Czar? You mean Commissar

There is a new silliness in the Western Anglo Media, comparing the US Emperor's Czar program to the number of Tsars that Holy Russia had. It is a good thing that the US/UK public is ignorant not only of ancient history but also of recent history, otherwise they might start to worry.

So let us go back and establish some historic references. Czar or rather Tsar, is a degradation of the Latin term Ceasar, similar to Germany's Kaiser. Ceasar, originally the family name of one Julious Ceasar, who almost became Rome's first Emperor, before his assassination, lent his family name to the title of Roman emperors.

The first use of the term in Russia was during the reign of Ivan Grozny (Ivan the Feared, which the Anglos mistranslate to "The Terrible") Before this, the term "князь" knyaz or "принц" prince, was used. The Moscow princes, being the new center of the Rus, Kiev being held by Catholic Poles, were called the grand princes (велики князь).

Ivan Grozny got the other princes under his rule, to refer to him as Tsar. They did it to humor their half mad overlord, not realizing the importance of words. Ivan, however, knew their power and that of titles in the human psyche and knew that once the title of Tsar stuck, he and his prodigy would forever be associated as some one absolutely separate and above the regular knyazi: an emperor rather than a challengable grand prince.

Now we forward several hundred years to the Wall Street sponsored Russian Revolution and Civil War and the Marxists take over of Holy Russia.

In order to control the vast nation and its revolutionary reshaping during a chaotic time, Lenin and later Stalin, created a system of Commissars. These were not limited to military and instilling party loyalty, but were used throughout Soviet society. A commissar and his staff had absolute authority, answering only to the dictator and by-passing the various local councils and people's senates. Two things to note here:

1. their spheres were ambiguous and often over lapped responsibilities of other commissars. This in turn caused a large volume of infighting. Sure this is very wasteful of resources and confusing, but what it does do, is allow the dictator to keep ultimate power by keeping his most powerful minions at each others throats with the dictator as the ultimate arbitrator of power.

2. The commissars were mostly young, had little achievement outside the power structure, self assured, true believers. They knew very well that outside their positions, created and granted by the dictator, they had little hope of career success. They were given responsibility much higher then their experience levels, further beholding them to their owner. It made them extremely jealous of their power, which in turn made them vengeful against anyone who stood in their way, especially other power hungry commissars.

Fast forward to modern transitional America. The American Emperor has taken the six commissars of his leftist predecessor and created at least 28 more. Yes, commissars do multiply quickly at first and many more are in the works, until the American parliament (congress) and the oblasts (states) assemblies (state senates) are powerless show pieces and all power centers (commissars) flow only to the dictator.

So while the Anglo owned talking mental traps compare the American commissars to Russian holy emperors (Tsars) answerable to God, the Church, holy and societal tradition, the nobility and popular uprisings (we had plenty).

The Commissars (Czars) of Emperor Obama, answerable to none but the Emperor, consolidate power on a level realizable only in the Marxist, Godless society of absolutes, not in a traditional Orthodox Christian monarchy.

So Americans can call them what they want, but we Russians and the US emperor know their true name: Commissar.

World War 2, the Debate Goes On

It has been 64 years since the end of the Great Patriot War, better known in the West and the rest of the world as World War 2, but the debate over the victory and its debasement has never been stronger or more ruthlessly waged. It is time to set things straight.

First we will work through the favorite Myths that the West loves to use against Russia.

Myth 1: Poland was the first victim of the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

First of all, let us set the stage on Poland. Between 1918 and 1924, Poland invaded all of its neighbors with the exception of Germany. It was an aggressor before it even became a fascist state, in the military coup of 1926, which made it, after Italy, Europe's 2nd fascist state. Poland invaded Ukraine twice, first against the nationalists and then against the Soviets. It also invaded Belarus and took from it and Ukraine the western provinces that were then reoccupied by the Soviet Union post Poland's fall to Germany in 1939. Poland also invaded Lithuania capturing and holding Tallinn. It invaded Czechoslovakia but was beaten back. Finally it invaded and captured several key villages around Danzig, which were in neutral League of Nations enclaves.

During the wars in Ukraine, the Poles massacred somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million Russian POWs that they had taken.

Poland further ran concentration camps for Orthodox Christians, while it burned them out of its Ukrainian and Belarus provinces, since they refused to convert to Catholicism. Thus it is no surprise that Poland had no qualms about backing and allying with Hitler in 1937 and 1938 when the Nazis moved to dissect Czechoslovakia. Hitler, in the Munich Conference of 1938, represented not only Germany's claims on the Sudetenland but also land claims of Hungary and Poland. The falling out came when Hitler demanded that Poland should now join him in his crusade against the Soviets. Being sated, the Poles saw no reason to wage war on their borders and refused. Thus Hitler's drive for revenge.

