Epic: Gordon Duff’s History of the collective Downfall of Russia and America

It has apparently become a yearly tradition for some bad actors to try and force us to unnecessarily debate simple historical truths about World War II.  As tensions ratchet up against Russia from Western countries, history is correspondingly revised or distorted to denigrate the Soviet Union’s unquestionable heroism during the war.

Some distortions have actually become so commonplace that they’ve become “common knowledge” in the West, particularly in the United States, which are mainly that the US, not the Soviet Union, won the war and that the Soviet Union had colluded with Nazi Germany.

The Soviets didn’t start the war – they tried to prevent it

Moreover, as is the subject of a recent book by Dr. Sean McMeekin, a member of the Academic Council of the US mouthpiece Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, these revisionists believe that it was the Soviet Union and not Germany that actually started the war. (McMeekin’s book is literally titled ‘Stalin’s War’ and he spoke about it online with VoC, ironically, one day before the anniversary of Hitler’s death…).

These distortions are meant to denigrate the Soviet Union, as well as modern Russia and, I believe, the international communist movement by making communism out to be a genocidal ideology as bad as Nazism, or worse.

Yes, it’s true that the Germans and Soviets signed a Nonaggression Pact in 1939, but it was not an alliance. In fact, the Soviets were not the only European country to have such an agreement  since the French, British and even Polish had similar treaties with Germany dating from before 1939. It was meant to buy time for the Soviets, who were isolated under Western military pressure and sanctions, to defend themselves against an inevitable invasion.

In fact, according to a 2008 report by the Telegraph citing a retired Russian foreign intelligence service major general who had sorted through hundreds of declassified papers, the Soviet Union actually tried to form an alliance with Britain and France to squash Germany in 1939, before the start of the war. But as the Western nations dragged their feet, Moscow struck a pact with Berlin. The Soviets then took the opportunity to sieze parts of Belarus and Ukraine that the Polish had taken after the Polish-Soviet War that followed in the wake of World War I – in what is now known and maligned in the West as the Soviet invasion of Poland. This is so widely used to back the claims that the Soviet Union was as much to blame for the tragedies of WWII as Hitler (or more!) that one of the Kremlin’s biggest propaganda outlets, aka the German Foreign Ministry (this is sarcasm), had to denounce it in last year’s Victory Day press release.

It said, “The repeated attempt in recent months to rewrite history so disgracefully requires us to speak up loud and clear – something that should not actually be necessary in view of the irrefutable historical facts – and to leave no doubt whatsoever that Germany alone unleashed the Second World War by its invasion of Poland and Germany alone is responsible for the crimes against humanity of the Holocaust. Those who sow doubt about this and thrust other countries into the role of perpetrator do injustice to the victims, exploit history for their own ends and divide Europe.”

Hitler’s inspiration

If we’re drawing parallels with Nazis, here’s one: American lawyer and Yale University Professor James Q. Whitman revealed in his 2017 book ‘Hitler’s American Model’, that indeed the Nazis were very much inspired by the United States of America.

They were particularly inspired by American race, citizenship and immigration laws and their propaganda often cited the US as an exemplar of white supremacy. The Nazis saw Eastern Europeans as savages and invoked the United States’ genocide of its Native population, the so-called Manifest Destiny, in their conquest of Eastern Europe.

Now, this is not to say that the Nazis unwaveringly admired the United States. They also saw the US as a place of liberal decadence and unabated “race mixing” that would eventually self-implode. To them, the US of that time was a once-great civilization in irreversible decline thanks to demographic shifts, what we would call the “great replacement” conspiracy nowadays, and which sounds eerily similar to some popular American political commentators.

At the same time, as the renowned scholar Michael Parenti noted in his famous book ‘Blackshirts and Reds’, there is undeniable evidence that Western industrialists, including in America, supported the fascists’ rise to power in order to combat the Soviet Union. As Parenti wrote, Henry Ford and Ford Motor Company supported the Nazis before and during the war and the Rockefeller-owned Chase Bank helped launder Nazi money.

Spreading US influence changes historic perceptions

Countless people and nations suffered unspeakable violence during the war, but it’s worth repeating, since so many Western audiences may not be aware, that some 27,000,000 people in the Soviet Union died at the hands of fascist invaders who sought to exterminate them to expand their Lebensraum (living space).

This is a cultural memory that few can fathom, and is unfortunately hardly included in any discussion of the history about World War II in the West. But it bears repeating. Moreover, today’s events suggest that the expansion of American influence in Europe has directly correlated with changing opinions about the war.

It’s no wonder why Russian President Vladimir Putin is pushing to ban speech that compares the USSR to Nazi Germany or Stalin to Hitler. Many European countries ban Nazi symbology and Holocaust revisionist speech, and indeed the narratives coming from some actors in the West falls into both of these categories. It’s false and extraordinarily dangerous.

