Fight The Brexit Betrayal

PETITION Parliament to leave the EU NOW! https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/221747
We must fight the Brexit Betrayal. Ever since the Remainers and the EU Commission recovered from the shock of the 2016 Referendum result they have conspired together to (1) create confusion over what leaving the so-called "European Union" actually means, and (2) agitate for a second referendum which they hope to win through psychological intimidation of ordinary British folk who voted Out. This post answers some of the lies and distortions being fed to us daily by the Establishment media (particularly the BBC). Use this information in any discussions or debates you may have with Remainers.

Lie No. 1 – “We need a second referendum (people’s vote) as the Leave camp didn’t know what they were voting for”.

Lie No. 2 – Leaving the EU doesn’t mean leaving the Single Market. Note Cameron’s lie that he would pull the UK out of the Single Market if we voted to leave the EU – he resigned instead!

Lie No. 3 – Leave voters didn’t realise that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market as well. Note how the former Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, squirms his way through this interview after being firmly rebutted on his assertion that no-one told us we would be leaving the Single Market.

Lie No. 4 – Leave voters were confused about whether leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market as well.

Lie No. 5 – It’s all too complicated – better leave it to our MPs to decide for us. Just watch this short, animated video to see that it’s not that complicated, after all.

Lie No. 6 – Europe is a good thing, so therefore the European Union must be as well. This video is also gives a useful introduction to how the EU works (with the help of 55,000 civil servants), its secret meetings and its unaccountability.

Lie No. 7 – Brussels doesn’t waste our money. Super-short video shows the Eurocrats are really good at finding ways of spending (other people’s) money.

Lie No. 8 – We’re safer from war inside the European Union as it is a force for peace.

Lie No. 9 – Britain is not forced to apply European law in preference to our own laws.

Lie No. 10 – The EU is the way of the future. This video by a former Soviet dissident compares the old Soviet Union to the present-day European Union.

Lie No. 11 – The European Union fosters good relations in Europe. This 2017 news item covers how the European Commission is taking Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the European Court for refusing to take in thousands of non-European migrants.  Needless to say, the court ruled against those sovereign nations and is trying to force them to accept these migrants – see this news report.

Lie No. 12 – Being in the EU does not impinge on our national sovereignty. Former communist Economic Affairs Commissioner says the EU must bring an end to national sovereignty over finance with the creation of a “eurozone budget”.

Lie No. 13 – We have nothing to be afraid of with the European Union. This video shows you five reasons we should be VERY afraid.

Lie No. 14 – The EU is genuinely negotiating for BREXIT for the mutual benefit of all. If you don’t mind some colourful language, this man pulls no punches. It’s worth watching just to see the crazy Euro fanatic Guy Verhofstadt waving his arms around as he demands that all EU member states surrender all their national sovereignty to the EU –

Lie No. 15 – There is no Establishment conspiracy to frustrate Brexit. Just check out this insider report – https://brexitcentral.com/shocked-i-say-appear-establishment-conspiracy-brexit/

Lie No. 16 – Theresa May’s Brexit deal is our best option. Better no deal than this piece of treachery – https://brexitcentral.com/nasty-surprises-smallprint-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/

PLEASE NOTE – This post is on-going. More Brexit ammunition will be added from time to time, so keep checking back!

Subversion of democracy a feature of
the ‘European Project’ from the outset

by Martin Webster

A couple of months ago a friend with whom I had been in contact intermittently since the 1960s sent me an e-mail asking me to support the campaign for a second Referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU). He is a retired music teacher and cathedral organist. I was surprised to get his appeal since we had never before engaged in any kind of political discussion. Our shared interest was organ music and English cathedral choral music, particularly of the Elizabethan era.

In the light of the terms of his appeal, and at the risk of damaging our friendship, I decided, to ‘let him have it with both barrels’. The following was devised not just to enlighten him but in the hope that it will serve as a quarry of information and arguments for Brexit supporters to deploy when confronted by Remainers.

The referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union was authorised by an Act of Parliament. That Act granted to the British people the sovereign power to determine whether or not they wished their nation to continue to be a member of the EU. The text on the ballot paper in the Referendum read:

Text of the EU Referendum

There were no conditions, qualifications, sub-clauses, reservations, small print or other confusions to the stark ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ choice voters were given.

