Do You Want Me to Buy a Mirror for You, "Democratic" Gentlemen? - Alexander Rogers

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ

27th May, 2016

Newsfront

I'm so fed up of this hypocritical whining by the West and its puppets about the poor Poles who were separated as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Well, firstly, there was no "Pact". It was a "Treaty". A non-aggression Treaty.

Secondly, this Treaty was preceded by some other "covenants".

To begin with, who signed a Treaty with Hitler and Mussolini long before Stalin? Oh, all of a sudden! 30 September 1938 the so-called Munich agreement was signed, under which Britain and France gave the Third Reich the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. The representatives of the Soviet Union, by the way, were denied participation in the negotiations.

"The Pact" about flushing the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis was signed by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier, Germany's Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and Prime Minister of Italy Benito Mussolini.

Two years ago, in 2014, "the non-aggression Pact" between Yanukovych and the Maidan opposition was signed by the Ministers of France and Germany. Analogies and parallels do not rise?

In fact, here is a photo of the whole party, impossible to deny (from left to right as listed above).

But back to history. In the spring of 1939, Czechoslovakia was invaded by Nazi troops. The Soviet Union, which Czechoslovakia had a mutual assistance agreement with, was ready to intervene and request from Poland a corridor for the Soviet troops to defend Czechoslovakia from the Nazis.

By the way, of all participating countries of the League of Nations, only the Soviet Union tried in March of 1938 to protest against the annexation of Austria, but the UK again suddenly lashed out against Soviet efforts.

And it was specifically the Soviet representative who stated at the Plenum of the Council of the League of Nations on the need for urgent action in support of Czechoslovakia, and also expressed their demands to consider in the League of Nations the question of German aggression. This was ignored by Britain and France (remind us of anything?).

Moreover, the Soviet government made a statement to the Polish government that any attempt of the latter to occupy a part of Czechoslovakia automatically cancels the non-aggression Treaty between the USSR and Poland.

And then Poland refused the Soviet Union the right of passage for the Soviet army. So much so, that the Polish Ambassador in Paris, Lukasiewicz, assured the US Ambassador to France - Bullitt - that Poland would immediately declare war on the USSR if she tries to send troops through Polish territory to aid Czechoslovakia, and if Soviet planes appear over Poland on the way into Czechoslovakia, they will immediately be attacked by Polish aviation.

Instead of helping the Czechs, Poland invaded Czechoslovakia and captured the Cieszyn region (the Soviet Union then had all rights to declare war on Poland). In fact, Poland divided Czechoslovakia with the Third Reich, in what was a preliminary agreement between the Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck and Foreign Minister of the Third Reich - the notorious Ribbentrop.

The so-called "Covenant of Beck-Ribbentrop Pact". What happened? Pilsudski is worse than Hitler?

Here he is, by the way, together with Goebbels.

And in the third photo, there is Polish Minister Beck. Oh, who is he with? Is it Adolf? Can't be! This is a photoshop! The Kremlin's propaganda!

So what is it, citizens? Is the head of Poland Mościcki is the same as Hitler? Is the British Prime Minister Chamberlain the same as Hitler? Is Prime Minister of France the same as Hitler? Or all of them are even worse than Hitler, as liberals broadcast to us about Stalin (Poland, too, by the way, had their own concentration camps, for example in Bereza Kartuska)?

Isn't it Horace Wilson - the adviser to the British Prime Minister - who said that "Germany and England are the two pillars that support the world order against the destructive pressure of Bolshevism"? And they and Hitler were kissing each other on the lips? And with smooching!

It turns out that capitalist ideology (liberal, democratic, whatever) is equal to Nazism? You need to strongly condemn the British monarchy for cooperating with the Nazis? Where are the democratic public looking? It's time to hold the damned hypocrites accountable for concluding the contract with Hitler!

Do you want me to buy a mirror for you, "Democratic" gentlemen?

P.S. I must admit that in this situation Winston Churchill, who specifically on this occasion said "England was offered a choice between war and dishonor. She chose dishonor and will got war", looks dignified.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

What is a Ukrainian "Politodoodler"? Arguments against a new coup were arguments against the old one! Plus the case for a new one...

Portrait of a Ukrainian politodoodler, Yuri Romanenko

Alexander RODGERS
In News Front, November 30, 2015

Translated from Russian by Tom Winter

You ask me:

What's a Ukrainian politodoodler?

And I answer:

Ukrainian politodoodler: Noun. Person who, in Field of Dreams, can guess all the letters, but can't read the words.

And now I will give you an example. My favorite patient in the psychiatric ward, Yuri Romanenko, has come out with a new text "How a spontaneous popular uprising against Porochenko would turn out." If you leave out the fillers, he gets pretty scary about the consequences of such a coup: 

-- They won't extend any more credit;

-- Kiev will not be able to guarantee the transit of gas to the EC;

— Some of the oligarchs will run away and block the operation of their companies;

— A new junta will not be able to control all the regions;

— Unemployment will rise;

— Local elites will strengthen regional separatism;

— We'll get a war of "everybody against everybody;"

You've just got to ask one question: sonny boy, why didn't you write this before the Euromaidan?

Indeed, back then my arguments against the coup were just these, plus the loss of Russian markets,  plus the loss of Russian contracts, plus the loss of cheap Russian credit, (under 5% compared to 7.25-7.5% in the west) plus the transition to external US control.

Back then, Poroshenko gave you $100 to write in favor of Maidan, but has he now given you $100 to write against a Maidan?

Another key question: Why does external American control suit Mr Romanenko, but external Russian (which built up all the now-dying scientific and industrial base in Ukraine) does not?

Everything is already pretty clear, but let's go through his arguments against the overthrow of Poroshenko one more time:

-- They won't extend any more credit;

-- Kiev will not be able to guarantee the transit of gas to the EC (The terrorists who can blow up power lines to Crimea with impunity will alike be able to blow up pipelines with impunity; there's no controlling them.)

— Part of the oligarchs (including the "patriotic" ones that would support the next Maidan)  have already run off, and their enterprizes are at a standstill.

— The current junta already cannot control the regions;

 — unemployment is worsening so fast, that the number has come to 100,000 more each month;

— feudalistic fragmentation under the control of local elites is happening -- only ones not seeing it are blind.

— war of "everybody against everybody" has been ongoing for quite some time.

But now, my arguments for a new, anti-western coup:

— It will be possible to put a stop to the madness and greed of the current juntists;

— It will be possible to begin restoring normal relations with Russia;

— It will be possible to shed all the "Heroes," and "Patriots" since their outrageousness has gone beyond all limits.

— It will be possible to put an end to the civil war (even if it means expelling the "Svidomiy" to Canada or Poland);

— There will be something of truth in the MSM;

— Those actually guilty in the Institute and Odessa Trade Unions building massacres would finally come to justice;

— Normal professionals could (yes, this is potential) come to power instead of foreign carpetbaggers;

-- It will be possible to leave that part of the debt encumbered by the preceding junta;

— The country will get rid of the external American control that is deliberately leading her to the abyss.

You could add a lot more things, but this is enough! Burn, Mustapha!*

P.S. Or let's just tell the truth: No American cookies, No Maidan.

-- Alexander Rodgers, exclusive for News Front

____________________________________________________________________________

*A reader in the comments below informs me that this would be  Mustapha Nayyem, an MP with Poroshenko's party. My thanks to Enriqueferro --tr.