Germany SITREP researcher C. talks to Scott May 18th, 2016

Please explain how Russia “destroy entire countries without using nuclear weapons”?

Hypersonic missiles by themselves do not have such capacity. Unfortunately, a war fought with the strategic nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia *does* have the capacity to not only destroy nations, but to leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and many forms of complex life. See http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/ and https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/

Your 2 articles make for very interesting reading and I would even accept that Putin – and possibly even a majority of Russians – see an entente Germany-Russia as desirable. But that such a deal is already finalized seems rather optimistic to me. In addition I’m surprised that the Russian historian in video1 does not mention § 139 of the German “Constitution” (GG §139) which states that “Die zur Befreiung des deutschen Volkes vom Nationalsozialismus und Militarismus” erlassenen Rechtsvorschriften werden von den Bestimmungen dieses Grundgesetzes nicht berührt.” which means that “The rules that were laid down to insure the denazification and demilitarization of the german people take precedence over any laws of this constitution” (my own clarified translation) – this is IMO a very clear and formal proof of the “obscure” subject of german non-sovereignity.

I have to say this is unfortunately a very unlikely scenario. It’s unfortunate that Russia either does not know, or prefers to ignore, who the real enemy is.

The “Anglo-Zionist” empire exists but it is not the United States. The United States is a debased vassal state whose foreign policy is controlled by it’s own treasonous fifth column. I’ve often been amused that the US has often been called the “World’s Policeman” a very apt metaphor. Police enforce the laws and the cop is who we see as the active agent of enforcement. However, police simply enforce the laws, they don’t make them.

Ultimately, the foreign policy of the US serves the interests of the multinational corporate power structure and beyond that the international banking oligarchy. As far as Germany is concerned, they are the greatest beneficiaries of the current international economic and banking systems, especially as represented by the EU. What would be the motive to renounce that?

Ohhh dear, how well this sounds like “Yalta 2.0”:

NATO Announces War Policy Against Russia
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-18/nato-announces-war-policy-against-russia

@Scott and C.:

I still cannot believe what you wrote:

“””””See, Here’s Germany’s Plan For The European Defense Union

The European Army as designed by Germany, France and Russia will be instrumental in squeezing NATO out of Europe and liberating Germany from American occupation.”””””

Wrong guess!
Read your own link:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/14/heres-germanys-plan-for-the-european-defense-union/

“””””“Rarely has the German military faced higher demands than in the last few months,” von der Leyen said, referring to Germany’s migrant influx and Russian aggression. “””””

Q: Does this sound as if they want to get NATO out?
Or to contain / invade? Russia …?

If anything then it is an attempt by Berlin and Brussels to keep the EU from breaking apart (by brute force).

Maybe the secret EU police EuroGendFor ( https://www.google.de/search?q=eurogendfor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=Acg9V-_JIcewswGKop7QBA ) that was originally designed for this (to shoot down citizens if there are Anti-EU protests, such as in Greece) is too small and too weak, given the rising potential unrest and never anticipated huge influx of migrants:

Look at the Macedonian border how peaceful and humbly helpless our new brothers and sisters are (Video how they are blocking an international railway line and use a freight coach as weapon, in another one they have a camp-brothel) :

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article155475825/Fluechtlinge-setzen-Eisenbahnwaggon-als-Rammbock-ein.html

In Austria and Germany you hear daily about cases where foreigners are not only stealling, robbing, looting but more and more often attacking and sexually assaulting women and young boys. But even more: The number of incidents is rising whe they beat to death, kick to death or stab to death Germans or simply Christian co-migrants inside their camps. Sometimes even randomly. Of course: According to MSM it never has anything to do with anything.

