1938 all over again?

russian bear

Crimean secession: A Russian remake of the 1938 Sudeten crisis?

Despite the passage of time, there are many parallels between the German Sudetenland and Russian Crimean crises.

by Bobo Lo, The Irish Examiner

March 19, 2014

With Crimea voting for secession, the upheaval in Ukraine is fueling an increasingly charged atmosphere between Russia and the tandem of the US and the EU. Are American and European leaders being cast in a Russian remake of the 1938 Sudeten crisis?

Immediately after Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria, Adolf Hitler turned his attention to the ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. First, he demanded the Sudetenland’s cession to Germany, gaining relatively easy agreement from British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and his French counterpart, Édouard Daladier.

Hitler then immediately raised his demands to include German military occupation of the area. Deeming the issue “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”, and thus not worth defying Hitler over, Chamberlain and Daladier accepted the occupation by signing the Munich Agreement—with catastrophic consequences.

german wolf

To be sure, Russian president Vladimir Putin is not Hitler, Russia is not Nazi Germany (or the Soviet Union, for that matter), and the world does not face the same apocalyptic scenario that unfolded in 1939. Nonetheless, there are some important parallels between the Sudeten and Crimean crises.

The most obvious is the presence of an expatriate majority in the occupied area. Russians comprise nearly 60% of Crimea’s 2 million inhabitants, and many are more closely connected to their “mother” country than to Ukraine. Likewise, the 3 million Sudeten Germans felt much greater loyalty to Germany than to Czechoslovakia, and the majority embraced their incorporation into the Third Reich. Indeed, Putin’s pretext for occupation and annexation—to protect the local population—is the same as Hitler’s. Until recently, Putin showed little interest in Crimean affairs, beyond renewing the lease on the Black Sea Fleet’s base in Sevastopol.

But, since the Ukrainian revolution, the local Russian population’s alleged vulnerability to “fascists” has become an emblematic issue—and an excuse for Russian military intervention. Hitler employed a similar pretext in demanding the Sudetenland’s transfer from Czechoslovakia.

Putin has something else in common with Hitler: The view that the country he is occupying is somehow “unnatural”. Although Putin has not formally challenged Ukraine’s independence, he has never hidden his view that it is not a “real country”, referring to it as part of the “Russian world”. Similarly, for Hitler, Czechoslovakia was an unnatural conglomeration of disparate nations and regions.

Hitler sought to destroy Czechoslovakia. Six months after hiving off the Sudetenland, he abrogated the Munich Agreement by occupying all of Bohemia and Moravia and turning the Czech lands into a German protectorate, while installing a puppet regime in a nominally independent Slovakia.

If Putin has similar designs, he would begin with Crimea’s annexation—now seemingly a done deal—followed by a direct military presence in eastern Ukraine (where Russian troops are massing at the border), and possibly some kind of partition in the longer term.

Of course, like Hitler, Putin is not concerned only—or even especially—with the occupied area. Instead, he is seeking to project power farther afield. Putin has long used national resurgence to legitimize his rule. According to this vision, Ukraine must be strategically aligned with Russia, and its sovereignty must be limited.

For his part, Hitler considered an independent, democratic Czechoslovakia to be a security threat, while eyeing its industrial assets. But the Sudetenland’s annexation was, first and foremost, aimed at helping to restore Germany’s “great power” status.

There are also striking similarities between Western leaders’ responses to the two crises—namely, their reluctance to take decisive action. Indeed, they seem unwilling to back up their warnings of “costs” and “consequences” with meaningful measures such as asset freezes, trade sanctions, and travel restrictions—reinforcing Putin’s belief that they will continue to choose their relationships with Russia over protecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This timidity recalls British and French policy in 1938, when the Sudetenland—and later Czechoslovakia—was sacrificed for a short-lived “peace in our time”.

What lessons can be drawn from the comparison between the Crimean and Sudeten crises? First, any dialogue with Putin will be fruitless, unless Western leaders take a decisive approach that is shaped by concrete objectives, not bogus “strategic partnerships”. Conversely, name-calling—like US president Barack Obama’s accusation that Russia is “on the wrong side of history”—is pointless.

