, which would compound their catastrophic fate.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[2] This article was published first at MensNewsDaily.com on August 9, 2005.  See http://www.naegele.com/documents/StalinMaoHolocausts.pdf

Because more than four years have passed, the number of relatives and other people who knew those who perished, and can bear witness to what happened and give new meaning to their lives, has continued to diminish.  It is even more of a race against the clock before they are gone too, which would compound the catastrophic fate of those who were victims of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust and Mao’s Chinese Holocaust.

Russia’s dictator-for-life Vladimir Putin is every bit as sinister and evil as Stalin, and it is unlikely that he will be of any help in such an effort.

Unknown punishments for Phoebe Prince’s tormentors
By APRIL DREW , IrishCentral.com
Published Friday, February 5, 2010, 11:54 AM
Updated Friday, February 5, 2010, 12:16 PM

School officials in South Hadley have reneged on their promise to divulge punishments dished out to the students responsible for the bullying inflicted on 15-year-old Irish girl, Phoebe Prince, who took her own life in January.

A school committee meeting in South Hadley last night (Thursday) outraged parents of students in the school as officials decided to back off on their vow to disclose the punishments given to Prince’s tormentors.

Officials refused to provide any details about the school investigation.

The school’s superintendent, Gus Sayer, read out a two-page press release at the meeting on Thursday that provided little information about the harassment that Prince endured before her death.

Irish Central-Unknown punishments for Phoebe Prince’s tormentors

To make matters worse, 30 people could be involved and they have retained lawyers. They are hindering the investigation. Not good.

UPI-Investigation into bullying death hindered

I hope the bullies will get really harsh punishment. I would send them off to Afghanistan or Yemen to be with the terrorist because they are like them. Or make them do hard labor in Siberia.

These “mean girls” have the same mentality like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold. They saw themselves as the victim, when they were the bullies. Most bullies feel like they are being persecuted and entitled to everything in life.

This entitlement culture has done more harm than one can imagine. I would not be surprised if these bullies are spoiled brats whose parents never disciplined them. They were raised to feel entitled to everything in life. We’ve seen this again and again. Remember Lori Drew or Wanda Holloway? Holloway felt her daughter, Shanna, was entitled to be a cheerleader and went as far as hiring a hitman to kill Shanna’s friend, Amber Heath’s parents. Drew felt her daughter, Sarah, was being insulted by Megan Meier. Drew felt entitled to belong to every organization, be invited to every party, and have her daughter involved in every extracurricular activities.

From the New York Times:

Hitler’s copyright on “Mein Kampf,” in the hands of the Bavarian government since the end of the Nazi regime, has long been used to keep his inflammatory manifesto off the shelves in Germany. But with the expiration date looming in 2015, there is a developing showdown here over the first German publication of the book since the end of World War II.

Experts at the respected Institute of Contemporary History in Munich say they want to prepare a critical, annotated version of the book for release when the copyright expires 70 years after Hitler’s suicide in his Berlin bunker.

Read the whole thing.

The German government isn’t budging, however, on its commitment to keep all Nazi literature including Mein Kampf out of print.

I understand the intention and that Germans aren’t guaranteed the same freedom of speech, but the effort to suppress the book seems unrealistic IMO, especially given the realities of new media. The German edition of Mein Kampf is of course out there to anyone who wants to get it, so why not let these historians put out a new critical edition? It may be a naïve American viewpoint, but I simply believe that we are better served when we evaluate stupid ideas and dismiss them for their folly than when we suppress them or try to run from them.

How lucky it is for rulers,” Adolf Hitler once said, “that men cannot think.” The horrors that followed in Nazi Germany might have been easier to explain if Hitler had been right. But the problem is not so much that peoplecannot think but that they do not think. Or if they do think, as in the case of the German people, that thinking becomes muddled and easily led.

Hitler’s meteoric rise to power, with the support of the German people, is a case in point. On January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles. When President Paul von Hindenburg died the following year, Hitler assumed the office of president, as well as that of chancellor, but he preferred to use the title Der Füehrer (the leader) to describe himself. This new move was approved in a general election in which Hitler garnered 88 percent of the votes cast.

It cannot be said that the German people were ignorant of Hitler’s agenda or his Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, had papered the country for a decade before Hitler came to power. In fact, Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, which was his blueprint for totalitarianism, sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932.

Clearly, the problem was not that the German people did not think but that their thinking was poisoned by the enveloping climate of ideas that they came to accept as important. At a certain point, the trivial became important, and obedience to the government in pursuit of security over freedom became predominant.

We see this same scenario being played out in America today where analytical thinking has given way to a steady diet of mindless entertainment and endless distractions. Rejecting community in favor of self-gratification and isolation, we have in essence become an atomistic society, a characteristic of an emerging totalitarian society.

Connected to all our technological gadgets, we are increasingly disconnected from each other. Even when physically crowded together at entertainment spectacles such as concerts and sports events, we fail to truly communicate with one another. As author Alex Marshall observed, Americans live “in one of the loneliest societies on the earth.” All the while, with little outcry from the citizenry, the government has erected a surveillance state, slowly transforming itself into a centralized, authoritarian bureaucracy that is gobbling up our civil liberties on a daily basis.

Woefully ignorant of the freedoms given us by our forefathers and their subsequent erosion by our government of wolves, Americans rarely come together to strategize on how to maintain our freedoms. Indeed, most Americans do not even engage in meaningful discourse about pressing issues of national and international significance. And as studies show, Americans know much more about trivia (such as the names of the Simpsons and the Three Stooges) than they do the Bill of Rights. For example, less than one percent of adults can name the five rights found in the First Amendment. And, as one study recently found, only three percent of high school students can pass the U.S. Immigration Services and Citizenship exam. Incredibly, of those from foreign countries aspiring to be American citizens, some 93% who took the same test passed. However, as those who wrote the Constitution warned, a citizenry ignorant of their rights would lose them.

Plain and simple, American educational institutions no longer teach children about their freedoms and how to exercise them. But it gets worse. America currently spends well in excess of $40 billion annually on public education. Yet the numbers are undeniable: in comparing the literacy level of adults in seventeen industrialized countries, America was number ten on the list. And 16- to 25-year-olds underperform their foreign counterparts as well. Moreover, they do so to a greater degree than do Americans over 40. And with the loss of literacy goes a critical ingredient in maintaining freedom–citizens who think analytically.

Thus, ignorant of the very basis of citizenship and overwhelmed by the informational glut of modernity, it is little wonder that many, ostrich-like, are allowing an out-of-control government to move forward unimpeded. Yet while most may feel snug and secure in their technological wombs, they are only temporarily keeping the wolf at bay. Hiding from reality is not the solution. In fact, non-participation by the citizenry only makes matters worse. “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote,” the drama critic George Jean Nathan once remarked. I would add that bad officials will run roughshod over citizens who are clueless.

Thus, for whom does the bell toll? It tolls for us. Everything America was founded upon is in some way being challenged. At stake is the very foundation of the American democratic system. And while it may be easy to fault a particular politician, event or the media– television, in particular–for the state of our nation, the blame, as the renowned CBS newscaster Edward R. Murrow once noted, rests with us. Amid the Red Scare of the 1950s and the Joseph McCarthy era, people were often afraid to speak out against the paranoia being propagated through the media and the government. Fear and paranoia had come to grip much of the American population, and there was a horrible chill in the air. But with great courage, Murrow spoke up. On March 9, 1954, on his CBS television show See It Now, Murrow said the following–a statement very apropos for today:

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

My readers have been asking me for years “Jon why do you never write anything about Muslims. Well today here it is. I’ve been doing alot of research on this particular subject for the last few months, so let’s hear your comments. See also Fred Hansen’s website. http://crazyislam.typepad.com/home/2010/01/hitler-vs-mohammed.html

“Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you. ” — Hajj Amin al Husseini on German Nazi radio. [1]

“Germany stands for an uncompromising struggle against the Jews. It is self-evident that the struggle against the Jewish national homeland in Palestine forms part of this struggle, since such a national homeland would be nothing other than a political base for the destructive influence of Jewish interests. Germany also knows that the claim that Jewry plays the role of an economic pioneer in Palestine is a lie. Only the Arabs work there, not the Jews. Germany is determined to call on the European nations one by one to solve the Jewish problem and, at the proper moment, to address the same appeal to non-European peoples.”

— Adolf Hitler to Haj Amin Al-Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem, November 28, 1941

The more I research the role of Islam in the Holocaust in pursuit of the truth behind the mysterious origins of the Auschwitz blueprints, the more convinced I am that the Mufti was the owner of the original Auschwitz blueprints, signed by Himmler and found in “an undisclosed” apartment in the very area the slaughtering Mufti resided in during his partying years in Berlin 1941- 1945. He insisted upon and received “a Jewish house” in which to live (I wouldn’t want to live in a jihadi’s house, would you?) . He was granted this request and lived in a grand style in Berlin. He took tea regularly with Himmler and directed orders that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths of Jews, most particularly Jewish children.

Head of Nazi SS troops Heinrich Himmler stated to Chief of Nazi propaganda Josef Goebbels:

“ [I] have nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action. A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.” [xxxiv]

Heinrich Himmler, Head of SS, and close colleague of Amin Al-Husseini, financed and established Islamic Institute (‘Islamische Zentralinstitut’) in Dresden under the Mufti. The purpose was to create a generation of Islamic leaders that would continue to use Islam as a carrier for Nazi ideology into the 21st century. [xxxv]

It was not that he got with the Nazi program, it’s that he preceded it. He mentored it. His role is irrefutable, as documented in thousands of pages of documents released after the war. What is galling and repugnant is that Mufti Amin Al Husseini’s face is not an icon of evil, as is that of Hitler or Mussolini. Why did he escape prosecution? Why were his sins washed clean? Why did the State Department refuse to release the White Paper on the Mufti? Why weren’t we taught this in school? Why wasn’t the tie-in made to Black September, the Beirut bombing, the WTC bombing of ‘93 and the September 11th attack on America?

Why is the location of the rare discovery of the Himmler-signed Auschwitz blueprints being kept secret? Germany does not hide information like this after WWII. Why hide it now? If the location were revealed to incriminate the Grand Mufti, it would be the only reason to keep this location secret. There is no other reason. My source has worked with several people in Germany over the last few months, trying to get the ‘location’ of this remodeled apartment…..with no success.

An anonymous source tells me that with all of the ‘slight’ tid-bits of information, it points to a possible location where the Grand Mufti lived during WWII. If it were the residence of the Grand Mufti, this would confirm all the testimony and witness accounts that the architect of the Final Solution, as was testified in the Nuremberg Trials, was the Grand Mufti. He had experience. He had practiced this genocide in, first, the Armenian genocide — the systematic genocide of the Armenian population under the Islamic Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. The use of massacres and deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees led to a total number of Armenian deaths of one-and-a-half million (other ethnic groups who suffered the same fate included Assyrians and Greeks.)