To read about those cases it is necessary to visit alternative “populist” “conspiracy theorists” “righ-wing” news sites, such as http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/redaktion/aktuelle-weltnachrichten-vom-mai-2-16-kw-2-.html

Back to “Yalta-2.0” and “NATO leaves Europe”:

EU seen on track to extend economic sanctions on Russia: sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-eu-russia-idUSKCN0YA134?il=0

31 minutes ago
NATO, Montenegro to sign key accession accord
By Slobodan Lekic
Stars and Stripes
Published: May 19, 2016
http://www.stripes.com/news/nato-montenegro-to-sign-key-accession-accord-1.410353

Bulgaria’s Govt Backs Montenegro Accession to NATO
Politics » DEFENSE | May 17, 2016, Tuesday // 17:28|
– See more at: http://www.novinite.com/articles/174515/Bulgaria's+Govt+Backs+Montenegro+Accession+to+NATO#sthash.ZeQeHf1J.dpuf
http://www.novinite.com/articles/174515/Bulgaria's+Govt+Backs+Montenegro+Accession+to+NATO

Hi Aleksander P, I don’t feel completely understood by you, and the main reason may be that I did not write about myself but about „what Germany is up to”, and what one can expect from Germany if it is „not up to anything in particular”. I feel completely misunderstood when you diagnose that I am suffering from racism, geopolitics and disregard of historical context. If I were to describe my way of getting at my opinions, I would say that I seem to depart from a deck of historical contexts (several historical situations of the same region through several points of history and their political context), I completely disregard the Mackinder-Haushofer kink of „geopolitics“ (although it makes sense in regions where geography=political situation, e.g. for pillage raids of naval throat-cutters like the Normans and the English), and I am convinced that racism, if taken seriously, is total nonsense (i.e. in the form „person A must act in way B and cannot possibly do anything else, because A is of race C“).

We all read that we all are the children of a small group of Africans that made it from Africa via Palestine to Asia – all „races“ of today developed afterwards, and do have a certain reality – just like red hair has a reality and makes a difference e.g. when contacted by people who either like or dislike red hair in others. But I did not speak of races, but of nations or „Stämme“ (phyla, tribes), and in naming them I refer to their record in history, which is shaped by many factors („race“ being just one of them, but most important being the common history, culture, traditions). Normen (men from the north, i.e. from the North land, Norge/Norway) were terrible 1000 years ago, and are nice folks today… except for relapses like the Normen‘s parliament giving Obama the „nobel prize for peace“ for encouraging him to become the biggest maneater in the White House so far. A „nation“ usually has a „history“ which is then typical for itself. Yes, the Slavs between Elbe and Oder, and those East of the Oder, and the Russians east of those lived there and *never* tried to conquer or steal or destroy the land west of them, while the other way round it was always the goal of the „Germanic“ nation of „Germany“ (including the „Teutonic order” in Eastern Prussia) to steal the land to the east and make the living things on it disappear one way or another. When „Russia“, together with „Germany“ (i.e. Prussia) and Austria (aka The Holy Roman Empire), made an exception to that rule and partitioned Poland until there was nothing Polish left, the „Russian“ ruler was a German (Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst), so the „racist“ or „national“ rule was followed that Germans eat Slavs as a matter of course, but not the other way round.

While everybody in Germany finds this normal and defends it, I wondered what was rong with my disagreement with them. In my youth I took inspiration from „good German authors“ who at a closer look were often Jews (e.g. Heine, Kafka, Karl Kraus, Tucholsky), and worldwide the same factor cannot be ignored: there seems to be one (1) honest intellectual left on Earth, and he is again a Jew (Noam Chomsky). The famous rise of German literature and culture in the XIXth c. had much to do with the Jewish literary salons in Berlin, e.g. that of Rahel Levin. I wondered whether my finding inspiration namely with Jew models had a racial foundation within myself („resonating“ to their typical acting as beacons of culture), i.e. hidden genes. I found no answer to that question and forgot it, but I wonder whether you will find it „racist“. Other nations (Russians, French) do have good writers from their own stock, but we Germans do not or much less so. Still in the XXth c. Germany praised itself as „Land der Dichter und Denker“ (land of poets and thinkers), but in my personal life I did not find a single kindred soul interested in self-thinking and self-writing – except, in school, a catholic Jew who turned into an anglozio shpitzel at the first occasion offered to him.