The West should stop reacting to Putin with “shock and awe”—shock that he can act with such seeming impunity, and awe at his perceived tactical brilliance. Europe and the US have vastly greater influence and resources than Russia, with its atrophied political system and exhausted economic model. What they lack is the willingness to accept the economic and political costs of defending the values that they claim to uphold.

Finally, Western leaders must recognize that appeasement cannot ensure peace and stability in Europe—not even under the fig leaf of “engagement”. When dealing with a leader whose credo is defined by the notion that “the weak get beaten”, Western governments must demonstrate their resolve, without sacrificing flexibility. Only on this basis can the crisis in Ukraine be addressed without fundamentally compromising transatlantic security.


Bobo Lo is a specialist in Russian foreign policy at Chatham House, UK.


peace in our time


Groove of the Day

Listen to the Wehrmacht Musikkorps performing “Gruss aus Obersalzberg” (Greetings from Obersalzberg)


23 Responses to “1938 all over again?”

  1. 1 Frank Manning
    March 23, 2014 at 3:15 am

    As a holder of a master’s degree in Russian history, I humbly opine that this analysis is quite absurd. As an antidote let me offer this insightful analysis by Ronald Reagan’s last ambassador to the USSR.

    • 2 peterloudon
      March 23, 2014 at 3:28 am

      Thank you Frank. I guess I can become less preoccupied with this analysis, then:


      (Living in South Africa, which is the S in BRICS, we are concerned about maintaining neutrality, a difficult thing to do because, as in WWII, the country is split regarding just who should be supported.)

      Which period of Russian history did you study?

      • 3 Frank Manning
        March 23, 2014 at 6:10 pm

        Ambassador Matlock’s article, which I cited above, startled me because of his conservative credentials. The whole American political establishment has reverted to a misplaced anti-Soviet cold-war mentality toward Russia over the Ukraine situation. Most of the western media have joined the russophobic chorus, even repeating Ukrainian fascist lies and ignoring the unlawfulness of the recent seizure of power in Kyiv. Russia today is not the big bad USSR of old. And it damn well is not Hitler’s Third Reich. In ideology those Ukrainian nationalists are far closer to Hitler than is Putin. They are the ones you should worry about.

        Reagan’s man in Moscow references the Monroe Doctrine in criticizing NATO’s reckless attempt to hold a dagger to the core of the Russian heartland. Russia is just defending its comfort zone. Does anyone seriously think the United States would sit by and do nothing if China or Russia helped some anti-American Mexicans to overthrow the Mexican government, enabled them to set up a pro-Russian or Chinese regime, and tried to bring Mexico into a hostile military alliance against the USA? This is what’s happening over there. NATO’s incessant drang nach osten since 1992 has gone a country too far, and Russia will not stand for it. If NATO would back off and stop trying to strangle Russia militarily, then maybe the Russians would not have such a nasty attitude toward the West.

        I studied the full gamut of Russian history. I have given special attention to medieval history, particularly the Novgorod Feudal Republic, and to Soviet history, particularly the formative years of the Soviet regimes and the Great Patriotic War (World War II). I have closely followed events in Russia and the former Soviet republics very closely for the past 20-odd years. I understand the Russian mentality in the recent period. Russia is not a threat to the West or anyone else. It is their perception that the West is trying to hurt them and infringe on what little turf they have left.

      • 4 peterloudon
        March 24, 2014 at 3:42 am

        Thanks Frank. I was also startled by the article you referenced, but mainly because I had fallen into the way of thinking that you sought to rebut.

        I have always been fascinated by the Romanov period, particularly the last three rulers ending with the revolution (and all the options they had, but did not see). Robert Alexander’s books are quite well researched and interesting to read.

  2. March 23, 2014 at 8:24 am

    Just a typical example of American propaganda. The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons. The US military budget is higher than the rest of the world put together. You have the largest military presence outside your own territory. You are involved in the largest number of military incidents (including rape and human traffking). You force every country into signing agreements they do not have legal jurisdiction over your soldiers and officres. You cause a war every 10 years, never in your own territory and never because your own people are threatened. You went to Korea, Vietnam, Central/South America, the Middle East, Iraq, Yugoslavia. Wherever you went, there was no peace, just death. Because it helps your economy. You’ve occupied and taken territories, you’ve executed elected presidents, you’ve been the prosecutor, the jury, the judge and the executioner countless times. Then you’ve forced the destroyed countries into taking huge loans (mostly through IMF), to make sure they can never recover.