Look, you don’t have to be a communist or a Russian to admit obvious historical facts and refute blatant lies pushed by Nazi-adjacent radicals. To quote legendary American writer Ernest Hemingway, “Anyone who loves freedom owes such a debt to the Red Army that it can never be repaid.”

Appendix I

AIPAC Caught Up in Spy Case, Sordid Scandal

By Richard Walker

Just when it seemed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spy scandal dating to 2005 could not get any more bizarre, tales have emerged of top lobbying staff watching explicit pornography, homosexual liaisons made through the Internet and charges of executives hiring prostitutes. And if that is not exciting enough for spy buffs, there is a real possibility one of its directors, sacked following an FBI espionage probe of two of its top advisers, may blow the lid on AIPAC’s secret role in the political life of Washington.

On Dec. 13, Stephen Peter Rosen, the organization’s former foreign policy chief, will argue in court he was fired because AIPAC feared what a federal probe of its activities might reveal. He will also challenge the organization’s public argument it sacked him because he acted without approval when acquiring secret U.S. documents and when he warned an Israeli embassy official in Washington an FBI espionage probe was in place. Rosen believes he has enough evidence to show he was hung out to dry to protect AIPAC from a federal witch hunt. Some of the organization’s rich backers think so, too. Since his sacking, a number of high profile donors have provided him with $1 million to help him in his legal battle.

That battle began five years ago when he and AIPAC’s Iran analyst, Keith Weissman, were caught with classified material provided by Pentagon spy Lawrence Franklin. The FBI had Rosen and Weismann dead to rights but they argued they were acting as AIPAC lobbyists. They would filter the information through AIPAC to the Israeli Embassy in Washington or to AIPAC offices in Tel Aviv. Rosen claimed he was not aware he was subject to any U.S. legislation such as a British-type Official Secrets Act that would have prevented him or journalists from handling sensitive information.

No one should be surprised AIPAC has been involved in this kind of intelligence gathering over half a century. It is, after all, the successor of the American Zionist Council, which was disbanded in 1962 after being ordered by the Kennedy administration to register as an agent of the Israeli government. Six weeks after it was wound up, its top people, at the behest of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, incorporated AIPAC in its place. It has been tax exempt since 1968.

According to Rosen, he has more than 180 AIPAC files showing the kind of activities it has been involved in traditionally, and those he contends will demonstrate he was only doing his job in 2005 when he was “sent out to do something for them that was not illegal.”

The FBI charged Rosen and Weissman with illicitly obtaining classified U.S. government intelligence and defense data. However, for reasons not made clear, the charges were dropped in 2009. At the time, both men were planning to depose in their defense some of the most powerful figures in the United States, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The decision by the Justice Department to drop the spying charges spurred Rosen to go after AIPAC for defamation, and he launched a $20 million defamation suit against his former employer. He should have known taking on a powerful lobby group would be no easy task and things could get down and dirty. That is exactly what happened.

In a 250-page deposition in the suit, AIPAC’s lawyer, Thomas L. McCally, questioned Rosen under oath, and the result was a withering cross-examination that dissected his personal life. He was forced to admit he had regularly accessed pornography on his work computer though he claimed he saw at least 12 other AIPAC staffers do likewise. He alleged some AIPAC directors even boasted about using prostitutes.

To Rosen’s amazement and dismay, the AIPAC legal team had unearthed previously closed divorce filings in which his first wife (of five wives) cited evidence he had been soliciting men for sex. Under oath, Rosen admitted it was true and he had arranged sexual trysts with men through the Internet, sometimes on his work computer. He claimed he had not been aware he had stored pornography on his computer, which was how AIPAC investigators discovered he had been accessing lewd material online.

His suit was dismissed but the judge in the case accepted he was entitled to challenge AIPAC in a jury trial for its statement he was sacked “because he did not reflect AIPAC standards.”

Rosen says his lawyers will show, through evidence he has given them, it was AIPAC’s role to amass information about U.S. Middle East policy and AIPAC was often asked by U.S. officials to help them build support for controversial policies on Capitol Hill. AIPAC’s success in fighting off the Rosen defamation suit is the least of its worries. If Rosen can now prove in court AIPAC, on behalf of Israel and its intelligence community, regularly acquired and processed classified documents about U.S. foreign policy positions, AIPAC could be required to register as the agent of a foreign power as happened to its predecessor, the American Zionist Council.

There could be other consequences. Revelations about AIPAC as a direct tool of Israel could frighten off many of its big American donors, some of whose names have already surfaced in legal filings. Additionally, there could be pressure on the Justice Department to carry out a probe of the organization.

AIPAC’s immediate problem is it cannot be seen to be buying Rosen’s silence, because that would lead many to conclude Rosen’s claim about AIPAC’s intelligence gathering activities was accurate. As a consequence, it would be difficult for AIPAC to maintain it is merely a non-profit lobbying firm engaged in promoting American-Israel relations.

There has already been some fall-out from the Rosen affair. AIPAC coffers have taken a big hit with a shortfall in donations estimated at $12 million and rising.