There was no statement on the ballot paper, or some ‘understanding’ explicit or implicit in the Act that if the electorate or the government or Parliament or business leaders don’t like the terms of Britain’s withdrawal in any negotiation with the EU and/or don’t like the possible economic impact of withdrawal with or without a treaty of withdrawal, then the matter be put back to the electorate in another referendum — or, indeed, further referendums as each sequence of negotiations is concluded and put to the electorate.

No such qualifications appeared on the ballot paper because, as the saying has it: “That way lies madness”.

‘Project Fear’ warned
us before we voted

It cannot be said that the British people were not warned that there would be some extent of economic turmoil in the event of a Leave vote and the implementation of that decision. Those dire and excessive warnings were issued to the British people on a continuous basis by ‘Project Fear’ for weeks prior to the Referendum.

Many of the predictions of ‘Project Fear’ have been shown to be propaganda hogwash. There was no collapse of the Pound Sterling, no huge increase in unemployment and no need for “an emergency Budget within days in the event of a Leave vote”, as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne assured us.

Since the Referendum the British economy has done rather well and unemployment has gone down.

I recollect a BBC ‘Breakfast’ TV interview with Lord Digby Jones, a former head of the Confederation of British Industry, on the morning that the Referendum result was made known. (See: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHpOgaE4R-I>). Just see the first five minutes of the interview.

He made it clear that the British electors had heard loud and clear all that the ‘Project Fear’ propagandists had been saying prior to the vote, but had gone into the polling booths saying to themselves:

“I rather like the idea of electing the people who rule over me, unlike the set-up in the EU Commission. I put freedom first, and if it costs me a few shillings in the first instance, then so be it.”

So there is no legal, political or moral basis for a second referendum — on the contrary, there is a substantial legal, political and moral basis for insisting that the verdict of the British people, by a clear majority, be carried out.

The Leave majority would have been huge if only indigenous Britons had voted

Note that if only native Britons — people born of indigenous British stock — had voted in the referendum, then the Leave majority would have been huge.

As it was, a sustained attempt was made by the Remain camp to mobilise foreigners to frustrate the will of the indigenous British people on a crucial issue which affected the destiny of their homeland.

I regard that Remainer ‘mobilise the foreigners’ campaign to be not merely misguided, but an act of treason…. but, at base, that is what “the European Project” is all about: Treason, that is, suborning your country to the will of another country or supra-national authority. There is no other word for it.

Whatever became of the oath which Parliamentarians and other public servants have to swear:

“I promise to bear true allegiance to the sovereignty of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law”?

Can Remainer MPs, Peers, senior civil servants, members of the Armed Services and the Police swear that oath in good conscience, or do they cross their fingers behind their backs and wink at each other when they do so?

But the Remainer reaction to the Leave vote appears to be — at first glance — less sophisticated than treason: a sulky child’s refusal to accept the outcome of a democratic vote. “We don’t like the result and so we’re going to kick up, complain, drag our feet, have hysterics until the Leave people back down and we get our way!”

Imagine if any losing party in a general election were to campaign against the result on that basis! Such a party would be dismissed by the electorate as a serious contender for power for many elections hence. Foreigners would be forgiven for thinking that Britain had evolved into a Third World ‘banana republic’ kind of a country.

The Remainer campaign provides
a justification for terrorism

The Remain ‘Second Referendum’ campaign is the astonishingly un-British and undemocratic reaction of that portion of the population which considers itself to be “Elite” and finds itself contradicted by those it regards as intellectual and social inferiors.

The Remainer campaign of subversion has been reinforced by the European Union’s negotiators, by Britain’s treasonous Civil Service and, not least, by ‘our’ Prime Minister Theresa May.

Their joint strategy from the outset was to delay-delay-delay, to get the Leave decision trapped and buried in a bog of complexity of their making in the hope that the Leave majority would throw up their hands in despair and give up.

In the past, we have often been assured by those in authority:

“There is no good reason for anybody in the UK to resort to terrorism because everybody has the vote, anybody can set up a political party, there is freedom of speech, the right of assembly, etc., etc.”

But that argument is a two-sided coin. The other side is:

If the results of votes and other attributes of democracy are denied to us, then there is every justification for a resort to terrorism. The restoration of democracy, by whatever means are available under a tyranny, becomes a patriotic civic duty.

As has been remarked by others, including parliamentarians: “The Remain campaign to frustrate the referendum vote is playing with fire.”