And then in the terrible slaughter of Jews in the Arab/Muslim Riots of 1920 and the 1941 pro-nazi coup in Baghdad, Iraq, Kharaillah Tulfah was his right-hand man. Tulfah is Saddam Hussein’s mentor and uncle. Germany sent weapons and aircraft to Husseini.

It was Mufti Al-Husseini who implemented that gross restoration of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem [vii]. He had the Dome gold-plated for the first time, imposing the false narrative on Jewish Jerusalem by creating more importance for a bogus Holy Muslim site in the eyes of the Arab World.

Here at Tell the Children the Truth: (hat tip Choi)

“Amin Al-Husseini swears allegiance to the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide [i] . [ii] He is an officer stationed in Smyrna and participates first-hand in the Armenian genocide. One and a half million Christians are slaughtered under the sword of Islamic Jihad by the Ottoman Army. Allegiance to Ottoman Empire and Islamic world take-over will be echoed by Osama Bin Laden in his post-September 11 declaration”

“ODESSA network [xlv] . Egypt, home of Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria incorporate thousands of Nazi experts into Egyptian and Syrian [xlvi] army, government and propaganda service. Vatican heavily involved in providing travel visas for Nazi officers.
Amin Al-Husseini is directly implicated in providing safe haven to ex-Nazis in Arab lands. He is the main connection with Francois Genoud, Swiss banker of Third Reich [and Soros mentor] , who finances the ODESSA network with money stolen from European Jews”

This from World Politics Review (hat tip Armaros)

But in fact the full record of the available evidence, including both German and Arabic sources, leaves no room for doubt anymore. Indeed, the Grand Mufti’s own words provide the most compelling proof. Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, edited by Abd al-Karim al-Umar, were published in Damascus in 1999. (See cover photo below.) In the memoirs, al-Husaini openly discusses his close relationship to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

According to his account, he often met Himmler for tea and during these meetings the Nazi leader confided some of the secrets of the German Reich to him. Thus, for example, in the middle of 1943, Himmler is supposed to have told him that German nuclear research had made great progress: In three years, Germany could have an atomic weapon that would guarantee its “ultimate victory.” As Rainer Karlsch’s recent book on “Hitler’s Bomb” has shown, this assessment was not far off. Himmler presumably confided this information to the Grand Mufti on July 4, 1943. That is the date on a photo of the two men with a signed dedication from Himmler: “to his Eminence the Grand Mufti — a Memento” (below)

In the memoirs, the Grand Mufti also describes what Himmler said to him in that summer of 1943 about the persecution of the Jews. Following some tirades on “Jewish war guilt,” Himmler told him that “up to now we have liquidated [abadna] around three million of them” (p. 126 — see Arabic excerpt below).

There is evidence, moreover, that the Grand Mufti knew about the Nazis’ plans still earlier. In 1946, Dieter Wisliceny, a close collaborator of Adolf Eichmann in the “Jewish Affairs” division of the Reich Central Security Office, provided a written statement on the Grand Mufti to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

According to Wisliceny, at the beginning of 1942 Eichmann made a detailed presentation to al-Husaini on the “solution of the European Jewish question.” The presentation took place in Eichmann’s “map room” in Berlin: “where he had collected statistical graphics on the Jewish population in the various European countries.” The Grand Mufti, Wisliceny recalls, was “very impressed.” Furthermore, al-Husaini is supposed to have put in a request to Himmler to have Eichmann send one of his assistants to Jerusalem after Germany had won the war. The representative of Eichmann was to serve as the Grand Mufti’s personal advisor: i.e. when the Grand Mufti would then set about “solving the Jewish question in the Middle East.”

We can infer from other documentation that this was not just a vague idea. A declassified document on Nazi war crimes from the National Archives in Washington indicates that as of mid-1942 a special SS commando unit had plans to liquidate the Jews of Cairo following the capture of the city by German forces. (See detail below.) Gen. Erwin Rommel was supposedly disgusted by the proposition. The head of the SS unit, Walter Rauff, had earlier been involved in developing vans that served as mobile gas chambers. It should be noted that he was a German and not a Pole, as suggested in the U.S. government document.

In his memoirs, however, the Grand Mufti feigns astonishment at Himmler’s remark. On his account, Himmler asked him how he would solve the problem of the Jews in his country. Amin al-Husaini says that he answered that they should go back to where they came from. To which Himmler is supposed then to have replied: “Come back to Germany — we will never allow them to do that.” But the Grand Mufti is here white-washing his own role in history. After all, in Berlin on November 2, 1943, he publicly declared that Muslims should follow the example of the Germans, who had found a “definitive solution to the Jewish problem.”

Wolfgang G. Schwanitz is a historian of the Middle East and German Middle East policy. He is the author of four books and the editor of ten others, including “Germany and the Middle East, 1871-1945.” He grew up in Cairo and Berlin, and he teaches at Rider University in New Jersey. The above article had been adapted from a longer article that appeared on the German website Kritiknetz. The full German version is available on Kritiknetz here. The English translation is by John Rosenthal.

And what of Hitler’s affection for the brutality of Islam and the genocidal Muhammad? Zion truth explains here:

Muhammad `Inayat Allah Khan [also called al-Mashriqi] was a Muslim theologian born in Punjab in 1888. Yet he was not an Indian nationalist. He wanted a Muslim state for the Indian Muslims, separate from India. In another words, he was an exponent of the Pakistan idea, which Walter Wallbank describes in his A Shorter History of India and Pakistan.

Khan spent time in Europe, including Berlin, where he met the Fuehrer in the early years of his leadership of the National Socialist [Nazi] Party. Their meeting took place in 1926 in the National Library. Here is the gist of Khan’s report on his relationship with Hitler.

“I was astounded when he [Hitler] told me that he knew about my Tazkirah. The news flabbergasted me. . . I found him very congenial and piercing. He discussed Islamic Jihad with me in details. In 1930 I sent him my Isharat concerning the Khaksar movement with a picture of a spade-bearer Khaksar at the end of that book. In 1933 he started his Spade Movement.” [pp 11-12; see source data below]

So, Hitler started his own Spade Movement. In other words, Hitler copied something that Khan was doing. More importantly, Hitler was interested in Islamic Jihad. That means, that Hitler, who worshipped war, was interested in how the Jihad concept could help him conduct fanatic, perpetual war by means of his own people.

The Khaksar movement was similar to the Nazi SA, the brownshirts, in its “first stage,” while Germany was still “demilitarized.” Khan considered Hitler’s Mein Kampf a “masterpiece.” Members of Khaksar wore brown uniforms and carried a spade, “symbolizing both labor and a readiness to fight.”

Islamic Jihad, that Hitler was so interested in, is defined by Jacques Ellul, one of the most eminent French sociologists:

But a major, two-fold fact transforms the jihad into something quite different from traditional wars, waged for ambition and self-interest, with limited objectives, where the “normal” situation is peace between peoples; [where] war in itself . . . must end in a return to peace. This two-fold [distinguishing] factor [of jihad] is first the religious nature, then the fact that war has become an institution (and no longer an “event”). . . This war is a religious duty. . .
In Islam . . . [in contrast with other religions], jihad is a religious obligation.
. . . jihad is not a “spiritual war” but a real military war of conquest. . .
. . . the second important specific characteristic is that the jihad is an institution and not an event, that is to say it is part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world.
[Jacques Ellul, in his Foreword to Bat Yeor, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1996), pp 18-19].

The German blog, Politically Incorrect, is all over this Atlas story. It’s in English and German.

UPDATE: “From Time Immemorial,” by Joan Peters — pp. 360-390 and 432-442. (hat tip Phil)

Also a good quote from Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times,” p. 481: “The year before [he had been appointed Mufti of Jerusalem for life] he had been given ten years hard labour for provoking bloody anti-Jewish riots. He had innocent blue eyes and a quiet, almost cringing manner, but he was a dedicated killer who devoted his entire adult life to race-murder. There is a photograph of him taken with Himmler: the two men smile sweetly at one another; beneath, a charming inscription by the SS chief to ‘His Eminence the Grossmufti’: the date was 1943 when the ‘Final Solution’ was moving into top gear. The Mufti outrivalled Hitler in his hatred for Jews.”

by Jonathan Hunt – ATU 757 President

Snidely Whiplash

First the caveat or “givens”: Conservatism and leftism are opposites, so naturally they repel. To expect them to have much in the way of common ground is to expose a foolish and naive expectation. To hope for any agreement between these two disparate ideologies – conservatism and leftism  is to think foxes and chickens could live together in harmony. Foxes eat chickens and lefties would love to eat us conservatives, so keep it real people!

The short answer is nationalism. Let’s explore and correct some of these misnomers and false associations the political opposition laid at the feet of American conservatism.

My previous article was about American Communists and their admitting they are progressives. They are proud of their efforts for progressive political change, blah, blah, blah. I’d be proud if their heads would explode, but I digress.

For the record, Hitler headed the National SOCIALIST WORKER’S Party, or Nazi Party in Germany. Despite whatever gum flapping provided by a progressive or other radical lefty, Hitler’s Nazism was far closer to Communism then to any other political ideology in the modern world – no doubt. Notice how the words SOCIALIST and WORKERS are both words associated with leftists and Communists and decidedly NOT associated with American conservative thought.

Hitler’s Germany was not about nationalizing industry as was done in the USSR, but in directing the economy to do whatever was politically appropriate for his ideology. The USSR forced nationalization of everything in their nation – no private property rights at all. All for the collective, like the Borg. Hitler did not abolish private property. Nazis directed banking and economy but did not take ownership of all of it as did the USSR.

The only thing connecting American conservatives and Nazi’s is the word “National.” American conservatives are proud jingoists – nationalists, if you will. It is not a negative thing to favor one’s own nation, family, tribe or community over all others, now is it? It sure isn’t when Commies worldwide preach their nationalism, so why is it a problem if an American conservative does it?

To continue reading Snidely’s article, please click Here.

On February 2:

962 Pope John XII crowned Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor.

1032 Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor became King of Burgundy.

1536  Pedro de Mendoza founded Buenos Aires, Argentina.

1653  New Amsterdam (later renamed The City of New York) was incorporated.

1709 Alexander Selkirk was rescued after being shipwrecked on a desert island, inspiring the book Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe.