    In Serbia, you’ve sided with terrorists and created a dangerous precedent. You’ve used radioactive ammo and cassette bombs, forbidden by international laws. And you’ve used them against civilians and children, like napalm in Vietnam. All the while, your media propaganda was telling the attacked it was for their own good and their own fault. You’ve tried taking Ukraine by force, too. So Russia decided to just take it’s own territory back and protect its people. And they did it pretty much without firing a single bullet. Compared to Americans, Russians are saints. So, if you want to compare anyone to the Nazis, you need look no further than the White House.

    And Dan, will you also be publishing some propaganda “explaining” how Paul Henry and the other kids should be locked up for life? I’m sure you can find some “expert” to tell us why that would be the right thing to do.

    • 6 Connor L
      March 23, 2014 at 5:17 pm

      Your right! Russia is so peaceful and friendly to everyone….please, I don’t agree with most of the U.S. foreign policy but surely they are a hell of a lot better then Russia….

      • 7 peterloudon
        March 24, 2014 at 3:53 am

        I have been reluctant to criticise America from “outside”, but, as a South African who faced Russian sponsored guerrilla warfare until the late eighties, I can assure you that American foreign policy since the fall of Communism is far more toxic than Russian.

        Cane has set out the criticisms very clearly. I won’t repeat them.

        Americans would do well to try and see their country through the eyes of the rest of the world and then exercise their democratic freedoms to align the reality with what they would want the external perceptions to be.

        We do not want a world superpower that has created universal surveillance and assumes the right to carry out unilateral extra-judicial killings through drone strikes anywhere in the world. These two factors taken together make trying to change anything American (like exporting the way you treat your children in academic textbooks) a life-threatening proposition.

        If you would like to suggest that you are the only country in the world with the economy to “stabilise” the world, consider both the perilous state your economy is in and the fact that it relies on profiting from (and maintaining) an unstable world to avoid total collapse.

        This is not to say that there are not good Americans. There are many, and I’d guess a fair number are represented on this forum. However, the overall presence of “America the superpower” in the world is negative, both for the world and for America.

      • March 24, 2014 at 10:04 am

        I think the reason why so many Americans support such a warfare politics is simply because they do not really understand what war is. To put just Napoleon’s and Hitler’s actions against Russia alone in perspective, imagine a vast, modern army getting to Washington. Destroying 3/4 of the city and killing almost 4 million (Napoleon) or 42 million Americans (Hitler) along the way! And leaving your country almost completely destroyed and burnt. In comparison, the US lost some 420,000 people in WWII (100 times less), about 99,99 % soldiers, almost no civilians or children and no home destruction. My own country – Yugoslavia – was almost completely destroyed by the Germans and their allies. We had some 10 % of US population, but lost 450,000 soldiers. On top of that, we lost another 580,000 civilians, many of them children. When American media cries over every single American life lost in Iraq or some other invaded country, to me it’s just like the Nazi. In fact, they had the official policy that 50 people be killed for every wounded German and 100 for every killed one. Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kragujevac_massacre and you will see so many similarities between the US and the Nazi Germany.

        Although American agression and killings around the world do not reach such high numbers, the effects and brutality exceed them in many ways. After WWII, Yugoslavia was rebuilt and grew strong fairly quickly as the invaders were gone (thanks mostly to Russia). After the 1999 NATO agression against Serbia, we have still not recovered and are just being pushed into more debt. Also, It is said that the US have sprayed more than 18 million gallons of Dioxin over South Vietnam. By US own standards, that is worth bombing themselves relentlessly for years. And all the “interventions” were just because of some “interests” and to “protect the American way of life”. Is that what annihilation of other nations is to you? Your way of life? Scary. And the propaganda is off the scale. I mean, finding a “How to fly a plane in 24 hours” booklet in Arabic, along with an ID with an Arabic name on it, when nothing else survives the crash… It just shows the propaganda has reached such levels that the American government and army officials don’t even try to come up with explanations anymore. They just point a finger to some country and say “bad guys”. Two days later, bombs start falling. And you get the law saying anyone can be held indefinitely at an undisclosed location, without ever being accused of anything, just a “suspect”. Guess what? That’s what the Nazi SS and Gestapo did.