In talking about „Germany“ in English, the difficulty arises that in German „Germanen“ and „Deutsche“ are different words while in English one has to invent ad hoc descriptions („true Germanics“ etc.) for clearly separating different notions. My complete disgust of the „Germans“ (Deutsche) is the result of an already long life among „them“ (not „us“), made incredibly difficult by their never ending spite, and my lessons of history tell me that I do not overinterpret my personal experience: they are really as mean as they are, only today they play a new masquerade, to „be just and democratic“ – yes, Crankshaw: „Gestapo“ already noted how much Germans like to lie by playing fake roles in fancy dresses.

Please, Alexander P., get your facts a bit more realistic. Yes, there are „Germans” in „Germany” north of the Swabs and Bavarians – the whole old F.R.G. was the non-Slavic part of, uh, „Germany” with Hessen around Frankfurt/M (allegedly today’s Hethites from Anatolia), Friesen like in Holland but west of Holland, Angeln and Sachsen south of Danmark etc. As to the „shrinking German territory“ I‘ll better not start to discuss it. Please check that a country „Germany“ existed not earlier than 1871, before there only was the „Roman (!) Empire of the German nation(!)“ (aka „Austria“ and/or Spain“ etc. etc.), and its territory/ies changed all the time. „Die Germanen” (the Germanics) who beat the Romans in 6 AD in the Teutoburger Wald were neither a country, nor a nation, nor a race, but a loose ad hoc federation of some Germanic tribes, who on their way from the Urals to North Africa happened to be just there just then.

The Bavarians seem to think of themselves as former Celts, just like the Czech or some Czech do. So a Celt „race” may be the basis for a Slavic and a Germanic tribe or nation today. I found typical, „folk” music to be a good indicator of relationships, and indeed, Czech Schrammelmusik and Bavarian Volksmusik are very close – just as brandenburgish ballads (Fritze Bollmann, Zickenschulzes Hochzeit) and Polish ballads (Bal u weteranów) – nothing in common with the sweet sentimental German „lieder” that are oh so afraid to mention anyting else but the moon, the stars, the trees, the weather.

Austria is known to be a „completely Slavic nation with German language”, as, I think, Adolf Rotschild-Schickelgruber found with disgust, longing for true Germany north of Austria., Like Turkey and the USA, Austria has ingested so much from everywhere that they are a special case. My mother was disgusted with them, too: „We say, the situation is serious but not hopeless – the Austrians say, the situation is hopeless but not serious.”

„Merkel” is definitely no Northern Serb, no descendant of the western (or northern southern) Slavs which call themselves „Serby“, and the Germans „Wenden” or „Sorben”; many place names east and south east of Berlin are variations of the s-r-b theme. Martin has dug out much material about them. For all I know, „Merkel“ is the daughter of the Rotschild descendant „Hitler” (and knows it) and has therefore been chosen to continue the work of her father which the same aa/z handlers had chosen before for ruining Europe. Yes, she does the same as her father, trying for some time already to start another war against Russia, which is her reason for living, but which she is too stupid to accomplish. I am not a merkologist, but others write that her (alleged) mother, Herlind Jentzsch from Eastern Prussia, was Jewish, which would be a good reason to regard „Merkel” as completely Jewish according to Israelish definition (where „Jewish“ is a religion which is not checked against a DNA test), so that she is entitled to Israeli citizenship and, according to many people on the Internet, is indeed one of the highly problematic dual passport persons. Her alleged father, Kasner, was an alleged evangelical priest (english spitzel) with Polish ancestors. Her probable real father, „Hitler” was partly Jewish (grandson of an adherent of that religion) and partly from the Waldviertel/Austria, famous for incestuous and therefore not too clear sex relations. His mother, Klara, looked as a young woman *exactly* like „Merkel” at the age she was launched into politics (see a great picture gallery somehwere at http://www.evilyoshida.com).

Everybody in Germany seems to puke at „Merkel” by now – but nobody does the slightest little bit for chasing her out, and this is the general German model of „helpless suffering of an overwhelming occupation” as an excuse for doing nothing. This particular occupation by aa/z scum began with the chasing of Bismarck out of office (1890) and the introduction of „allgerman” division plans for Russia (1891, tried in 1914 and again exactly 50 years later, 1941) and the rise of „scientific antisemitism”. Well, we endure it since then, but cannot do anything about it except making the best out of it..

Dear comrade (as you called me, it‘s ok) Martin (at May 21, 2016 , 05:22 UTC)

I am sorry to say that your knowledge of Poland seems to be much more extensive than intensive. 70 travels … and the knowledge (I mean positive knowledge, neither opinion nor prejudice) you show seems to be exactly zero. You recommend two Wiki_EN articles (about
Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth and Jozef_Pilsudski) which are excellent, but which you cannot possible have looked at and much less read from start to end.

Your „evil bloodsucking Empire“ is there praised e.g. for: „[having been] reluctant to get involved in the Thirty Years’ War; this neutrality spared the country from the ravages of a political-religious conflict which devastated most of contemporary Europe“; for „King John III Sobieski [having] allied himself with Leopold I to deal crushing defeats to the Ottoman Empire. In 1683, the Battle of Vienna marked the final turning point in the 250-year struggle between the forces of Christian Europe and the Islamic Ottoman Empire“; for the „Golden liberty/ies“: „The three regions of the Commonwealth enjoyed a degree of autonomy.(…) Golden Liberty created a state that was unusual for its time, although somewhat similar political systems existed in the contemporary city-states like the Republic of Venice.[your Veneti/Wenden/Wineta=Wolin] (…) At a time when most European countries were headed toward centralization, absolute monarchy and religious and dynastic warfare, the Commonwealth experimented with decentralization, confederation and federation, democracy and religious tolerance.“ Poland in 1791 gave itself the first written democratic constitution in Europe, but: „Russia [= the terrible bloodsucking regime before the arrival of Russian/Soviet communism] feared the revolutionary implications of the May 3rd Constitution’s political reforms and the prospect of the Commonwealth regaining its position as a European power. Catherine the Great [= the German czaress of Russia, Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst] regarded the May constitution as fatal to her influence and declared the Polish constitution Jacobinical [i.e. the same thing as the left wing of the French Revolution]. (…)

The Commonwealth was an important European center for the development of modern social and political ideas. It was famous for its rare quasi-democratic political system, praised by philosophers such as Erasmus; and, during the Counter-Reformation, was known for near-unparalleled religious tolerance, with peacefully coexisting Catholic, Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and Muslim communities. In the 18th century, the French Catholic Rulhiere wrote of 16th century Poland: “This country, which in our day we have seen divided on the pretext of religion, is the first state in Europe that exemplified tolerance. In this state, mosques arose between churches and synagogues. (…) Kraków’s Jagiellonian University is one of the oldest universities in the world (established in 1364), together with the Vilnius University (established in 1579) they were the major scholarly and scientific centers in the Commonwealth. The Komisja Edukacji Narodowej, Polish for Commission for National Education, formed in 1773, was the world’s first national Ministry of Education. (…) In 1628 the Czech teacher, scientist, educator, and writer John Amos Comenius took refuge in the Commonwealth, when the Protestants were persecuted under the Counter Reformation. (…) The two great religious cultures of the Commonwealth, Latin and Eastern Orthodox, coexisted and penetrated each other, which is reflected in the great popularity of icons [… etc, you‘re not interested in religion] (in) the Orthodox Church in the predominantly Latin territories of today’s Poland (Black Madonna) and Lithuania (Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn).

(…) The population of the Commonwealth was never overwhelmingly either Roman Catholic or Polish. This circumstance resulted from Poland’s possession of Ukraine and federation with Lithuania, in both of which countries ethnic Poles were a distinct minority. (…) Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe. Commonwealth was a place were the most radical religious sects, trying to escape persecution in other countries of the Christian world, sought refuge. In 1561 Bonifacio d’Oria, a religious exile living in Poland, wrote of his adopted country’s virtues to a colleague back in Italy: “You could live here in accordance with your ideas and preferences, in great, even the greatest freedoms, including writing and publishing. No one is a censor here.” (…)“

Oh, yes, uh, no: Wiki mentions nowhere in this article the terms „evil“ and „blood-sucking“.