1790 The U.S. Supreme Court convened for the first time.

1812 Russia established a fur trading colony at Fort Ross, California.

1929  William Stanley, inventor and engineer, was born.

1848 Mexican-American War: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed.

1848 California Gold Rush: The first ship with Chinese emigrants arrives in San Francisco, California.

1876 The National League of Professional Baseball Clubs of Major League Baseball was formed.

1880 The first electric streetlight was installed in Wabash, Indiana.

1882 James Joyce, Irish author, was born.

1882 The Knights of Columbus were formed in New Haven, Connecticut.

1887 In Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania the first Groundhog Day was observed.

1899 The Australian Premiers’ Conference decided to locate Australia’s capital (Canberra) between Sydney and Melbourne.

1901 Queen Victoria’s funeral took place.

1905 Ayn Rand, Russian-born American author and philosopher, was born.

1913 Grand Central Station opened in New York City.

1922 Ulysses by James Joyce was published.

1925 Serum run to Nome: Dog sleds reached Nome, Alaska with diphtheria serum, inspiring the Iditarod race.

 Statue of Balto, the lead dog on the last relay team.

1931 – Les Dawson, British comedian, was born.

1933 Adolf Hitler dissolved the German Parliament.

1934 The Export-Import Bank of the United States was incorporated.

1935 Leonarde Keeler tested the first polygraph machine.

1940 David Jason, English actor, was born.

1940  Frank Sinatra debuted with the Tommy Dorsey orchestra.

1946 The Proclamation of Hungarian Republic was made.

1947 Farrah Fawcett, American actress, was born.

1948 Al McKay, American guitarist and songwriter (Earth, Wind & Fire), was born.

1957 Iskander Mirza of Pakistan laid the foundation-stone of the Guddu Barrage.

1967 The American Basketball Association was formed.

1971 Idi Amin replaced President Milton Obote as leader of Uganda.

1972  The British embassy in Dublin was destroyed in protest over Bloody Sunday.

1974 The men’s 1500-metre final at the 1974 Christchurch Commonwealth Games is called the greatest middle distance race of all time. Tanzanian Filbert Bayi won in a new world record time of 3 minutes 32.16 seconds. New Zealand’s emerging middle distance star John Walker came second, also breaking the existing world record. The remarkable feature of this race was the fact that the third, fourth (New Zealander Rod Dixon) and fifth place getters ran the fourth, fifth, and seventh fastest 1500m times to that date. The national records of five countries – Tanzania, Kenya, Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand – were all broken in this race.

1974 The F-16 Fighting Falcon flew for the first time.

1976 The Groundhog Day gale hits the north-eastern United States and south-eastern Canada.

Groundhog Day gale of 1976

1987 The Philippines made a new constitution.

1989 Soviet war in Afghanistan: The last Soviet Union armored column left Kabul.

1989 Satellite television service Sky Television plc launched.

1990  F.W. de Klerk allowed the African National Congress to function legally and promised to release Nelson Mandela.

1998 A Cebu Pacific Flight 387 DC-9-32 crashed into a mountain near Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, killing 104.

2002 Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange married Máxima Zorreguieta.

2007 Four tornadoes hit Central Florida, killing 21 people.

Sourced from NZ History Online & Wikipedia

This entry called Casey Anthony Case Proves People Need Someone To Hate. written by Mark Hutcherson had me thinking, especially in light of Phoebe Prince’s suicide. As name of her tormentor are being released, it is highly likely they will end up being the most hated people in America and the world due to the fact that Prince is from Ireland. They are certainly not alone and share it with other evil figures. As word of the incident spreads, it comes to show that people need someone to hate: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, Lori Drew, and Casey Anthony. Those names ring a bell for many because they committed evil acts. They range from harming and killing (a) child/children, mass murder, serial killing, terrorism, to genocide.

Time and time again, every few years to decade, there seems to be people that everyone has to hate. What is the reason why we have to hate. People have to hate one person because if we hate each other, than we start killing each other. When people are united in hating one, we are less likely to kill each other. As mentioned previously, their actions were so heinous and beyond the pale, that it is evil. They become so hated that their names become synonymous with it. Also, they are used as epithets, insults against other people. Let’s see which figures are like this.

Adolf Hitler-Genocide. His name is used a lot in political debates. His name is a commonly used epithet.
Joseph Stalin-Genocide. His name is used a lot in political debates. His name is a commonly used epithet.
Charles Manson-Spree Killing. He did not do the killing, but incited it. His name is a commonly used epithet.
Ted Bundy-Serial Killer. Name is used as an epithet, but usually in non-political sense.
Jeffrey Dahmer-Serial Killer. Name is used as an epithet, but usually in non-political sense.
Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold-Mass Murderer. Name is used as an epithet.
Osama bin Laden-Terrorist. His name is a commonly used epithet and increasingly on par with Hitler and Stalin.
Lori Drew-Child killer. Her name is synonymous with bullying and has been used as an epithet.

All of them are evil and infamous for years and decades to come. They are regarded as public enemies, like the FBI used in the 1930s. Certainly that will apply to Phoebe’s bullies.

“Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1923

Wittgenstein & Hitler - According to the adventurous theory of Kimberley Cornish, a member of the Babs Thiering Down Under School of Hermetic Historiography

“You cannot prescribe to a symbol what it may be used to express. All that a symbol can express, it may express.”

- Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his Notebooks 1914-1916, numbered 130-131

The Postmistress by Sarah Blake

The time is the years 1940 and 1941 and Americans are attempting to stay out of the conflict in Europe.   President Franklin Roosevelt has pledged to keep American boys from dying in a new world war, but most Americans are well aware that he’s stalling for time.   Hitler’s armies are invading countries throughout Europe and something is happening to hundreds of thousands of Jews.   This is the setting for The Postmistress by Sarah Blake.

Blake tells the story of three women – three very different women with different personalities and needs.   Iris is the postmistress of the title, a woman who is thorough and organized in everything she does.   Iris takes pride in her discipline and in her preparation for all things.   Although she’s lacking a suitor, she travels to Boston to see a doctor who will certify her virginity; she’s sure that some man will one day find this to be a factor in her favor.

Emma is a transplant to the east coast, a small and frail woman who lost her parents early in life.   She wishes to have a new stable life with her physician-husband.   But Emma’s husband feels the call to go to help the victims of the German bombing of London.

Frankie is the tough and ambitious radio reporter stationed in London working with Edward R. Murrow.   She’s frustrated and wants to travel to find the “real story” of what is happening to the Jews.   She wants to be the voice of truth, a human alarm bell.

Something happens to each of these characters in The Postmistress.   Iris eventually wonders if she has placed duty to her job above simple human kindness.   Letters and telegrams bearing bad news travel through her hands.   Will the point come when she should show some mercy by withholding horrible news?   Would it make a difference?   Or would it place her in a position of arrogantly playing God?

Emma feels that she may lose everything, including a child on the way, if her husband places the needs of those in England above hers.   It’s not America’s war, right?   But then she may be powerless in the face of her husband’s desire to serve his fellow human beings.

Frankie becomes tired and devastated over what she observes in war-torn Europe.   Hitler’s armies are on the march and the people in the U.S. who listen to her radio show seem to refuse to accept the truth – the truth that war is inevitable.   Who else but American boys and men will save the world?

Whatever is coming does not just come…  It is helped by people wilfully looking away.   People who develop the habit of swallowing lies rather than the truth.

This novel tells us that stories get told when they need to be told – not before and not after.   There’s not a good or bad time, simply the time.   Blake does a marvelous job of transporting the reader back to the early 40s in polite, calm and reasoned language.   Perhaps the best compliment that can be paid to The Postmistress is to say that when you read it, you will place yourself in that time and place.   You will also ask yourself what you would have done in that time and under those circumstances.

Would you have sought delay as an isolationist (“It’s not our war.”)?   Or would you have been one of those who said, “We’re going to have to go at some point, so why not now?”   A simple question, perhaps, but the fate of the world – of freedom – literally depended on the answer.

This is an important story about normal people occupying a bigger-than-life stage.   Blake tells it impressively and beautifully.   The Postmistress is a story that you will be thinking about weeks and months later.  

Sarah Blake displays an intelligence in the telling of the story that is, sadly, all too rare these days.

Highly recommended.

The Postmistress made me homesick for a time before I was even born.   What’s remarkable, however, is how relevant the story is to our present day times.   A beautifully written, thought-provoking novel that I’m telling everyone I know to read.   Kathyrn Stockett, author of The Help.

A review copy was received from the publisher, Amy Einhorn Books.   The Postmistress will be released on Tuesday, February 9, 2010.

Madonna of Stalingrad: Drawn by a German Chaplain and physician the piece was taken out of the city by one of the last officers to get out. It is now displayed in the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin

Sunday the 31^st of January marks the surrender of the remnants of the German 6th Army to the Soviets at Stalingrad. The focus of this article is on how the Germans and Russians fought the Stalingrad campaign. In particular it is an analysis of the way the governments and military’s of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union planned and executed strategy during the course of the campaign adjusted to the situation and how the campaign ended. It is also a reminder of the price that ordinary soldiers can pay when a country commits them to war. I conclude with a potential modern application for the US and NATO in Afghanistan.

Stalingrad: Primary or Secondary Objective

The mistakes began early in the planning and conduct of the operation

Following the Soviet winter offensive and the near disaster in front of Moscow the German High Command was faced with the strategic decision of what to do in the 1942 campaign.  Several options were considered and it was decided to seize the Caucasus oilfields and capture or neutralize the city of Stalingrad on the Volga.  However, the High Command was divided on the actual objective of the campaign.