      • 9 peterloudon
        March 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm

        I think you have a point, but I also think there is more to it than not having faced a war or defeat on home soil. There is the unquestioning belief that America is correct and has a duty to impose that correctness on the rest of the planet. Obviously that is what the propagandists want the people to believe but what I don’t get is why they believe it. There is no attempt to question or resist. America just goes about attacking at whim, apparently with full domestic support.

        Certainly 9/11 was shocking, but many more lives are lost to gun crime or to adolescent suicide every year and nothing meaningful is done about that. Iraq wasn’t even involved in 9/11 but if you look at the body count there, it is out of all proportion to the loss of life in 9/11.

        We hear plenty of propaganda about the need to fight Islam, terror, etc, but even if it’s true (which I have an open mind on) I know very few people outside of America who want America involved. Nobody I know and respect looks at America as the ideal leader in any such confrontation. We do not think that drone bombing 1.7 billion people in South East Asia is going to help and there is no evidence of other ideas.

        I was involved in trying to stop the “limited strikes” on Syria and was both amazed and gratified that the rest of the world was more or less of one mind when it came to blocking the American intentions.

        Finally it took a young girl to point out that teachers and books would do far more good than bombs.

        So why is this conversation between a person from Yugoslavia and one from South Africa playing out in front of an American readership?

        I can’t answer that, except to ask why more Americans aren’t saying these things.

        I’d like an American voter with a regular job, a mortgage and some kids to explain in this forum why you keep putting two practically indistinguishable political parties into office to endlessly wreak havoc on the rest of the world and create debt, that will never be repaid, in the process.

        Nobody I know of is after your land, your lifestyle or your economy. We’d just like to see you as a friendly neighbour in the global village, happy and prospering, and preferably keeping your more aggressive forms of commercialism to yourselves, because over here we don’t believe every last thing is about profit.

  3. March 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    I guess the reason I selected this essay for re-publishing is that its highlighting of the parallels between the two crises is one of the more intelligent analyses out there. Ever since “appeasement” became a dirty word three-quarters of a century ago, politicians and others have used the supposed lessons of 1936 to bolster whatever snake oil solutions they have been selling. I am personally ambivalent about the author’s conclusions, but his take-aways are no more “absurd” than most people’s conclusions about the Munich Pact. That is the most confounding thing about history in the making: the lessons of the past can contribute to our understanding of the present, but can never serve as a detailed road map.

    • 11 Connor L
      March 23, 2014 at 5:19 pm

      Dan your right and I agree full heartedly to this article. Putin is no Hitler, but there is stark similarities between the two crisis.

      • 12 peterloudon
        March 24, 2014 at 4:00 am

        Connor, how would you characterise the way the rest of the world “accepts” America’s actions? So far Iraq and Afghanistan (along with many others) are in far worse shape thanks to America than is Crimea or Ukraine thanks to Russia.

        Were it not for a lot of activism and the timely (even if self-serving) intervention of Putin, we would have America bombing Syria into oblivion right now in support of Al Qaeda.

  4. 13 Frank Manning
    March 24, 2014 at 7:14 pm

    I’m a bit late with this, because I wanted to give it some thought and a little research before entering into this wonderful conversation with Peter and Cane. Most Americans are quite oblivious to history, can’t even find their own country on a globe, and know almost nothing factual about any other peoples. There are lots of reasons for this; Dan’s astute criticisms of the American public education system in earlier blog entries can help shed some light on the roots of this problem.

    We are not a totalitarian society and abhor political ideologies. Yet we actually do have an official “political line” toward our national history. America is exceptional, they say, and politicians today still spout this belief. Most Americans actually do believe that our nation was ordained by God Himself to bring true liberty and justice to the world. Therefore, whatever we do is right, because—after all—it is the will of God. We are not now and never have been an empire—with all those wars we have never taken over anybody else’s land or subjugated others. Hell, we brought liberty, baseball, and hot dogs to the Philippines. What more could a nation want! What about Mexico, you say? All that territory we annexed. Why, my dear fellow, that was Manifest Destiny, the will of God! Slavery was bad, of course, but they were nice to the slaves. [Yes, a reputable historian actually wrote a book in that theme]. Entering World War I was about making the world safe for democracy. Of course, preventing the British Empire from defaulting on its war debts to American banks was even more compelling. Right up until Pearl Harbor, most Americans wanted to stay out of “Europe’s war.” Yeah, Hitler seems crazy but who cares. We have the whole Atlantic between him and us. It was Japan’s attack that brought us into the war. Never again would we allow a potential enemy to do that to us. With the end of the war and the Soviet menace ideology adopted from the European right, we began the leader of the free world and the policeman of the world. God’s will, you know.