The Referendum was the biggest exercise in democracy Britain has ever seen. More than 17 million voters put their ‘X’ against the winning “Leave” option.

Subversion of democracy a feature of
the ‘European Project’ from the outset

The Brexit vote constitutes a kind of book-end to my political life. I began political activity in 1960/61 as a 17 year old in the Mill Hill (North London) branch of the Young Conservatives. I was already opposed to Britain joining what was then the European Economic Community (EEC).

I met another lad in the YCs who was also a member of the Anti-Common Market League. We asked for a debate on the issue. We were fed up with being asked to debate inane issues such as: “Are moving pavements a thing of the future and, if so, are they a good idea?”

Our request was resisted by the constituency Agent, a paid servant of Conservative Central Office. Eventually the Agent conceded because a lot of YCs were keen on having a debate about something important. However, as recent school-leavers we were unprepared for the cynical tricks he was willing to deploy at the last hurdle to frustrate democracy.

Nobody could be found within the YC membership to oppose our motion: “Britain must not join the EEC”. Ignorance of the topic and shyness is forgivable in teenagers.

The adult association was turned to, but nobody offered to speak against us. This is because they were either ignorant about the topic or cowards unwilling to engage in controversy of any kind — in most cases, probably both.

In the end, a Mr Rose from Golders Green, an adult from the adjoining Hendon & Finchley Constituency Association, had to be imported to advocate the pro-EEC case.

My friend (the Proposer) and I (his Seconder) relied on simple patriotism to advance our case: Our nation had never done well when entangled with Europe and had prospered when it secured its independence via a global mission. Did we fight two world wars in order to be ruled by foreigners?

Mr Rose’s case was mainly to do with avoiding further wars in Europe and talk of a huge home market. He was seconded by a YC who knew nothing of the issues and who said nothing beyond: “I Second Mr. Rose.”

“It’s now time for the disco….”

It was evident that my friend and I had captured the imagination of the audience and that Mr Rose had not impressed. It was going to be a landslide. Just as the vote was about to be taken, the constituency Agent, who had been eavesdropping, stepped into the room and announced:

“You’ve all had a debate — but we’re all Conservatives here. We’re not going to divide ourselves, so there will be no vote. It’s now time for the disco….”

The Agent’s intervention prefigured and epitomises the pro-EEC/EU/Remainer attitude to being contradicted via the democratic process. It was that undemocratic fiasco which disillusioned me with ‘Establishment’ political parties and prompted my foray towards nationalist politics.

There is and never has been anything democratic about “the European Project”. It does not have and never has had “the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people”, because the British people have always known that Edward’s Heath’s assurance: “Membership of the EEC does not involve Britain in any loss of essential national sovereignty” was a plain lie — which he later admitted (as being “necessary”) — shortly before he died.

The British public were never consulted either in a general election or via a referendum before we were taken into the EEC by Edward Heath’s Conservative government.

In 1975 and 2016, government
thumbs were in the scales of
referendums on Europe  

The 1975 referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EEC was staged by Harold Wilson’s Labour government. It was fraudulently conducted in all sorts of ways.

The Remain and the Leave camps were both funded to issue to every household a booklet stating their case — but the government also issued its own “official” booklet, which was thoroughly Remain in content. The mass media was largely — and the BBC was wholly — pro-Remain.

In the case of the 2016 EU Referendum, the government also funded Leave and Remain booklets to be sent to every household, but spent an additional £9 million issuing its own booklet which was thoroughly Remain in content.

This ‘thumb-in-the-scales’ exercise was contrary to the spirit — and some say also to the letter — of contemporary Electoral Law. Several senior executives of the Electoral Commission resigned their posts at the end of October (2018) after the High Court ruled in September that “the Commission had misinterpreted election law” in the run-up to the Brexit vote. (See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6322091/Election-watchdog-head-QUITS-claims-commission-biased-against-Brexit.html .)

The Commission had pursued every allegation of alleged financial impropriety against Leave campaign groups, but ignored all such allegations against Remain groups.

The mass media was largely Remain in its output. The BBC was compelled to give equal coverage to the Leave and Remain camps during the three-week campaign.

But in the two year period since then, when Brexit negotiations were in motion, the BBC has rallied unrelentingly behind the undemocratic Remain/EU Commission campaign for another Referendum on the grounds that the majority of voters who had voted Leave were “too stupid” to have been allowed to vote in the first one in 2016!