OKH under the guidance of General Halder assumed that Stalingrad was the objective and the advance into the Caucasus was a blocking effort.[i] Hitler and OKW planned to capture the Caucasus oil fields and capture or neutralize Stalingrad to secure the left flank.[ii] Both OKH and OKW considered Stalingrad significant but “German commanders initially regarded it as a weigh station en route to the Caucasus oil fields.”[iii] The conflict echoed in the ambiguity of Directive No. 41 which “included the ‘seizure of the oil region of the Caucasus’ in the preamble concerning the general aim of the campaign, yet made no mention of this in the main plan of operations.”[iv] At the planning conference held at Army Group South in early June “Hitler hardly mentioned Stalingrad. As far as his Generals were concerned it was little more than a name on the map. His obsession was with the oil fields of the Caucasus.”[v] Manstein noted that “Hitler’s strategic objectives were governed chiefly by the needs of his war economy….”[vi] Anthony Beevor notes that at this stage of planning “the only interest in Stalingrad was to eliminate the armaments factories there and secure a position on the Volga. The capture of the city was not considered necessary.”[vii] German planners “expected that the Soviets would again accept decisive battle to defend these regions.”[viii]

In Moscow Stalin and his Generals attempted to guess the direction of the impending German offensive.  “Stalin was convinced that Moscow remained the principle German objective…Most of the Red Army’s strategic reserves…were therefore held in the Moscow region.”[ix] To disrupt the German offensive and to attempt to recover Kharkov three offensives were launched by Red Army forces under the direction of Stavka. The largest of these on Kharkov was defeated between 12-22 May with the loss of most of the armor in southern Russia. This coupled with an equally disastrous defeat of Red Army forces in Crimea by Von Manstein’s 11^th Army meant that the Red Army would face the Germans in a severely weakened condition.[x]

Operation Blau: Opening Moves and Divergent Objectives

Panzers cross the Don

The German offensive began on 28 June under the command of Field Marshal von Bock. Bock’s command included two separate army groups, Army Group B under General Von Weichs with 2^nd Army, 6^th Army and 4^th Panzer Army operated in the northern part of the operational area. Army Group A was to the south with 17^th Army and 1^st Panzer Army.[xi] Army Group B provided the main effort and quickly smashed through the defending Soviet armies and by the 20^th Hitler believed that “the Russian is finished.”[xii] One reason for the German success in the south was that until July 7^th Stalin believed that Moscow was still the primary objective.[xiii] Bock was prevented by Hitler from destroying Soviet formations left behind and was relieved of command by Hitler. He was replaced by Von Weichs which created a difficult command and control problem.  Manstein noted that this created a “grotesque chain of command on the German southern wing” with the result that Army Group A had “no commander of its own whatever” and Army Group B had “no few than seven armies under command including four allied ones.”[xiv]

Destroyed Soviet T-34s

This decision proved fateful.  Hitler’s decided to redirect the advance of the 4^th Panzer Army to support an early passage of the lower Don, diverting it from its drive on Stalingrad.  Additionally the army groups became independent of each other when Bock was relieved of command.  They were “assigned independent-and diverging-objectives” under the terms of Directive No.45.[xv] This combination of events would have a decisive impact on the campaign.  The decision prevented a quick seizure of Stalingrad by 4^th Panzer Army followed by a hand over to 6^th Army to establish the “block” as described by Directive No.41.  Kleist noted that he didn’t need 4^th Panzer Army’s help to accomplish his objectives and that it could have “taken Stalingrad without a fight at the end of July….”[xvi]

Field Marshall Von Paulus

The result was damning. Air support and fuel needed by Army Group A was transferred to 6^th Army, denuding Army Group A of the resources that it needed to conclude its conquest of the Caucasus.[xvii] At the same time it denied Army Group B of the Panzer Army that could seize Stalingrad when it was still possible to do so.  Beevor calls Hitler’s decision a disastrous compromise.[xviii] Halder believed the decision underestimated the enemy and was “both ludicrous and dangerous.”[xix]

Focus on Stalingrad

Sturmgeschutz Battalion Advancing toward Stalingrad

On July 22 as the Wehrmacht ran short on fuel and divisions to commit to the Caucasus, and 6^th Army fought for control of Voronezh the Soviets created the Stalingrad Front. Stavka moved an NKVD Division to the city,[xx] and rapidly filled the new front with formations transferred from the Moscow Front.[xxi] Stalin issued Stavka Order 227, better known as “No Step Back” on 28 July. The order mandated that commanders and political officers who retreated would be assigned to Penal battalions[xxii] and armies were to form three to five special units of about 200 men each as a second line “to shoot any man who ran away.”[xxiii] Russian resistance west of the Don slowed the German advance. German commanders were astonished “at the profligacy of Russian commanders with their men’s lives.”[xxiv] Von Kleist compared the stubbornness of Russians in his area to those of the previous year and wrote that they were local troops “who fought more stubbornly because they were fighting to defend their homes.”[xxv] Additionally, Stalin changed commanders frequently in the “vain hope that a ruthless new leader could galvanize resistance and transform the situation.”[xxvi] General Chuikov brought the 64^th Army into the Stalingrad Front in mid-July to hold the Germans west of the Don.[xxvii]

German Militarpfarrer (Chaplain) leading field service in August 1942

Further weakening the Germans OKW transferred key SS Panzer Divisions and the Grossdeutschland Division to France. Supporting Hungarian, Italian and Romanian allied armies which lacked motorization, modern armor or anti-tank units were unable to fulfill the gaps left by the loss of experienced German divisions and the expectations of Hitler.[xxviii] 6^th Army was virtually immobilized for 10 days due to lack of supplies allowing the Russians to establish a defense on the Don Bend.[xxix] To the south the Germans were held up by lack of fuel and increased Soviet resistance including the introduction of a force of 800 bombers.[xxx] Glantz and House note that with the fall of Rostov on July 23^rd “Hitler abruptly focused on the industrial and symbolic value of Stalingrad.”[xxxi] Undeterred by warnings from Halder that fresh Russian formations were massing east of the Volga and Quartermaster General, Wagner, who guaranteed that he could supply either the thrust to the Caucasus or Stalingrad but not both.[xxxii] Again frustrated by slow progress Hitler reverted to the original plan for 4^th Panzer Army to assist 6^th Army at Stalingrad, but the cost in time and fuel were significant to the operation and the question was whether “they could make up for Hitler’s changes in plan.”[xxxiii]

Strategic Implications

General Chuikov who directed the defense of Stalingrad during the battle

Soviet Naval Infantry and Political Officer

The changes in the German plan had distinct ramifications for both sides.  Von Mellenthin wrote that “the diversion of effort between the Caucasus and Stalingrad ruined our whole campaign.”[xxxiv] The Germans could not secure the Caucasus oil fields which Hitler considered vital to the German war effort.  They advanced deep into the region and captured the Maikop oil fields, though they were almost completely destroyed by the retreating Russians.[xxxv] Army Group A was halted by the Russians along the crests of the Caucasus on August 28^th.[xxxvi] This left Hitler deeply “dissatisfied with the situation of Army Group A.”[xxxvii] Kleist and others attributed much of the failure to a lack of fuel[xxxviii] and Blumentritt noted that Mountain divisions that could have made the breakthrough were employed along the Black Sea coast in secondary operations.[xxxix]

JU-87 Stuka over Stalingrad

Fuel and supply shortages delayed 6^th Army’s advance while Hoth’s 4^th Panzer Army was needlessly shuttled between Rostov and Stalingrad. By the time it resumed its advance the Russians “had sufficiently recovered to check its advance.”[xl] As 6^th Army advanced the “protection of Army Group B’s ever-extending northern flank was taken over by the 3^rd Rumanian, the 2^nd Hungarian and the newly formed 8^th Italian Army.”[xli] The allied armies were neither equipped for the Russian campaign nor well motivated.[xlii] The supply shortage in both army groups was not helped by a logistics bottleneck. All supplies came over a single Dnieper crossing, which Manstein noted, prevented swift movement of troops from one area to another.[xliii]

Reconnaissance Battalion of 24th Panzer Division near Stalingrad

Von Paulus’ 6^th Army now attempted to rush Stalingrad between the 25^th and 29^th of July, while Hoth milled about on the lower Don.  However, Paulus’s piecemeal commitment of his divisions and failure to concentrate in the face of unexpectedly strong Soviet resistance caused the attacks to fail.  Paulus halted 6^th Army on the Don so it could concentrate its forces and build its logistics base,[xliv] and to allow Hoth to come up from the south. This delay allowed the Russians to build up forces west of Stalingrad and reinforce the Stalingrad front and strengthen the defenses of the city,[xlv] and due to the distances involved it was easier for the Russians to reinforce the Stalingrad front.[xlvi] It also allowed the Russians to fill a number of key leadership positions with Generals who would skillfully fight the battle.[xlvii]

Russian Naval Infantry during early phase of battle

Hitler now focused on the capture of Stalingrad despite the fact that “as a city Stalingrad was of no strategic importance.”[xlviii] Strategically, its capture would cut Soviet supply lines to the Caucasus,[xlix] but this could be achieved without its capture. The checks in the south “began to give Stalingrad a moral importance-enhanced by its name-which came to outweigh its strategic value.”[l] To Hitler Stalingrad would gain “a mystic significance”[li] and along with Leningrad became “not only military but also psychological objectives.”[lii]

Red Army Armored troops using Lend-Lease American M3 Stuart and M3 Grant tanks

The Germans mounted a frontal assault with 6^th Army and elements of 4^th Panzer Army despite air reconnaissance that “the Russians are throwing forces from all directions at Stalingrad.[liii] Paulus as the senior General was in charge of the advance, with Hoth subordinated to him, but the attack had to wait until Hoth’s army could fight its way up from the south.[liv] Von Mellenthin comments rightly that “when Stalingrad was not taken on the first rush, it would have been better to mask it….”[lv] It is clear that the German advance had actually reached its culminating point with the failure of the advance into the Caucasus and Paulus’s initial setback on the Don, but it was not yet apparent to many involved.[lvi] The proper course of action would have been to halt and build up the front and create mobile reserve to parry any Russian offensive along northern flank while reinforcing success in the Caucasus. Manstein wrote that “by failing to take appropriate action after his offensive had petered out without achieving anything definite, he [Hitler] paved the way to the tragedy of Stalingrad!”[lvii]

Transfixed by Stalingrad

German Stug III at Stalingrad

On August 19^th Paulus launched a concentric attack against the Russian 62^nd and 64^th Armies on the Don.  The attack ran into problems, especially in Hoth’s sector.[lviii] Yet, on the 22^nd the 14^th Panzer Corps “forced a very narrow breach in the Russian perimeter at Vertyachi and fought its way across the northern suburbs of Stalingrad,”[lix] and reached the Volga on the 23^rd. That day 4^th Air Fleet launched 1600 sorties against the city dropping over 1,000 tons of bombs.[lx] The breakthrough imperiled the Soviet position they had concentrated their strongest forces against Hoth.[lxi] The Germans held air superiority and continued heavy bombing attacks.  During the last days of August 6^th Army “moved steadily forward into the suburbs of the city, setting the stage for battle.”[lxii] As the Soviets reacted to Paulus, Hoth achieved a breakthrough in the south which threatened the Russian position.  However 6^th Army was unable to disengage its mobile forces to link up with the 4^th Panzer Army and another opportunity had been missed.[lxiii]

German unit crossing the Volga

As 6^th Army moved into the city Yeremenko ordered attacks against Hube’s 16^th Panzer Division and Soviet resistance increased as more formations arrived the Germans suffered one of their heaviest casualty rates.”[lxiv] Though unsuccessful the counterattacks “managed to deflect Paulus’s reserves at the most critical moment.”[lxv] The Germans remained confident the first week of September as 6^th Army and 4^th Panzer Army linked up, but Yeremenko saved his forces by withdrawing and avoiding encirclement west of the city, retiring to an improvised line close to the city.[lxvi] On September 12^th Chuikov was appointed to command 62^nd Army in Stalingrad.  Chuikov understood that there “was only one way to hold on. They had to pay in lives. ‘Time is blood,’ as Chuikov put it later.”[lxvii] Stalin sent Nikita Khrushchev to the front “with orders to inspire the Armies and civilian population to fight to the end.”[lxviii] 13^th Guards Rifle Division arrived on the 14^th saved the Volga landings but it lost 30% casualties in its first 24 hours of combat.[lxix]