    Our political and business leaders who matter are not uneducated, and they are far more cynical about power than even Machiavelli. We don’t need an empire, colonies, any of that, as long as we retain economic control over others. Communism was so dangerous because it challenged the economic power of the people who controlled America’s wealth and economic output. Most Americans are blissfully unaware that their divinely ordained nation has been perhaps the greatest imperialist power ever. They really don’t know what has been done in their name, and most, I venture, don’t really care so long as their lust for consumer goods is sated.

    I could write a book on this subject. Some of us, though, know the real story. But with most voters locked into our tweedledee-tweedledum two-party system people like me have little political impact nationally. On the local level it matters. Just compare local politics in, say, Florida with the politics here in Washington. Like the difference between Saudi Arabia and Denmark! [I exaggerate, but hope the point gets across]. That gridlock so apparent in Congress is the result of a stalemate between a very reactionary political mindset and one more akin to the Liberals in England.

    One more thing, about stopping the attack on Syria. I don’t know if Peter, in particular, is aware of the progressive campaign I was a part of to mobilize Obama’s base supporters in opposition to this step toward war. We made over 600,000 phone calls and emails to the White House alone. Millions of us called our senators and congressmen to voice opposition. We actually affected the opinion polls, with opinion turning against military intervention. Then Putin made his bold move. I know we American progressives played a big part in staying Obama’s hand. But we are a very small minority of the American electorate. Maybe this new cold war is part of an effort to keep us that way.

    • 14 peterloudon
      March 28, 2014 at 2:28 pm

      Frank, a quick comment. I was well aware of the calls being made, and was in fact involved behind some of the distribution of emails and other social media calls in that campaign. I also circulated a gruesome video of the two early adolescent sons of a village headman who would not align with the rebels being executed by machine gun by those rebels. The caption I sent it out under was “Once you have seen this, you can NEVER claim to have been ignorant of what Obama wanted to support.

      It serves no purpose to embed the video here.

      I will return to this thread in a couple of days.

      • 15 Frank Manning
        March 28, 2014 at 7:21 pm

        Ah, Peter, you’ve stirred some still-crisp memories of when I was an undergradute at NYU in 1967-71. At the time I was an exuberant participant in the 1960s counterculture and the student antiwar movement against the Vietnam War. I was a member of SMC, the Student Mobilization Committee against the War, and was a leader of its NYU chapter. I also served in leadership positions on a number of NYC-wide, regional, and national student organizations and broader-based antiwar coalitions.

        As a native New Yorker I was traumatized by 9/11. I come from a large Irish-Italian Brooklyn-based family with a disproportionate number of firefighters and police officers in our loving embrace. We lost family and friends that day. The loss of 343 firefighters is a hurt that will never go away. So I don’t buy into any conspiracy theories, and have kept myself educated–outside the box, as I so well know how to do–about the war against terrorism, and who our friends and enemies are. I’ll be honest–I have no problem with most of what the US govt has done in our just and righteous war against those who attacked and murdered my family and friends.

        With all that in my background I observed the Arab spring and what transpired throughout the Middle East. I applauded NATO’s taking out of Gaddafi in Libya, and was especially delighted that France and the UK provided the cutting edge, rather than us again. The eruption of civil war in Syria caught my attention. I was already educated in the complex mosaic of Syria’s ethnic and religious fabric, so I knew where to drill down and what to look for to discover what was really going on over there. It was obvious to me that the “liberal” opposition was too fractionated to be effective, and really didn’t represent any sizable element of the population. The only credible and effective opposition to the brutal and corrupt Assad regime were the same motherf***ers who murdered my people on 9/11, along with the friends and allies of those vermin. That’s why I watched incredulously as more and more American politicians started talking about helping the rebels. Then Sen. McCain went over there and actually advocated giving antiaircraft missiles to an al-Qaeda-affiliated group. That would be treason, of course! [I actually messaged a politically astute friend in Arizona and asked him if McCain had been showing any signs of senile dementia.] So when the chemical gas attack happened and Obama threatened to wage war against the regime my alarm bells sounded a full red alert. I called and e-mailed the White House and the State Dept. asking if the president, whom I voted for twice and support politically, was aware that he would be siding with al-Qaeda. Then a couple of groups I am active with, particularly MoveOn.org, started alerting people against yet another Middle East war and asked for help. I helped organize calls to the senators and congresspeople from Washington State.