It should further be noted that it was Polish nationalists who ran the concentration camps in which tens of thousands of German civilians died in 1946.


Myth 2. The War Turned On the Normandy Invasion

Easiest to disprove. By the time the Western Allies landed in Normandy, the Red Army sat on the Vistula in Poland and were 100km inside of Romania, having just destroyed the German 6th Army for a second time (first being Stalingrad).

Myth 3. The Main Fighting was on the Western Front

While not to disparage the veterans and the dead who fought at Normandy, Americans point to the 10,000 or so dead they took as a giant sacrifice. Of course this is ridiculous by the standards of the Patriot War. On Mamayev Kurgan, the hill overlooking Stalingrad (Volgograd), over which both sides fought for 2 months, had 60,000 bodies littering it, about half from each side. That is, those were the bodies that were not buried to deep by artillery, to find.

It is a simple fact that 8 out of 10 German casualties, most of the Hungarian casualties, half of the Italian casualties, all of the Spanish (yes they sent the Blue Division), Finnish, Romanian, Bulgarian and many of the Croatian casualties were on the Eastern (Russian) Front. Simply put, the West never had the stomach for the casualties that were taken by all sides of the Eastern Front, but it has no whims, especially through Hollywood, to try to steal the credit that was earned in rivers of blood.


Myth 4. The Red Army committed mass suffering upon the German population, while the West treated them well.

Of the eight million German civilians who died during World War 2 (8 million compared to 20 million Soviet civilians), 6 million died from US/UK bombs, as the two systematically incinerated each and every single German city in a drive to exterminate the population. How many additional civilians died from direct fighting and artillery bombardments, on the Western Front, is unknown. It should be noted that in 1943 there was a lively debate in America about the whole scale extermination of the German race, which was seen as to barbaric to live along side with.

Bombings would come in 3 waves, first with iron bombs, in which one in four had a variable timer detonator that could explode upto a week or month or longer later to kill returning civilians. Once lots of ruble was created, phosphate fire bombing started. A fire storm was created that would reach up to 6km into the air, sucking oxygen out of bunkers or incinerating the civilians hiding, from the heat of the fire storm. Finally a wave of anti-personal bombs to catch fleeing civilians, fire crews and medical staffs. These would continue for upto three or four days over an individual city.

Then there are the million or so German troops who died in open fields, under the elements, after surrendering to US and French forces. Instead of POW camps, they were taken to open fields, surrounded by wire and left to freeze. Others were worked to death. This continued well into 1946.

Besides this, there are the issues of mass rapes of Italian civilians by British colonial troops, who decided to sow their seed anywhere they landed in Europe.

Myth 5: America won the war against the Japanese almost single handedly.

Outside of the fact that British, Australian, French, Danish and Indian forces tied down over a third of the Japanese army both on the islands and throughout SE Asia, through out the duration of the war, an accomplishment, without which the US victories on the islands would have been impossible.

The Chinese also tied down a huge amount of Japanese forces, as well as various local tribal contingents, who did their part.

However, Japan's biggest defeats were from the Russian army. That's right, these were no Iwo Jimas where some 30 or 40 thousands Japanese were holed up on an island and surrounded from all sides. The battles in 1939 and again in 1945 defeated two full Japanese armies in Manchuka (Manchuria) and paved first for the Japanese southern drive in 1939, thus allowing for the halting of Hitler's drive on Moscow in 1941 and then collapsed the Japanese mainland war effort with the defeat of some 500,000 Japanese forces in Manchuria.


Though these myths are insulting and invasive upon the real history of that great tragedy, it is the total revisionism of the war by several EU nations that is most disturbing. In the Baltics, there is absolute revisionism, creating heroes out of the murderers of the Nazi regime. This is not some fringe movement, but one financed and backed by the local governments.

Then there is the US/EU puppet in Ukraine, Yushinko, who openly praises the western Ukrainian SS auxiliaries as national heroes. There must be some Jews and Orthodox Christians left in Lvov some where, getting Yushinko's blood into a rage.

Similar issues have come up in Croatia, Hungary and recently in Moldova, with Romanian support.

It is time to take the many excellent Russian movies about the Patriotic War and translate them into English, German and French and launch them into the West. Maybe the knowledge will help the West avoid the same mistakes as of 64 years ago.