T-34 in Stalingrad

An NKVD regiment and other units held the strategically sited Mamaev Kurgan, keeping German guns from controlling the Volga.[lxx] The defenders fought house to house and block by block, Army and NKVD were reinforced by Naval Infantry.  Chuikov conducted the defense with a brutal ferocity, relieving senior commanders who showed a lack of fight and sending many officers to penal units.  Chuikov funneled massed German attacks into “breakwaters” where the panzers and infantry could be separated from each other causing heavy German casualties.[lxxi]

Street Fighting

Now the “city became a prestige item, its capture ‘urgently necessary for psychological reasons,’ as Hitler declared on October 2. A week later he declared that Communism must be ‘deprived of its shrine.’”[lxxii] The Germans did continue to gain ground, however slowly and at great cost, especially among their infantry, so much so that companies had to be combined.   Chuikov used his artillery to interdict the Germans from the far side of the Volga and the fight in the city was fought by assault squads with incredible ferocity and the close-quarter combat was dubbed “’Rattenkrieg’ by German soldiers.”[lxxiii] Paulus brought more units into the city and continued to slowly drive the Russians back against the river, by early October Chuikov wondered if he would be able to hold.[lxxiv] By early November Chuikov “was altogether holding only one-tenth of Stalingrad-a few factory buildings and a few miles of river bank.”[lxxv] Paulus expected “to capture the entire city by 10 November,”[lxxvi] despite the fact that many units were fought out. The 6^th Army judged that 42% of the battalions of 51^st Corps were fought out.[lxxvii] On 9 November Hitler declared “No power on earth will force us out of Stalingrad again!”[lxxviii]

Soviet Counteroffensive: Disaster on the Flanks

Soviet offensive on the flanks

Hungarian withdraw

Hungarian dead

On September 24^th Hitler relieved Halder for persisting in explaining “what would happen when new Russian reserve armies attacked the over-extended flank that ran out to Stalingrad.”[lxxix] Many in the German side recognized the danger. Blumentritt said “The danger to the long-stretched flank of our advance developed gradually, but it became clear early enough for anyone to perceive it who was not willfully blind.”[lxxx] Warnings were also given by Rumanian Marshall Antonescu and the staff’s of Army Group B and 6^th Army[lxxxi] but Hitler was transfixed on Stalingrad.  In doing so the Germans gave up the advantage of uncertainty and once their “aim became obvious…the Russian Command could commit its reserves with assurance.”[lxxxii]

Chuikov and his staff

In the midst of Stalin’s concern about Stalingrad Stavka planners never lost sight of their goal to resume large scale offensive operations and destroy at least one German Army Group.[lxxxiii] Unlike Hitler Stalin had begun to trust his Generals and Stavka under the direction of Marshal Vasilevsky produced a concept in September to cut off the “German spearhead at Stalingrad by attacking the weak Rumanian forces on its flanks.”[lxxxiv] At first Stalin “showed little enthusiasm” for the attack, fearing that Stalingrad might be lost, but on 13 September he gave his full backing to the proposal[lxxxv] which Zhukov, Vasilevsky and Vatutin developed into a plan involving two operations, Operation Uranus, to destroy the German and allied forces at Stalingrad, Operation Saturn to destroy all the German forces in the south and a supporting attack to fix German forces in the north, Operation Mars aimed at Army Group Center.[lxxxvi]

Soviet Katusha Rockets

To accomplish the destruction of 6^th Army and part of 4^th Panzer Army the Red Army employed over 60% of the “whole tank strength of the Red Army.”[lxxxvii] Strict secrecy combined with numerous acts of deception was used by the Red Army to disguise the operation.[lxxxviii] The plan involved an attack against 3^rd Romanian Army on the northern flank by 5^th Tank Army and two infantry armies with supporting units.[lxxxix] In the south against 4^th Rumanian Army and weak element of 4^th Panzer Army another force of over 160,000 men including 430 tanks were deployed.[xc] Despite warnings from his Intelligence Officer, Paulus did not expect a deep offensive into his flanks and rear and made no plans to prepare to face the threat.[xci] Other senior officers believed that the attack would take place against Army Group Center.[xcii] Warlimont notes that there was a “deceptive confidence in German Supreme Headquarters.”[xciii]

Luftwaffe JU-52s made many resupply runs into the pocket but suffered great losses

The storm broke on 19 November as Soviet forces attacked rapidly crushing Romanian armies in both sectors[xciv] linking up on the 23^rd.[xcv] 48^th Panzer Corps supporting the Romanians was weak and had few operational tanks.[xcvi] It attempted a counterattack but was “cut to pieces” in an encounter with 5^th Tank Army.[xcvii] A promising attempt by 29^th Motorized division against the flank of the southern Russian pincer was halted by the Army Group and the division was ordered to defensive positions south of Stalingrad.[xcviii] German airpower was neutralized by bad weather.[xcix] Paulus continued to do nothing as since the attacks were outside of his area of responsibility and waited for instructions.[c] As a result the 16^th and 24^th Panzer Divisions which could have assisted matters to the west remained “bogged down in street-fighting in Stalingrad.”[ci] Without support 6^th Army units west of Stalingrad were forced back in horrific conditions.  By the 23^rd 6^th Army was cut off along with one corps of 4^th Panzer Army and assorted Romanian units, over 330,000 men.  This now entrapped force that would require seven rifle armies and much staff attention to eliminate.[cii]

The Death of 6^th Army

Paulus Surrenders

Hitler ordered Manstein to form Army Group Don to relieve Stalingrad. Hitler would not countenance a break out and wanted Manstein to break through and relieve 6^th Army.[ciii] Hitler refused a request by Paulus on 23 November to move troops to prepare for a possible a break out attempt, assuring him that he would be relieved.[civ] Albert Speer notes that Zeitzler who replaced Halder insisted that the Sixth Army must break out to the west.”[cv] Hitler told Zeitzler that “We should under no circumstances give this up. We won’t get it back once it’s lost.”[cvi] Goering promised the Luftwaffe would be able to meet the re-supply needs of 6^th Army by air, even though his Generals knew that it was impossible with the number of transport aircraft available.[cvii] Hitler took Goering at his word and exclaimed “Stalingrad can be held! It is foolish to go on talking any more about a breakout by Sixth Army…”[cviii] and a Führer decree was issued ordering that the front be held at all costs.[cix] Goerlitz states that “Hitler was incapable of conceiving that the 6^th Army should do anything but fight where it stood.”[cx] Likewise Manstein had precious few troops with which to counterattack and had to protect the flank of Army Group A deep in the Caucasus. His army group was only corps strength and was spread across a 200 mile front.[cxi] Any relief attempt had to wait for more troops, especially Panzers.  Manstein too believed that the best chance for a breakout had passed and that it was a serious error for Paulus to put the request to withdraw through to Hitler rather than the Army Group or act on his own.[cxii] Many soldiers were optimistic that Hitler would get them out.[cxiii] Other generals like Guderian, Reichenau or Hoeppner might have acted, but Paulus was no rebel.[cxiv]

German POWs only 5000 of some 90,000 would see home again

Operation Saturn began on 7 December destroying the Italian 8^th Army and forcing the Germans to parry the threat.[cxv] A relief attempt by 57^th Panzer Corps under Hoth on 12 December made some headway until a massive Soviet counterattack on 24 December drove it back.[cxvi] This attack was hampered by OKW’s refusal to allocate the 17^th Panzer and 16^th Motorized divisions to Manstein,[cxvii] and by 6^th Army not attacking out to link with the relief force.[cxviii]By 6 January Paulus signaled OKW: Army starving and frozen, have no ammunition and cannot move tanks anymore.”[cxix] On 10 January the Soviets launched Operation Ring to eliminate the pocket and despite all odds German troops fought on. On the 16^th Paulus requested that battle worthy units be allowed to break out, but the request was not replied to.[cxx] On the 22^nd the last airfield had been overrun and on 31 January Paulus surrendered.[cxxi]

Analysis: What Went Wrong

Stalingrad had strangely drawn the attention of both sides, but the Russians never lost sight of their primary objectives during the campaign. The Germans on the other hand committed numerous unforced errors mostly caused by Hitler and or von Paulus. These mistakes began early in the planning and After the fall of Stalingrad as the Soviets attempted to follow up their success by attempted to cut off Army Group “A” Manstein was permitted to wage a mobile defense while Von Kleist managed to withdraw with few losses.[cxxii] The superior generalship of Manstein and Von Kleist prevented the wholesale destruction of German forces in southern Russia and Manstein’s counter offensive inflicted a severe defeat on the Soviets. However the German Army had been badly defeated.  The seeds of defeat were laid early, the failure to destroy bypassed Soviet formations in July, the diversion of 4^th Panzer Army from Stalingrad, and the divergent objectives of trying to capture the Caucasus and Stalingrad at the same time.  This diluted both offensives ensuring that neither succeeded.  Likewise the failure to recognize the culminating point when it was reached and to adjust operations accordingly was disastrous for the Germans. The failure create a mobile reserve to meet possible Russian counter offensives, and the fixation on Stalingrad took the German focus off of the critical yet weakly held flanks. The hubris of Hitler and OKW to believe that the Russians were incapable of conducting major mobile operations even as Stavka commenced offensive operations on those flanks all contributed to the defeat.  Clark notes these facts but adds that the Germans “were simply attempting too much.”[cxxiii] Soviet numbers allowed them to wear down the Germans even in defeat.[cxxiv] At the same time Stalin gave his commanders a chance to revive the mobile doctrine of deep operations with mechanized and shock armies that he had discredited in the 1930s.[cxxv] All through the campaign Zhukov and other commanders maintained both their nerve even when it appeared that Stalingrad was all but lost. They never lost sight of their goal of destroying major German formations though they failed to entrap Army Group A with 6^th Army.