Now about your info that Poland was „governed by a Polish racist Nazi during the time between WW1 and WW2″. Wiki_EN sez in the article you recommended, among other things, about Jozef Pilsudski, school comrade of Feliks Edmundowicz Dzierzynski:

„Describing himself as a descendant of the culture and traditions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Pilsudski believed in a multicultural Poland – a home of nations, recognizing numerous ethnic and religious nationalities and finally existing in strong historical alliance with independent states of Lithuania and Ukraine. (…) Early in his political career, Pilsudski became a leader of the Polish Socialist Party. (…) In 1914 he anticipated the outbreak of a European war, the Russian Empire’s defeat by the Central Powers, and the Central Powers’ defeat by the western powers [so he was *much* more intelligent than our Kaiser Wilhelm II who thought long afterwards that he would win]. (…) From November 1918, when Poland regained independence, until 1922 Piłsudski was Poland’s Chief of State. [and later held and left other positions, but never headed a PL government, “governed“ PL. The very first PL gov‘t under his authority] was predominantly socialist and introduced many reforms long proclaimed as necessary by the Polish Socialist Party, such as the eight-hour day, free school education, and women’s suffrage. (…) In addition, the country had to unify the disparate systems of law, economics, and administration in the former German, Austrian and Russian sectors of Poland. There were nine legal systems, five currencies, 66 types of rail systems (with 165 models of locomotives [how many of them did you photograph?]), which all had to be consolidated on an expedited basis. (…) Wacław Jędrzejewicz, in „Pilsudski: A Life for Poland“, describes Pilsudski as very deliberate in his decision-making. He collected all available pertinent information, then took his time weighing it before arriving at a final decision. Pilsudski drove himself hard, working all day and all night [very much like comrade Stalin, right?] He maintained a spartan lifestyle, eating plain meals alone at an inexpensive restaurant. Though Pilsudski was popular with much of the Polish public, his reputation as a loner (the result of many years’ underground work), as a man who distrusted almost everyone, led to strained relations with other Polish politicians.

(…) The Bolsheviks (…) proclaimed the partitions of Poland null and void. Pilsudski thus speculated that Poland would be better off with the Bolsheviks, alienated from the Western powers, than with a restored Russian Empire. By ignoring the strong pressures from the Entente Cordiale to join the attack on Vladimir Lenin’s struggling Soviet government, Piłsudski probably saved the Bolshevik government in the summer and fall of 1919. (…) On 1 July 1920, in view of the rapidly advancing Soviet offensive, Poland’s parliament, the Sejm, formed a Council for Defense of the Nation. It was chaired by Pilsudski (…) The National Democrats, however, contended that the string of Bolshevik victories had been Pilsudski’s fault and demanded that he resign; some even accused him of treason. (…) The Entente pressured Poland to surrender and enter into negotiations with the Bolsheviks. Pilsudski, however, was a staunch advocate of continuing the fight. As Norman Davies noted, at that time, especially abroad, “Pilsudski had nothing of his later prestige…“(…) All – from Lenin to Lloyd George, from Pravda to Morning Star – considered him a military and political failure. In August 1920 all were in agreement that his catastrophic career will be crowned with the fall of Warsaw.” Yet over the next few weeks, Poland’s risky, unconventional strategy at the August 1920 Battle of Warsaw halted the Soviet advance. (…)

When the Chjeno-Piast coalition, which Pilsudski had strongly criticized, formed a new government, on 12–14 May 1926, Pilsudski returned to power in a coup d’état (the May Coup), supported by the Polish Socialist Party, Liberation, the Peasant Party, and even the Polish Communist Party. (…) One of Pilsudski’s main goals was to transform the parliamentary system into a presidential system; however, he opposed the introduction of totalitarianism. The adoption of a new Polish constitution in April 1935, tailored by Pilsudski’s supporters to his specifications — providing for a strong presidency — came too late for Pilsudski to seek that office; but the April Constitution would serve Poland up to the outbreak of World War II and would carry its Government in Exile through to the end of the war and beyond. (…) Pilsudski’s regime began a period of national stabilization and of improvement in the situation of ethnic minorities, which formed about a third of the Second Republic’s population. Pilsudski replaced the (former) “ethnic-assimilation” with a “state-assimilation” policy: citizens were judged not by their ethnicity but by their loyalty to the state. Widely recognized for his opposition to the National Democrats antisemitic policies, he extended his policy of “state-assimilation” to Polish Jews. The years 1926–35, and Pilsudski himself, were favorably viewed by many Polish Jews (…) Many Jews saw Pilsudski as their only hope for restraining antisemitic currents in Poland and for maintaining public order; he was seen as a guarantor of stability and a friend of the Jewish people, who voted for him and actively participated in his political bloc. Pilsudski’s death in 1935 brought a deterioration in the quality of life of Poland’s Jews. (…)

Pilsudski sought to maintain his country’s independence in the international arena, (…) sought support for Poland in alliances with western powers such as France and the United Kingdom, and with friendly, if less powerful, neighbors such as Romania and Hungary. (…) Pilsudski (…) aimed also to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union and Germany; hence Poland signed non-aggression pacts with both its powerful neighbors: the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, and the 1934 German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The two treaties were meant to strengthen Poland’s position in the eyes of its allies and neighbors. (…) Hitler repeatedly suggested a German-Polish alliance against the Soviet Union, but Pilsudski declined, instead seeking precious time to prepare for potential war with Germany or with the Soviet Union. Just before his death, Pilsudski told Jozef Beck that it must be Poland’s policy to maintain neutral relations with Germany and keep up the Polish alliance with France, and to improve relations with the United Kingdom.“

The words „racist“ and „nazi“ are not used in this article for describing Pilsudski.

I think a good idea for trying to understand Poles and Poland is to assume that they are – in stark contrast to Germany – a free country with free people. They are entitled and used to have different opinions and to voice them if asked, and it is very easy with them to „agree to disagree“ – unheard of in our eternal German muckertum. Here the only option is „to find hidden enemies – traitors! – and destroy them“, where „enemy/traitor“ is everyone with an opinion differing in the slightest from the sh§t in heads like that of Schäuble or „Merkel“.

When I visited a concert of Zhanna Bichevskaja in Poznan, or a folk ensemble from Voronezh at music festivals in Kostrzyn and Cychry, never the slightest little bit of „Polish hatred for Russians“ ever turned up. They have a Russian Film Festival every year in Warsaw that is more important than the one in Berlin. When you like to go there, do it! When you want to dislike Russians, do that! From my looks into the Polish press I got the impression that *not* „only the evil Russians are preventing them from happiness“, but also low wages, corruption scandals, railways operating much slower „than the German ones in 1938 on the same route“ etc. etc. The newest evil is the new government, which has been elected by the Polish people, but not by the Polish „liberal“ press – even the old Catholic battle horse, Tygodnik Powszechny, disagrees with the very Catholic Kaczynski regime.

By the way, in Tygodnik Powszechny, #3486, pp.53-55, bought in Kostrzyn on this year‘s Polish national holiday, I found a smashing story by Tomasz Targanski, „Sa,siedi za murem“ (Neighbours behind the wall) about the first ghetto, invented 500 years ago in our Slavic Wenecja, which was then the only place in Europe – apart from the Kingdom of Poland, see above – where Jews could live in the security of firm walls and firm laws which protected them. One of the burning questions on the Internet, where the Khazarian Mafia (TM) came from and why they choose namely Yiddish as their language, answers itself through this article.

I‘d like to propose to you to try places like the newspaper shop at Bahnhof Zoo (for Ostberlin I am sceptical), and find, say, Polityka among the foreign press. It costs 3E to buy, but you can read it there for free. Your Russian will help you to decipher Polish, and you can begin to get a realistic picture of what interests Poles apart from hating Russians.

Cheers

For all other readers I‘d like to point out that one main preoccupation of true Germans is not to say what we want (someone could hear it and disagree and this could be dangerous), but who we , uh, all dislike – e.g. Poles. Everybody can agree on that, and then… our führers will make foreign policy out of it, tomorrow as in the past. If at least facts would be taken into account, these things might be better in the future than in the past.