        Most Americans see or hear something on the TV news (be it local, network, or cable) or read or hear it through social media. But then it gets lost in the buzz of daily life and our interactions with those immediately around us. Everybody took note of the gas attack but only very few bothered to wonder why Assad would shoot himself in the foot like that, and actually invite a violent American response. Supportive of the never-ending, often automated, war against terrorism, but weary of more than 10 years of hard on-the-ground warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority of Americans were not in favor of another military campaign over there. I know that our antiwar messaging campaign did sway members of Congress, and it was obvious that any attempt by Obama to get congressional approval for military action in Syria would fail. Then MoveOn aired several TV commercials against intervening in Syria, and the public opinion polls showed a sharp increase in opposition to war. Then Putin jumped on Kerry’s stupid blabbermouthed remark and managed to defuse the situation. So I know and am proud to acknowledge that we turned the political tide against American military intervention in the Syrian civil war. Nice to hear that you too, Peter, were a part of our effort!

      • March 28, 2014 at 8:11 pm

        Frank, I honestly find your attitude frightening. What you basically say is that you believe in the official story and accusations for 9/11 events just because you’ve lost friends and familiy members. Even now that you seem to question some actions and murders, you still agree with that official story and all the crime done by the US government afterwards. And you also support execution of a president of a country that had never attacked or threatened USA or a single American citizen or an allied country. What happens when American police tries to execute American people like that in American cities? You cheer? Applaude? What exactly is just and righteous about killing people you don’t like? It would assume America has some non-existing “right” to Lybia’s oil, for example.

        There was never any real investigation on 9/11 events. There was no evidence, other than FBI claiming to have found manuals in Arabic. Paper surviving crashes that left nothing. So many questions about the collapse of the buildings, with ridiculous answers by the government “experts”. Just like with the “landing” on the Moon. So many questions about the plane that “hit” the Pentagon and another one that “crashed” into ground, but has disappeared. Now, I am not telling some Arabic country didn’t do it. How would I know? But I AM saying there was never any proof. And certainly not a trial. Which means America only attacked countries because it WANTED to attack them. And if 9/11 was simply an excuse, it could’ve been planted.

        And my real point is this – even if everything you say (or hear in American media) about countries like Lybia, Egypt, Syria and Serbia were indeed true, America still has no right to even preach, let alone go and kill, destroy and annihilate. You are only doing it because you can. Not because it is just or righteous. On the other hand, as long as you are motivated by those two feelings, there is hope.

      • 17 peterloudon
        March 29, 2014 at 5:46 am

        Frank, I am going to respond in stages to your comment, mainly due to time pressure.

        Let’s start with your comment about 9/11: “I’ll be honest–I have no problem with most of what the US govt has done in our just and righteous war against those who attacked and murdered my family and friends.”

        The second invasion of Iraq (under Bush II) was motivated by 9/11, as I understand it. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Various estimates of the death toll in Iraq directly attributable to the war have been made and are set out in the linked Wikipedia article. None are under 100,000.


        Are you saying you have no problem with that?

        If yes, please remind me what Iraq had to do with 9/11. Also, how would Saddam Hussein ever align with Al Qaeda?

        Going on, you say: “I advocate a war of extermination against al Qaeda and its allies and offshoots.” I personally have very grave concerns about radical Islam, Al Qaeda, and what appears to be going to be an escalating problem in our lifetimes that could flare up into an all out war. I know many who think we should get on and have that war.

        I have two prominent concerns amongst many about this.

        The first is that radical Islam and everything associated with it is in large part a creation of British and American interference in the Islamic world. The people who now want to see America humbled have been made that way by more than a century of humiliation at the hands of America. Osama bin Laden himself was given his start in life by the CIA. It might be a better idea to come to terms with the larger Islamic world and so isolate the extremists. However, that would have to be done with integrity and you have already noted that your leaders are more cynical about power than almost any others.