A Modern Application

It is well and good to attempt to remain on the offensive.  The U.S. currently has forces spread thinly over two combat theaters with possibilities that other threats in the same region could flare up.  Like the Germans the U.S. is operating in areas, especially Afghanistan where overland supply lines are vulnerable and where weather can and does affect resupply operations by both ground and air.  The fact that the U.S. is operating with just barely enough forces in areas where others have met disaster calls for a circumspect look at what our enemy’s capabilities really are and not allowing ourselves to be surprised when they do things that have worked for them in the past against the Russians.  While it is unlikely that the U.S. and NATO would face a Stalingrad type situation in Afghanistan it is possible that isolated forces could be overrun as the Afghans reprise tactics used so successfully against the Soviets and as they begin to operate in larger units, concentrate them quickly and with more firepower to catch NATO forces when they are most vulnerable.  It is true that they will not mass large numbers of tanks and artillery as the Soviets did against the Germans, but the principle of speed, concentration at the critical point and surprise can inflict defeats, even small ones like the attack on the US outpost in Wanat that can turn public sentiment in the U.S. and Europe against further commitments and against the war and force the NATO governments as well as the U.S. to give up the effort.

Notes

[i] Clark, Alan. Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict: 1941-45. Perennial Books, An imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY 1965. p.191

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Glantz, David M. and House, Jonathan. When Titan’s Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence KS, 1995. p.111

[iv] Ibid. Clark. p.191

[v] Beevor, Anthony. Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943. Penguin Books, New York NY 1998. p.69

[vi] Manstein, Erich von. Forward by B.H. Liddle Hart, Introduction by Martin Blumenson. Lost victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Brilliant General. Zenith Press, St Paul MN 2004. First Published 1955 as Verlorene Siege, English Translation 1958 by Methuen Company. p.291 This opinion is not isolated, Beevor Quotes Paulus “If we don’t take Maikop and Gronzy…then I must put an end to the war.” (Beevor pp. 69-70)  Halder on the other hand believed that Hitler emphasized that the objective was “the River Volga at Stalingrad. (Clark. p.190)

[vii] Ibid. Beevor. p.70.

[viii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.106

[ix] Ibid. p.105-106

[x] Ibid. Clark. p.203.  The offensive did impose a delay on the German offensive.

[xi] Ibid. Clark. p.191 Each group also contained allied armies.

[xii] Ibid. p.209.

[xiii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.119

[xiv] Ibid. Manstein. p.292.

[xv] Ibid. Clark. p.209

[xvi] Ibid. Clark.  p.211

[xvii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.120. There is a good discussion of the impact of this decision here as 6^th Army’s advance was given priority for both air support and fuel.

[xviii] Ibid. Beevor. p.74

[xix] Warlimont, Walter. Inside Hitler’s Headquarters 1939-45. Translated by R.H. Berry, Presido Press, Novato CA, 1964. p.249

[xx] Ibid. Beevor. p.75 This was the 10^th NKVD Division and it took control of all local militia, NKVD, and river traffic, and established armored trains and armor training schools.

[xxi] Ibid. Clark. p.212

[xxii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.121

[xxiii] Ibid. Beevor. p.85

[xxiv] Ibid. p.89

[xxv] Liddell-Hart, B.H. The German Generals Talk. Quill Publishers, New York, NY 1979. Originally published by the author in 1948. p.202

[xxvi] Ibid. Beevor. p.88

[xxvii] Ibid. Beevor. p.90

[xxviii] Ibid. Beevor. p.81

[xxix] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.121

[xxx] Ibid. Liddell-Hart. p.202

[xxxi] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.120

[xxxii] Goerlitz, Walter. History of the German General Staff. Westview Press, Frederick A. Praeger Publisher, Boulder, CO. 1985 p.416

[xxxiii] Ibid. Beevor. pp.95-96.

[xxxiv] Von Mellenthin, F.W. Panzer Battles: A Study of the Employment of Armor in the Second World War. Translated H. Betzler, Edited by L.C.F. Turner. Oklahoma University Press 1956, Ballantine Books, New York, NY. 1971. p.193

[xxxv] Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A Touchstone Book published by Simon and Schuster, 1981, Copyright 1959 and 1960. p.914

[xxxvi] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.122

[xxxvii] Ibid. Warlimont. p.256

[xxxviii] Ibid. Liddell-Hart. p.203

[xxxix] Ibid. p.204

[xl] Ibid. Shirer. p.914

[xli] Ibid. Goerlitz. p.416

[xlii] Ibid. Goerlitz. p.416

[xliii] Ibid. Manstein. p.293

[xliv] Ibid. Clark. p.214

[xlv] Ibid. Beevor. pp.97-99. The mobilization included military, political, civilian and industrial elements.

[xlvi] Liddell-Hart, B.H. Strategy. A Signet Book, the New American Library, New York, NY. 1974, Originally Published by Faber and Faber Ltd., London. 1954 & 1967. p.250

[xlvii] Ibid. Beevor. p.99.  Two key commanders arrived during this time frame, Colonel General Andrei Yeremenko, who would command the Stalingrad Front  and General Chuikov commander of 64^th Army who would conduct the defense of the city.

[xlviii] Carell, Paul Hitler Moves East: 1941-1943. Ballantine Books, New York, NY 1971, German Edition published 1963. p.581

[xlix] Ibid. Shirer.  p.909.

[l] Ibid. Liddell-Hart, Strategy. p.250

[li] Wheeler-Bennett, John W. The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics 1918-1945. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY 1954.  p.531

[lii] Ibid. Wheeler-Bennett. p.531

[liii] Ibid. Beevor. p.96

[liv] Ibid. Clark. p.216.

[lv] Ibid. Von Mellenthin. P.193

[lvi] See Von Mellinthin pp.193-194.  Von Mellinthin quotes Colonel Dinger, the Operations Officer of 3^rd Motorized Division at Stalingrad until a few days before its fall. Dingler noted that the Germans on reaching Stalingrad “had reached the end of their power. Their offensive strength was inadequate to complete the victory, nor could they replace the losses they had suffered.” (p.193) He believed that the facts were sufficient “not only to justify a withdrawal, but compel a retreat.” (p.194)

[lvii] Ibid. Manstein. p.294

[lviii] Ibid. Clark. p.216

[lix] Ibid. Clark. p.217

[lx] Ibid. Beevor. p.107

[lxi] Ibid. Beevor. p.107

[lxii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.122

[lxiii] Ibid. Carell. P.601

[lxiv] Ibid. Beevor. p.118

[lxv] Ibid. Beevor. p.118

[lxvi] Ibid. Carell. p.602

[lxvii] Ibid. Beevor. p.128

[lxviii] Ibid. Carell. p.603

[lxix] Ibid. Beevor. p.134

[lxx] Ibid. Beevor. pp.136-137

[lxxi] Ibid. Beevor. p.149

[lxxii] Fest, Joachim. Hitler. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Publishers, San Diego, New York, London. 1974. p.661

[lxxiii] Ibid. Beevor. pp. 149-150

[lxxiv] Ibid. Beevor. p.164

[lxxv] Ibid. Carell. p.618

[lxxvi] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.123

[lxxvii] Ibid. Beevor. p.218

[lxxviii] Ibid. Carell. p.623

[lxxix] Ibid. Goerlitz. p.418

[lxxx] Ibid. Liddell-Hart. The German Generals Talk. p.207

[lxxxi] Ibid. Manstein. p292

[lxxxii] Ibid. Liddell-Hart. History of the Second World War. p.258

[lxxxiii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.129

[lxxxiv] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.130

[lxxxv] Ibid. Beevor. pp.221-222 Glantz and House say that Stalin gave his backing in mid-October but this seems less likely due to the amount of planning and movement of troops involved to begin the operation in November.

[lxxxvi] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.130

[lxxxvii] Ibid. Beevor. p.226

[lxxxviii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.132

[lxxxix] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.130

[xc] Ibid. Beevor. p.227

[xci] Ibid. Beevor. p.228

[xcii] Ibid. Clark. p.235

[xciii] Ibid. Warlimont. p.274

[xciv] Ibid, Carell. p.627 3^rd Rumanian Army lost 75,000 men in three days.

[xcv] Ibid. Clark.pp.247-248

[xcvi] The condition of the few German Panzer Divisions in position to support the flanks was very poor, the 22^nd had suffered from a lack of fuel and maintenance and this many of its tanks were inoperative. Most of the armor strength of the 48^th Panzer Corps was provided by a Rumanian armored division equipped with obsolete Czech 38t tanks provided by the Germans.

[xcvii] Ibid. Clark. pp.251-252. The designation of 2^nd Guards Tank Army by Clark has to be wrong and it is the 5^th Tank Army as 2^nd Guards Tank was not involved in Operation Uranus.  Carell, Beevor and Glantz properly identify the unit.

[xcviii] Ibid. Carell. p.630

[xcix] Ibid. Beevor. p.244

[c] Ibid. Beevor. p.247

[ci] Ibid. Beevor. p.245

[cii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.134

[ciii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.134

[civ] Ibid. Clark. p.256

[cv] Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich. Collier Books, a Division of MacMillan Publishers, Inc. New York, NY 1970. p.248

[cvi] Heiber, Helmut and Glantz, David M. Editors. Hitler and His Generals: Military Conferences 1942-1945. Enigma Books, New York, NY 2002-2003.  Originally published as Hitlers Lagebsprechungen: Die Protokollfragmente seiner militärischen Konferenzen 1942-1945. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, Stuttgart, 1962. p.27

[cvii] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.135 Glantz and House note that the amount of aircraft estimated to successfully carry out the re-supply operation in the operational conditions was over 1,000.  The amount needed daily was over 600 tons of which the daily reached only 300 tons only one occasion.

[cviii] Ibid. Speer. p.249

[cix] Ibid. Carell. p.636

[cx] Ibid. Goerlitz. p.426

[cxi] Ibid. Clark. p.252

[cxii] Ibid. Manstein. p.303

[cxiii] Ibid. Beevor. p.276

[cxiv] Ibid. Carell. p.640

[cxv] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.140

[cxvi] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.140

[cxvii] Ibid. Clark. p.264

[cxviii] Ibid. Manstein. p.337

[cxix] Ibid. Beevor. p320

[cxx] Ibid. Beevor. p.365

[cxxi] Of the approximately 330,000 in the pocket about 91,000 surrendered, another 45,000 had been evacuated.  22 German divisions were destroyed.

[cxxii] Ibid. Liddell-Hart. The German Generals Talk. p.211

[cxxiii] Ibid. Clark. p.250

[cxxiv] Ibid. Glantz and House. p.124

[cxxv] Ibid. Beevor. p.221

Bibliography

Beevor, Anthony. Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943. Penguin Books, New York NY 1998

Carell, Paul Hitler Moves East: 1941-1943. Ballantine Books, New York, NY 1971, German Edition published 1963.

Clark, Alan. Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict:1941-45. Perennial Books, An imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY 1965.

Fest, Joachim. Hitler. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Publishers, San Diego, New York, London. 1974

Glantz, David M. and House, Jonathan. When Titan’s Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence KS, 1995.