A logical contradiction? Superficially yes.

But what the Remainers hope is that in a second Referendum a sufficient number of “stupid” voters will either have died (yes, they have openly wished death on their opponents!) or will have become sufficiently cowed by the “Elite’s” propaganda onslaught against them that they will have changed their minds or — best of all — will refrain from voting.

This is the state of ‘democracy’ in Britain today.

I hope to see my country free before I die.

The Truth About The Second World War – Book Review

Review of "The Truth About The Second World War" by Viktor Surovov (A former Soviet army intelligence officer) (available from Amazon.co.uk as a Kindle ebook price £2.25 at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-World-War-historian-revealing-ebook/dp/B01KS8IB5Y/) Available as an online text document free of charge (so no illustrations) at https://archive.org/stream/ViktorSuvorovIcebreakerWhoStartedWorldWarTwo/ViktorSuvorovIcebreakerWhoStartedWorldWarTwo_djvu.txt

Reviewer's note: The book being reviewed here is dangerous to the Western liberal elite. This may be why it is very difficult to find on Amazon, even by inserting the author's name and the title of the book into the search box. It's marginally easier on Google, though it has to compete against a bunch of irrelevant results. That level of difficulty in locating a book on Amazon is almost certainly unparalleled. A similar book by the same author (Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223) is available only as a hardback book and is out of print, second hand copies being available from the above link from £112.58 - hardly the conditions to enable its content to be widely available.

All racial nationalists know the “inside scoop” on the Second World War and we should be more or less immune to the simplistic propaganda that passes for the official history of it. We know a lot of the shenanigans that went on in getting the war started and then blaming Germany for it, but nearly all of our material has hitherto come from a handful of alternative historians in the West who are able and prepared to stand up to the intellectual bullying, threats and blackmail inflicted by the liberal Establishment upon those who step out of line.

Understandably, the focus of nearly all such histories has been on how the war started and progressed in Western Europe and the Far East – the theatres of war in which Britain and the US were primarily involved.

But in 1990 Viktor Surovov, a former Soviet army intelligence officer, published this book in the West (he had defected to the West in 1978 and has lived in England ever since). It is now available as a Kindle book.

The Truth About The Second World War

“The Truth About The Second World War” sets out in great detail what happened behind the scenes in Eastern Europe, especially inside the Soviet Union, in the years leading up to the commencement of hostilities between Germany and the USSR. As you will see in a short while, this has lessons for British Nationalists in the twenty-first century as we face a powerful, stealthy foe determined to obliterate the White race and all independent nations from the face of the earth.

Perhaps I should issue a health warning to any liberal, Establishment historians who might be reading this. Be prepared to have the whole basis of your beliefs about the Second World War completely destroyed.

It is, for example, part of the Establishment fairy story that in 1941 Hitler turned upon the Soviet Union without cause and caught Stalin completely unprepared for war. This helps strengthen the fiction that Hitler was simply a madman, a megalomaniac who wanted to “conquer the world”, and needlessly caused a war in which millions died.

Stalin, on the other hand, was a peace-loving statesman who, once the heroic Red Army had recovered from its initial losses, rallied his countrymen and emerged victorious after four years of bitter fighting.

To be fair, his plight did come to be so great that the Allies had to organise at huge cost in money and men the Arctic Convoys that supplied the Red Army with badly needed weapons and munitions. But that was in no way because the Soviet Union was poorly armed or unprepared for war in 1941.

Soviet Union Geared For Attack But Not Defence

Quoting numerous works, both from official Soviet government publications and histories and from individual former Red Army and NKVD officers and politicians, Surovov completely destroys all aspects of this nonsense as systematically as a marksman taking down ducks in a shooting gallery. He shows us how the Soviet Union was unprepared for a defensive war in 1941, but was highly geared up for an offensive war that was probably scheduled to commence two weeks to the day after Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa.

He challenges all our thinking about the Second World War – even the date when it was supposed to have started. He takes us right back to the early days of communism, when Marx and Engels were first setting out how the capitalist governments of the world should be overthrown. Getting those imperialist nations involved in a great, debilitating war was of great importance to the world revolutionary cause. Such a war would exhaust the imperialist countries and render their proletariat populations sympathetic to the idea of a communist revolution.