Yes, the Past 100 Years Were the Fault of Russia

Or rather of one Russia, Tsar Alexander II, who let his feelings of anger lead him into the worst decision in the past 500 years of history and a decision that would cost over 100 million lives. That fateful decision was made in 1861.

What was the main event of 1861, that so drew a decision whose results would not only reverberate through but shape to the core the 20th century? Was it the conquest of Mexico City by Porfirio Diaz? Or the patenting of the flush toilet by Thomas Crapper? Or maybe the abolishment of serfdom by the very same Alexander II? No, not that or the dozen other such events, but the opening of the American Civil War.

The fateful and short sighted decision of the tsar was to side with the Federal US government instead of the Confederacy. If all truth be told, Imperial Russian culture was much closer to gentile Confederacy than the industrialized, indentured North. However, the Confederacy had to benefactors who were unpalatable to Russia at that time: England and France. While mostly on rather than off Russian allies, at that point, only 5 years had passed since the end of the Crimean War, where both of these powers had allied with the Islamic and blood thirsty Turks against the Orthodox Christians and the Russian Empire in particular.

It can be understood that the Tsar had much angst about finding himself on the same side as these two enemies and thus made the decision that would doom the Empire and several others and would lead humanity to the sorry state that it is in today, on the brink of yet another global financial disaster and possible multiple wars.

No other decision made by foreigners had such a powerful influence on the out come of the American Civil War. By siding with the North and placing his fleets into New York and San Fransico harbors, Tsar Alexander II issued a direct threat to both England and France that intervention, that is recognition or more, of the Confederacy would lead to war with Russia. This doomed the Southern effort in the long run and thus also the Russian, French, British and German Empires with it.

But what would have happened if Russia had stayed at worst neutral or at best allied with the Confederacy?

Well for one, the Confederacy would have won her freedom. The North would have been morally and politically defeated and economically damaged, damage that would have taken a several decades to recover from. During this time frame, more than likely, the weakened Union would have been drawn into the orbit of the rising German star, as the Union would have needed allies against the combined might of the Confederacy to the south, Mexico also to the south, Britain and her Canadian holdings to the north, Russia to the west and France to the east.

Spain would have still lost her last Carri bean holdings, Cuba and Puerto Rico, to the Confederacy which would have annexed them. But Spain would have continued to hold Guam and the Philippines, at least until the rising star of Japan ripped them away from it.

The main question, though, would have been: what would have happened when World War 1, the Great War, started? Well obvious enough, Germany and the Central Powers would have won. But would that have been such a terrible thing? To begin with, this was not a war of ideology and this was not Germany under Hitler of the late 1930s.

The Union would have more than likely been allied to the Kaiser and would have found itself in a two front war, with British Canada in the north and the Confederacy and more than likely Mexico to the South. Russian fleets out of Alaska would have raided too. Thus though, not only would the Allies not receive fresh Yank reinforcements in 1916, but instead would have been fighting them. Britain would not have been able to draw on Canadian support either and would have had to instead divert troops to defend it. As such, the Central Powers would have surely won.

So now what? What would have happened? In North America, Canada would have more than likely fallen to the North, but the Confederacy would have survived. With the technology of the day, the Confederacy on the defensive, with powerful rivers and mountain ranges and deep forests as barriers would have ground the North to a stand still.

In Europe, Germany and Austro-Hungary as well as their Bulgarian and Turkish allies would have gained land, mostly at the expense of north eastern France, an annexed Belgium and Netherlands, parts of northern Italy and southern Romania and Russian Poland.

Key to everything would have been the avoided collapse of the Russian Empire and the destruction of the Marxists. The Russian civil war would never have gotten nearly as far. With Wall Street allied to Germany and much much poorer than what was the reality of 1917, the Bolsheviks would have been hard pressed for funds. At the same time, there is absolutely no way that the Kaiser would have allowed the Marxists to sit on Russia's throne. That would be reserved for either one of the Kaiser's Romanov cousins or for some Germany prince who would have become a Russian nationalist anyways.

Thus the whole foundation of World War 2, the Cold War and the various wars and crusades since, would have collapsed. As well the Islamic Arabs and their Jihads would never have been started either and Islam would have been kept in check both in the Middle East and in Europe, where nationalistic and Christian Kings, Kaisers and Tsars would have been loath to allow them in, unlike the Trotskyte Marxists who are the masters of the modern and dieing West.

Yes, Union victory was the worst of all things to happen to the world and Alexander II in his shortsightedness on the subject, more than anyone facilitated it's happening.