Goerlitz, Walter. History of the German General Staff. Westview Press, Frederick A. Praeger Publisher, Boulder, CO. 1985

Heiber, Helmut and Glantz, David M. Editors. Hitler and His Generals: Military Conferences 1942-1945. Enigma Books, New York, NY 2002-2003.  Originally published as Hitlers Lagebsprechungen: Die Protokollfragmente seiner militärischen Konferenzen 1942-1945. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, Stuttgart, 1962.

Liddell-Hart, B.H. The German Generals Talk. Quill Publishers, New York, NY 1979. Originally Published by the author in 1948.

Liddell-Hart, B.H. Strategy. A Signet Book, the New American Library, New York, NY. 1974, Originally Published by Faber and Faber Ltd., London. 1954 & 1967

Manstein, Erich von. Forward by B.H. Liddle Hart, Introduction by Martin Blumenson. Lost victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Brilliant General. Zenith Press, St Paul MN 2004. First Published 1955 as Verlorene Siege, English Translation 1958 by Methuen Company

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A Touchstone Book published by Simon and Schuster, 1981, Copyright 1959 and 1960

Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich. Collier Books, a Division of MacMillan Publishers, Inc. New York, NY 1970.

Von Mellenthin, F.W. Panzer Battles: A Study of the Employment of Armor in the Second World War. Translated H. Betzler, Edited by L.C.F. Turner. Oklahoma University Press 1956, Ballantine Books, New York, NY. 1971.

Warlimont, Walter. Inside Hitler’s Headquarters 1939-45. Translated by R.H. Berry, Presido Press, Novato CA, 1964.

Wheeler-Bennett, John W. The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics 1918-1945. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY 1954

Upon completing the second installment of this series I was sent a number of comments–most of them taking exception to what I had written.

One reader wrote the following: …but I implore the author, nevertheless, to cease and desist from writing a Part III, for his own sake.
All of this, in the ultimate analysis, is ”Much ado about nothing.” And I mean really nothing.

What follows is why I took up this topic and why it is connected to everything. It is more than merely believing or disbelieving a scientific theory. And it has to do with EVERYTHING.

People repeatedly and consistently either refuse or are incapable of seeing the connections to everything. Nothing exists in a vacuum as the saying goes. Nothing exists on its own without consequences. And in fact, part of the disconnect and confusion, as well as the resistance to seeing and applying the connections, is based in Neo-Darwinian evolution belief and adhering to that belief.

 Why does it matter?

The implications of Neo-Darwinian evolution are immense and reach far beyond the “scientific realm.” Darwinism has become the substitute “creation story” for those who embrace materialism.

Materialism is a philosophy which says that the physical realm is the only reality that exists. This worldview fosters relativism, spiritual skepticism and disbelief, and the dehumanization of men and women.

We need to truly explore and be objective about the various aspects of believing and adhering to the philosophy of Relativism, which is now the majority philosophy worldwide among people.

Darwinism was the seed from which Relativism grew. Without Darwinism, the destructive philosophy of Relativism would not have become so entrenched and widespread. Relativism is like a choking, clinging vine which blocks out light and brings about nothing but darkness, and sapping the life, the freedom, and the distinctions people must make in order to live truly orderly lives and prosper. Contrary to the worldview, there is a definite right and wrong.

Moral Relativism – What is it?
Moral relativism is the view that moral or ethical statements, which vary from person to person, are all equally valid, and no one’s opinion of “right and wrong” is really better than any other. Moral relativism is a broader, more personally applied form of other types of relativistic thinking, such as cultural relativism. These are all based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is purely a product of a person’s preferences and environment. There is no ultimate standard of morality, according to moral relativism, and no statement or position can be considered absolutely “right or wrong” or “best or worst.”

Moral relativism is a widely held position in the modern world, though it is very selectively applied. As with other forms of relativism, it is only mentioned in a purely defensive way. The principles of moral relativism can only be used to excuse or allow certain actions; they can never be used to condemn them. Moral relativism takes several different forms, from utilitarianism, evolutionism, and existentialism to emotivism and situationism. All of these, for the most part, share a single unifying theme: that absolute morals do not exist, and what is “right” or “wrong” is entirely a product of human preference..

Moral Relativism – Is there a fixed standard?
It’s easy to see that the foundations of modern civilization were not built on a philosophy of moral relativism. The very act of passing a law and enforcing it suggests a fixed standard that everyone is expected to adhere to. The reasons for this are obvious: if everyone in a society really, truly acted as though right and wrong were purely matters of opinion, then society would implode into a battle of “might makes right.” In a morally relativistic culture, the only universal reason to do or not do anything is to avoid the consequences from one’s peers.

All human laws involve some moral principle being enforced by threats of consequences. Speed limits are enforced on most roads because of a moral conviction that risking other people’s lives is wrong. The same is true for murder, theft, perjury, fraud, and so forth. When moral relativism becomes dominant, however, legitimate moral principles are no longer the foundation of those laws. Since everything is relative, then these laws are just a matter of opinion, and the only universal reason to follow them is to avoid consequences. This strongly encourages people to look for ways to “get away with it”; after all, it’s just one person’s opinion against someone else’s.

Even in a society operating under the rule of law, severing the connection between those laws and an objective standard invites disaster. At best, moral relativism makes society unstable, as the concepts of right and wrong suddenly become a question of shifting popular opinions.. The worst possible outcome of such a condition is the dictator: a ruler who abuses a temporary swing in popular opinion to seize power, but sees no authority as superior to his own and no laws more binding than his own. During the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the logical problem of relativism became apparent. Nazi defendants continually pleaded for their acquittal saying that they were only following the laws of their land. In frustration, finally, one judge asked, “But is there no law higher than our law?” A moral relativist would be forced to answer “no.”

Moral Relativism – A conclusion
Relativism in and of itself is self-defeating. Logically, there must be some standard by which to compare two different moral statements to determine which is the “more correct” one. Obviously, moral relativists deny that such a standard exists, and so they claim that such comparisons are impossible. This results in the biggest practical problem for relativism, as mentioned above: it is difficult, if not impossible, to condemn any actions from a stance of moral relativism.

Once right and wrong are relegated to matters of opinion at worst or are purely subjective at best, any talk of morality becomes incoherent.

Cultural Relativism: All Truth Is Local
Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.”

Cultural relativism is a widely held position in the modern world. Words like “pluralism,” “tolerance,” and “acceptance” have taken on new meanings as the boundaries of “culture” have expanded. The loose way in which modern society defines these ideas has made it possible for almost anything to be justified on the grounds of “relativism.” The umbrella of “relativism” includes a fairly wide range of ideas, all of which introduce instability and uncertainty into areas that were previously considered settled.

Stepping up to the edge of a cliff gives you a good perspective of the terrain below. Taking one step too far, as cultural relativism does, is simply a disaster.

Obviously, perspective is important to our understanding of history, psychology, and politics. Cultural perspective can help us understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong by a particular culture. For example, an ancient society might have considered dying one’s hair green to be a punishable offense. Most modern societies would find that strange, if not oppressive. Yet, good cultural perspective might tell us more. If we were to find out that green hair was a sign of a prostitute, we would understand that it wasn’t the hair color itself, but the prostitution that was truly considered “wrong.”

However, the problem with moving from cultural perspective to cultural relativism is the erosion of reason that it causes. Rather than simply saying, “We need to understand the morals of other cultures,” it says, “We cannot judge the morals of other cultures,” regardless of the reasons for their actions. There is no longer any perspective, and it becomes literally impossible to argue that anything a culture does is right or wrong. Holding to strict cultural relativism, it is not possible to say that human sacrifice is “wrong” or that respect for the elderly is “right.” After all, those are products of the culture. This takes any talk of morality right over the cliff and into meaningless gibberish.

Cultural Relativism: Absolutely Impossible
The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes immediately apparent. A society that embraces the notion that there is no ultimate “right” or “wrong” loses the ability to make any judgments at all. The way in which relativism, including cultural relativism, has permeated modern society is demonstrated in the bizarre ways in which we try to deal with this contradiction. “Tolerance” has mutated to imply unconditional support and agreement for all opinions or lifestyles. However, those who choose to be “intolerant” are not to be supported or agreed with. Tolerance, therefore, becomes an “ultimate good” in and of itself, which is contradictory to the entire idea of relativism. In the same way, heinous crimes such as rape and murder demand a moral judgment, but strict cultural relativism cannot say that such things are always wrong.

Relativism in general breaks down when examined from a purely logical perspective. The basic premise is that “truth is relative.” If every truth statement is valid, then the statement “Some truths are absolute” must be valid. The statement “There are no absolute truths” is accurate according to relativism, but it is an absolute truth itself. These contradict the very concept of relativism, meaning that absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible.

Cultural Relativism: Crumbling Away
In practice, cultural relativism cannot overcome the boundaries of logic nor can it override the sense of morality inherent to mankind. We instinctively know that some things are wrong, so cultural relativists attempt to tweak their philosophy to fit that need. Declaring certain actions “mostly” wrong or “mostly” right is nothing more than making up the rules as one goes. Saying that some morals are “better” even if they aren’t “the best” still implies some ultimate standard that’s being used to make that judgment. How do you know which cloud is higher unless you know which way “up” is? To firmly state that anything at all is always wrong is to reject relativism itself. In the end, those who insist on clinging to cultural relativism must jettison logic, because there isn’t room for both. It is literally impossible for a person to rationally believe that there are no moral absolutes or at least to live out that belief in any meaningful way.

Since this philosophy is nonsensical, there must be some fundamental absolutes of right and wrong, regardless of the opinions of any given society. Since there are disagreements among different cultures, we cannot assume that these truths are developed by one particular group of people. In fact, the only logical place for these concepts to originate from is something more universal, or at least more fundamental, than culture.

 What is ethical relativism?
What is ethical relativism? Relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and the individual determines what is true and relative for them. Relativism theorizes that truth is different for different people, not simply that different people believe different things to be true. While there are relativists in science and mathematics, ethical relativism is the most common variety of relativism. Almost everyone has heard a relativist slogan:

• What’s right for you may not be what’s right for me.
• What’s right for my culture won’t necessarily be what’s right for your culture.
• No moral principles are true for all people at all times and in all places.

Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes–no moral rights or wrongs. This position would assert that our morals evolve and change with social norms over a period of time. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society.. Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and “rules” that seemed to bring about the most benefit.

What is ethical relativism from a subjective view? Subjective ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals. Whatever you believe is right for you personally is completely up to you to determine. Subjective relativism allows you to be sovereign over the principles that dictate how you live your life.

Conventional ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to cultures. Unlike the subjective view, what is right for you as an individual is dependent upon what your particular culture believes is right for you. This view supports the concept that whatever culture says is right for you really is right for you. The culture or society becomes the highest authority about what is right for each individual within that society. Conventional relativism places the individual’s will in subordination to the will of the cultural majority.

What is ethical relativism from an absolute view? The desire to have an absolute set of ethics implies an Absolute Ethics Source which can easily be deduced as being God. This position would be opposed to ethical relativism. Instead, the relativist excludes any religious system based on absolute morals and would condemn absolute ethics. God has the power to convey things to us that are absolute, truthful, and ethical. Those absolutes, however, may not be to our liking or please our subjective tastes. “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8).

Relying on an individual’s or a society’s moral choices is analogous to using our sense of touch to determine the extent of a child’s fever. When a child is sick, a more precise and consistent measurement is imperative. Our mental growth and the health of our soul is also worthy of a more accurate gauge than subjective human feelings. Conventional relativism implies that all you have to do is convince a few of your close friends to engage in some activity that is viewed as immoral by the rest of society. Suddenly you have now made the previously unacceptable activity ethically and morally correct for you. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” (Proverbs 14:12).

 In the words of Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson and Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse:

 “Morality is merely an adaption put in place to further our reproductive ends. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”

 Such an errant and misguided view has real world consequences.

 Dr. Michael Denton said:

“The social and political currents which have swept the world in the past 80 years would have been impossible without Darwin’s intellectual sanction.”

 Darwin begat Relativism and Relativism begat The Dehumanization of Life…and let’s not forget Eugenics, which we’ll get to soon.

In a Darwinian framework, human beings are no better than any other animal and ultimately may be treated as animals by those who consider themselves to be greater, more human, enlightened, or evolved.

Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer, who advocates infanticide for handicapped infants and euthanasia for the elderly, defends his view by saying:

 “All we are doing is catching up with Darwin. He showed that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of Creation, that there was some magical line between Us and Them. Darwin’s theory undermined the foundations of that entire Western way of thinking about the place of our species in the universe.”

 It is incredible how the so-called enlightened are so readily mislead and able to mislead. How truly backwards they are in their attempt to profess being progressive and aware.Once human life has been devalued to the level of animals, abortion is only one of the by-products of such erroneous yet dangerous beliefs.

 Dr. James Watson, a Nobel Laureate, suggests:

 ”If a child with birth defects was not declared alive until three days after birth the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”

 And this from Dr. Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood:

 “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” From her book Woman and the New Race.

Dr. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, openly advocates permitting parents to kill their disabled babies on the basis that they are “non-persons” until they are “rational and self-conscious.” And he goes on to advocate the killing of incompetent persons of any age if their families decide their lives are “not worth living.”

I am a firm believer in allowing those that live in darkness and refuse to truly become free, enlightened, and evolve as we were meant to, slay and indict themselves with their own words.

Too many people accept certain beliefs, philosophies, attitudes, and then laws without knowing the true basis and facts behind those things which affect every person in some aspect every single day.

We must know the heart, mind, and intent of what we say or think we believe in. And then through gaining wisdom and insight, we realize the true intent of beliefs we’ve carried around and the people who propel those beliefs forward are not what we thought, we begin to reevaluate that which we have held as fact. As real.

Darwinism and belief in Darwinism is the road to ruin. It is far more than either believing or disbelieving a “scientific theory.”

It is time for each individual to become aware, objective, and honest as to the degree this “scientific theory” has infected and worked towards the destruction of every part of modern life.

Everything is connected. Nothing is isolated and benign of its own accord. Especially something as vile and pervasive as the belief and perpetuation of the belief of Darwinism and all its social, cultural, ethical, and moral consequences.

 In Darwin’s own words:

 “The weak members of civilised societies propogate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this has been highly injurous to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow the worst animals to breed.”

 In the words of Abraham Lincoln:

 ”The philosophy in the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.”

While Darwin could not follow his own reason to its logical end, it was his cousin, Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics,” the supposed science of breeding better humans through Darwinian principles. Subsequently, many evolutionary scientists supported eugenics policies in the United States, and in Nazi Germany.

Eugenics–and just because something isn’t happening to you right this moment and you do not believe, you refuse to believe, and have no depth and grasp of the constant connected timeline of history– does not make that thing antiquated or obsolete.

Hitler and the Nazis followed Darwinian beliefs and eugenics to an extreme, carrying “survival of the fittest,” which I realize was not written by Darwin in his book On Origin of Species, but was coined immediately upon its publication because in truth, Darwinism proposes its entire theory on survival of the fittest. Enough nit picking and semantics people. Let’s finally get real and honest.

The Nazis came to the radical conclusion, based upon Darwin and survival of the fittest, that they not only could but should begin systematically exterminating “unfit” and “inferior” races like the Jews and Gypsies and “weak” members of society like the handicapped.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes:

“If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish evolutionary higher stage of being, may be rendered futile.”

Sounds a lot like professors teaching current students at universities and colleges around the United States doesn’t it? One would not be able to distinguish whether the above quote from Hitler was said or written by Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, or Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse, or Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, or Dr. Margaret Sanger unless I would have indicated who said what.

 In the book From Darwin to Hitler, California State University historian Richard Welkart writes:

 “Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

 Adherence to Darwinism has done more than gotten numerous university professors fired or blacklisted for offering up options and other considerations. {See part I of this series.}

 Adherence to Darwinism and not allowing the freedom of other possibilities is the antithesis of what science is purported to be all about. It is about the unlimited openness to any possibility and allowing the exploration of that possibility. The Darwinians would have everyone believe it is all that is needed.

Darwin developed his theory over 150 years ago, and it has since been proved to be riddled with holes. But because they like how it enslaves, and they can get behind its narrow views, and it allows them their relativism among its other destructive traits, they don’t want anything else, don’t need anything else, and refuse to even allow the discussion or exploration into any other explanations or possibilities.

Adherence to Darwinism and following Darwinism is the opposite of freedom. It is becoming a slave. It is a narrow errant theory that is much more than a “scientific theory.” Its social, cultural, ethical, and moral offshoots are directly responsible in great part for the decline and breakdown of society and our culture.

Refusal to allow any other beliefs, theories, and discussion is not only against everything science is supposed to represent, it is as Un-American as one can be short of selling scientific, nuclear, or military secrets to an avowed enemy of America.

Deny all you want. Without Darwin there would not have been a Hitler. At least a Hitler that believed he was doing the right thing in murdering – MURDERING - over 6,000,000 Jews and a total of 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 people all told.

No person can profess to believe in Darwin’s theory and believe and follow Darwinism and also protest and be sickened by the Holocaust.

To do so is disingenuous and illogical. It won’t fly. I’m not buying it. Go sell crazy somewhere else. You can’t explain it away and believe in Darwinism while being appalled by the Holocaust. They are inseparable. Without one, the other would not have happened.

And if you are not sickened and repulsed by the Nazis and the truths of the Holocaust, you then consider yourself an enlightened, superior, more highly evolved animal?

Belief in Darwinism is not innocent and benign. It has consequences. You must decide as an individual if you’re willing to be honest and face certain truths and then do the necessary work to rethink your belief system you’ve been fed and led to believe all these years.

And Hitler was not a fluke. Do not be fooled. We have many people within our world presently who subscribe to and are prepared to resume the efforts of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. And they are supported and given authority due to what is being taught and only allowed to be taught in Americas schools. The theory of tyranny. Not freedom. Not choice. The theory of destruction.

At present there are numerous world leaders and organizations at work daily prepared to unleash the next wave of Darwinist belief and its Relativism and Dehumanization of life upon countless millions around the world.

Do not be fooled. Do not continue on in the chains of slavery which Darwinism and Relativism keep you bound up in. This is not something to shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well, it isn’t that big a deal.”

This transcends the classroom and science. Darwinism and accepting Darwinism affects every aspect of every person’s life from the schoolroom to government. It affects every aspect of our society and cultural life. It can be directly linked to our breakdown and scoffing at ethics. Morals. The dehumanization of life. It’s far more than something taught in schools. It permeates everything in our life.. Your life. And you have to finally become aware and make a choice. Either follow in this limited, full of holes darkness or rethink your belief system and truly evolve. The choice is yours. We are more than mere animals. There is a science and scientist we can follow. God. God is the greatest scientist in history. No other scientist can compete or top God…and all the fallible finite limited human scientists continue to chase and compete with God and they never will come close or measure up. Let’s see them develop an oak tree in the laboratory. Or prove that a child’s smile, even the smile of a handicapped or deformed smile, is merely an instinct and not connected to the heart and soul.

 “Much ado about nothing.”

 Hardly.

 It is much to do with EVERYTHING.

     With the previous issue of The Marvels Project, the stage was set for one of the most monumental events in Marvel history.  And in this issue, it happens.  Steve Rogers undergoes the fateful experiment, and Dr. Erskine is murdered by the Nazi assassin.  Steve continues to train, and one of the other Nazi operatives is killed by his fellows who secure his copy of Erskine’s formula.  The Angel investigates, and he hears of Adolf Hitler’s masked man: the Red Skull, to whom we are introduced as he slaughters a bunch of innocents to draw resistance fighters (Nick Fury, Red Hargrove, and Jack Steele) into the open.  Fury and Hargrove tell Steele that they’re heading back, but Steele decides to stay in Germany.  Nazi scientists try to crack Erskine’s formula, and Steve Rogers fights his first fight as Captain America.  The Angel tries to help, but he nearly gets killed.  Cap rescues him, and the Angel realizes that this man is different.

     Ah, the payoff of finally getting to see Captain America.  It’s rather clear at this point that Ed Brubaker has no plans to incorporate Weapon Plus into his origin, so take that as you will.  Personally, I think tying Weapon Plus into Cap’s story was a bad idea in the first place, so I’m not exactly upset.  Our first view of the Red Skull is particularly chilling, reminding me that the Red Skull is one of the top villains in comic books.  As you can expect, this latest issue is just another superb part of the story.  Ed Brubaker’s revision of Marvel history is both bold and exciting, and even though I know a lot of this story (particularly what happens with Cap), each issue keeps me wanting more.  And a lot of that is thanks to Steve Epting as well, whose pencils in this book put him at the top of the Marvel stable of artists.  When an artist is able to both make everything look realistic and accurate, as well as cool, you know he/she is something special.  I mean, the whole action scene with Cap’s debut is so dynamic and energetic, and nothing is anatomically, proportionately, or perspectively wrong.  So, I’m excited for the last three issues, if I didn’t make that clear.  Ed Brubaker has definitely caught my interest with this story.

Plot: 9.2      Art: 9.5      Dialogue: 9.3      Overall: 9.3