Later came Lenin, who in 1914 thought the war then just started could be transmuted into a world civil war and that world revolution would follow. He later modified this ambitious plan to focus on revolution in just one country, for the time being, to provide a base from which to ferment revolution in other countries, or alternatively to attack them directly with armed force.

The chaos and infrastructure collapse that took place in Russia as a result of the Great War allowed the Bolsheviks, organised along military lines, to seize power, but similar attempts elsewhere, in Bavaria, Bremen, Slovakia and Hungary failed. Lenin couldn’t help his comrades there until he had secured his own base in Russia, and by then it was too late.

“Second Great War” Planned By Lenin

It was then that Lenin and his comrades in the Kremlin decided that a second great war was necessary in order to bring every other European country to its knees and pave the way for revolution.

This can all be verified. The documents are available to any historian who wants proof. When the USSR was formed in 1921, the Declaration accompanying it stated that its principal objective was to destroy and subjugate all other states in the world. In other words, it came into being with a declaration of war against all other countries.

Stalin – The Absolute Dictator

One of the most interesting features of this book is what the author has to say about Stalin. Surovov describes how Stalin started as just one of the key Bolsheviks that seized power in 1917, but then patiently and systematically worked his way up to absolute power.

Lenin was in ill health soon after the revolution, and Stalin made himself Lenin’s gatekeeper, so if anyone wanted to see Lenin it had to be through Stalin. Once Lenin was dead, anyone who showed signs of being a potential leader of the Communist Party was demoted by Stalin, sidelined and eventually arrested and judicially murdered.

He assiduously avoided the possibility of being held responsible for anything that might go wrong by placing a comrade at the nominal head of the project. For example, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As its name implies, Molotov was the comrade who would take responsibility in case the pact proved a mistake. But Stalin himself would take the credit if all went well. After all, he was the boss of the Communist Party.

Just by being General Secretary, Stalin made himself absolute dictator of the Soviet Union. Other people had their posts and sounded very important, but Stalin simply made the party supreme, and above the state, and that put him in turn above everyone else.

The “Five-Year Plans”

We all know about Stalin’s “Five-Year Plans”. Establishment historians speak of them in knowledgeable terms, but do they realise that these plans were geared to making the Soviet Union a highly militarised country with the largest and best equipped army in the world by far? It seems not.

The first Five-Year Plan started in 1927, at which point the Red Army had just 92 tanks. At the end of it that number had increased to over 4,000 (more than any Western country had in 1939). But the main thrust in both the first and the second Five-Year Plans was in building an industrial base for the manufacture of armaments and munitions. During that period of 1927 to 1937 nearly 25,000 military aircraft were produced.

At the same time Stalin was engaging in his own capitalist enterprises. He was looting all the nation’s works of art and other treasures, appropriating all its natural wealth, and confiscating huge amounts of the nation’s grain (under the guise of “collectivisation”) to sell on the world’s markets to raise capital to finance these “Plans”.

It didn’t matter to him that millions of Russia’s workers and peasants, including young children, were thereby starving to death. He sold 5 million tons of grain a year in this way (if it had been reduced to 4 million most of the starvation could have been avoided, according to Surovov, but hey, what’s 20 million peasants when you can have the most heavily armed and best equipped and trained armed forces on earth?)

Bolshevik Plan Boosts Germany and Weakens Britain and France

And all the while the armed forces and war capabilities of the Soviet Union were becoming stronger and stronger, the leftist-controlled western European countries, still in shock from the horrors of the Great War, were busily engaged in disarmament.

From the early 1920s Stalin helped build Germany’s army, by organising military training for the German military on Soviet soil, in contravention of the 1919 Versailles Treaty. Meanwhile, his fellow reds in Western Europe worked to make their own countries weaker. This would facilitate an eventual protracted war between two roughly equal sides.

The third “Five-Year Plan” was due to complete in 1942. This was the year in which Stalin, in accordance with the plan expounded by Lenin, intended to attack Germany and conquer all of Europe. The third Plan was all about turning out military products of high quality and in enormous quantities.

So by the end of the 1930s Stalin was able to view with grim satisfaction the gathering war clouds over western Europe. He knew that he could wait on the sidelines for two or three years, and then, when the combatant nations were exhausted, with their infrastructure all but destroyed, make a surprise attack with his massive Red Army. Within months he could incorporate all of Europe into the USSR.

Soviet Plan To Conquer All of Europe

According to the author, Stalin welcomed the rise of Hitler and his Nazi Party in Germany. As early as 1927 he stated repeatedly that a “second imperialist war” was unavoidable, as was the Soviet Union’s entry into it. He identified Hitler as being just the person who could act as “icebreaker”, in fermenting that war.

Surovov maintains that, in secret, Stalin did all he could to support the Nazis in their quest for power, and when they did come to power in 1933 he did all he could to push them towards war with the West. When that war started, he ordered communists living in democratic countries to become pacifists and encourage capitulation to the Nazis. All so he could eventually use his Red Army to “liberate” Europe. A simple but brilliant plan.

This is Surovov’s argument, and it is highly convincing. He tells in great detail how throughout the 1920s and 1930s the Soviet Union was made into a gigantic military machine, and how extensive defensive works were built in the western part of the country. Stalin was paranoid, and spent millions on “defence”. In 1933 the Soviet Union was producing tanks with a top speed of 100 kilometres per hour. Even fifty years later this would have been an impressive speed for a tank.

The trouble was that it would have been impossible to use these tanks on Soviet territory. They were designed for speed, for moving along a network of roads, which the Soviet Union sorely lacked. Lets see, now. Who among the Soviet Union’s near neighbours had a good system of roads? Ah, yes! Germany, of course!

They were aggressor tanks, with disposable heavy caterpillar tracks (useful for when crossing Poland on the way to invading Germany) which could then be discarded for wheels, on which to move fast on German auto-bahns. Other tanks were actually “flying tanks”, which were fitted with glider wings so they could land straight onto the German auto-bahn network and race ahead in a surprise attack.

Soviet fighter aircraft were also the best in the world. But here the trouble was that its pilots were not trained to fight defensive air battles – only to strike at ground targets, as you do when attacking an unprepared foe.

Soviet Military Machine

Industrial production was mainly geared to the manufacture of weapons and munitions. The whole railway system was subjugated to the needs of the Red Army, which in that time, with the NKVD, became by far the biggest army in the world.

It was not just the military capabilities of the Red Army and NKVD that were built to such an excessive capacity. Thousands and thousands of administrators were indoctrinated into Marxist methods and trained. These would be needed to control and secure freshly-occupied territories. A command-structure was created and refined, so that rules and decisions could be rapidly relayed down the line, from the Kremlin to the most remote locality in Western Europe.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Starts The Second World War

In line with his secret plan (known only to himself and his co-conspirators in the Kremlin and the Red Army/NKVD), Stalin waited patiently for Hitler to get embroiled in a war with the West. He lit the touch-paper by authorising the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23rd August 1939. This was just four days after a secret session of the Politburo heard Stalin announce that he intended to attack Germany in the summer of 1942, after all the combatants in the coming war had exhausted themselves.

In the event, German Intelligence learnt of Stalin’s intentions and his Politburo speech. When a bogged-down war in western Europe failed to materialise and it became clear that Hitler was not planning to attempt an invasion of Britain, Stalin was forced to bring the proposed invasion of Germany forward by a year.

We can now see what an invidious position Hitler was in. He had a well-armed aggressor nation not so far away, on the same land mass, waiting for an opportune moment to strike him in the back while his strength and resources were directed elsewhere. And he was completely dependent for his oil supply on the Romanian oil fields, which the Red Army could reach and destroy within a few days, on Stalin’s order.

A War on Two Fronts

Hitler did his utmost to avoid having to fight a war or two fronts, but Stalin’s actions made it unavoidable. Germany’s occupation of western Poland triggered the outbreak of war in Europe. Had Stalin occupied eastern Poland at the same time, as he was obliged to do under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then it would have been impossible for British Prime Minister Chamberlain to declare war on Germany without also declaring war on the Soviet Union. But that wasn’t part of the grand plan at all.

So Stalin’s Red Army blasted its way into eastern Poland, with massive loss of life, about two weeks later. But Britain and France (and their mass media) were only concerned about getting the war against Germany started, and paid little attention to Poland’s fate after that.

One thing not covered by Surovov is the question of what Hitler must have done once he had learned of Stalin’s intention to attack. This was the time when Hitler was, once again, making peace overtures to Britain. He must have given the information gathered by his Intelligence Chiefs to the British, to strengthen his case for Britain to see sense and agree at least a temporary cease fire.

Churchill, on a massive ego trip, knew all about the intentions of the Bolsheviks, having written a knowledgeable article about the communist conspiracy for the Illustrated Sunday Herald in January 1920, yet he chose to ignore all this and continue with the insane war against Germany. Well, when you’re in hock to the tune of £300,000 in 1930s money to one of the global elite’s pals, you can’t always do what’s right, even if you are Prime Minister with unprecedented wartime powers.

His early wartime letters to Stalin are revealed. Embarrassingly, and addressing him as “Your Excellency”, he pleaded with the red dictator to attack Germany because Hitler was moving three divisions up to near the Soviet border. Unsurprisingly, Stalin, with 120 divisions at his disposal, took no notice, knowing that Churchill was more interested in saving his own neck than that of the Soviet Union.

Stalin Prepares For Attack

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The key message in this book is that Stalin manipulated the Western (imperialist) powers into war so that he could later on enter that war and conquer all of Europe. But it all went wrong for him. All he ended up with was half of Europe and a bit of Asia. So what happened?

He’d played his cards right up until 1940. As soon as Hitler’s spring offensive in the west was underway, Stalin ordered all of the substantial defensive works in the western part of the Soviet Union to be dismantled. He geared the Soviet Union up for a massive attack on Germany, and these preparations took a year to complete. In fact they never were quite completed.

Stalin was so inept that he let all the advantages he had in that unique situation slip through his fingers. He ignored warnings from his Intelligence Service that the Germans were preparing for their own assault on the Soviet Union. If he had been one of his own subordinates then he would have been liquidated in true Stalinist fashion.

Hitler’s Spanner in the Works

It was all Hitler’s fault, of course. He out-manoeuvred Stalin and beat him to the punch. By launching Operation Barbarossa on 22nd June 1941 he frustrated Stalin’s plans to launch his own surprise attack on Germany scheduled for just two weeks later.

Because his whole military machine was geared up for an offensive war against Germany, Stalin was caught completely on the wrong foot. It never occurred to him that he might have to fight a defensive war. Hundreds of thousands of the Red Army were killed or taken prisoner, and huge amounts of arms and munitions were destroyed or seized by the Wehrmacht in the first few, wildly successful, days of Operation Barbarossa.

Later in the book, Surovov touches on what might have happened had the Germans not made their surprise attack on 22nd June 1941. Undoubtedly Stalin would have launched his army westwards and eventually all the countries of Europe would have been attacked and absorbed into the USSR, in accordance with Lenin’s original plan. And well before 1945.

Would Britain have faced a Soviet invasion? Perhaps the English Channel and the Royal Navy would have saved us, or at least allowed us time to organise resistance, this time against the genuine foe. Who knows?

Was The Soviet Union Any Worse Than The US Is Today?

This book, and Surovov’s other books on the same subject, throw a completely new light on the history of the Second World War, and should be read by all patriots in European countries. Thanks to Surovov, we know a great deal more about Stalin and the Soviet Union, and their roles in starting the Second World War. But will there be future historians to inform our grandchildren of the crimes of Western governments and leaders in our own times?

And “crimes” is not too strong a word to use. How many wars have the United States and Israel been involved in since 1948? These two countries are the most aggressive, warlike countries ever to have existed. Yet the Western media spins them as champions of “democracy” that only wage wars against “terrorists” and in any event for the benefit of all of us who live in the west.

How many innocent civilians, including women and children, the elderly and the hospitalised, have been killed by the armed might of these two countries? How many people have been crippled for life or deformed or inflicted with horrific burns?

How long will the US get away with its CIA-run “Foundation for Democracy” organisations that routinely overthrow governments (e.g. that of the Ukraine in 2014), provoke wars and arm terrorist organisations whilst at the same time pretending to fight those terrorists?

How long will Israel get away with deliberately killing unarmed Palestinians, especially children? How long will it be free to use phosphorous bombs on Palestinian civilians trapped in Gaza, in what is in effect the world’s largest ever concentration camp?

The US Government and its agencies commit as many atrocities and outrages as Hitler and Stalin ever committed, but because they claim to be doing it to “defend democracy” then it’s all right. Will there be another Surovov to expose to a world-wide audience what is really going on, but this time in the White House and the Middle East? Will our grandchildren have the information they will need to perceive who are the real villains and the real bad guys? Let’s hope so.