        The second is that the people you advocate exterminating live amongst us, and amongst other communities with women, children and the aged all around them. There is no army in the field to be attacked. The collateral damage is huge (somewhere between 30 and 100 innocent people per suspected combatant). This is why I say drone bombing 1.7 Billion people will not solve the problem.

        I am not a fan of Bill Maher, but take a look at his summing up of the situation in the video below. As he concludes, the problem is that, in the households of the “enemy”, you have 1.7 Billion people who think America is getting what’s coming to it each time a bomb goes off at the Boston marathon, or a solider gets his head hacked off.

        I do not support radical Islam, but I doubt you can exterminate it. If you try, I don’t want to be on the planet.

        See Maher’s observation at about 3:00

  5. March 28, 2014 at 8:59 am

    As this was also about propaganda, here’s the latest one from USA president Obama, regarding NATO occupation of Kosovo (when talking about Crimea vs Kosovo). He said: “And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbours”. This is nothing but a carefully planted lie. There was no referendum. The agression against Serbia and the declaration of Kosovo’s independence were as outside of any boundaries as can be and there was never any cooperation with the United Nations in determining Kosovo’s status. Which is why America had comitted this brutal agression under NATO. The truth is – USA came to commit genocide against the Serbs to set a precedent, occupied our territory, drove our people almost completely out, brought Albanian criminals into power and then advised them on when to declare “independence”.

    Of course, all (major) western media are fighting which will be the last to expose Obama’s lie that will get stuck in people’s minds so they would justify future agressions. One website did say it: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/27/obama-makes-two-major-foreign-policy-gaffes-europe-trip

  6. 20 Frank Manning
    March 28, 2014 at 10:52 pm


    I’m bemused, and a little saddened, that you find my attitude “frightening”. I must say straight away that I don’t discuss or argue 9/11 conspiracy theories with people either in person or online. It is pointless, fruitless, frustrating, and enraging.

    No, I don’t accept any official line about anything. That’s why I’m on this thread, to dispute and refute the official line that Russia is somehow threatening NATO, when it’s NATO threatening Russia. In regard to 9/11 I know what I witnessed, what I read and heard. I’m highly educated and a rarity among Americans–someone who actually knows hard facts about people and places outside the USA. I’ve actually listened to the conspiracy theorists’ arguments, considered their data, read the reports refuting their data. I’ve drawn my own independent conclusions, based on my own independent analysis of events and evidence. And so I support my country’s War against Terrorism. I advocate a war of extermination against al Qaeda and its allies and offshoots. The war in Iraq was not a part of what I had in mind, so criticism of that is certainly valid.

    I’m one of the very few Americans who lamented the breakup of Yugoslavia and denounced what I still call the nazi NATO aggression against Serbia in 1999. Even educated Americans believe that the nasty things Serbia was accused of doing to those poor helpless Albanians justified NATO’s intervention. I argued like John the Baptist, the lone voice crying in the wilderness, that we were wrong, we shouldn’t be allying NATO with al-Qaeda and other militant Islamists against a fellow Christian people of Europe. Here’s the worst part of all. Most of the people with whom I tried to discuss the whole Serbia/Kosovo situation couldn’t care less. Their weekend mountain hike or the upcoming college football rivalry game loomed so much greater in their minds. Even Americans who are more aware of the world around them think that NATO stopped the Serbs from commiting some sort of genocide against someone. Truth is, my attitude is about the friendliest that you, a Serb, will find on this side of the Atlantic.

    Oh, and to answer your question: What happens when American police tries to execute American people like that in American cities? Answer: This is why we have the Second Amendment. That most certainly will never happen here in my neighborhood in my city.

  7. April 10, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Simply needed to express I’m just relieved that i stumbled on your web

  8. 22 peterloudon
    April 18, 2014 at 4:55 am

    I am not so sure I like the way this is unravelling …

    Leaflet tells Jews to register in East Ukraine

    World leaders and Jewish groups condemned a leaflet handed out in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk in which Jews were told to “register” with the pro-Russian militants who have taken over a government office in an attempt to make Ukraine part of Russia, according to Ukrainian and Israeli media.

    Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city’s Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee “or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated,” reported Ynet News, Israel’s largest news website, and Ukraine’s Donbass news agency.

    Follow the link for the rest of the story:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: