Grover Furr: Stalin was demonized

Thanks Jeremy, I'll read those articles later today. And FWIW, that's what they have on RT's Russiapedia at the end of the Stalin entry:

http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/leaders/joseph-stalin/

Assessment of Stalin’s era

Such an outstanding person could not but invoke polar opinions about his activity; and there are several schools of thought. The advocates of liberal thought view Stalin as the executioner of freedom and initiative, a creator of the totalitarian society and a criminal who committed so many crimes against humanity he could only be compared to Adolf Hitler.

The Communist Party has an ambivalent perception of Stalin. The pro-Stalinists justify his every deed and see him as the true successor to Lenin, while those in the opposition deem Stalin a traitor and betrayer of Lenin’s ideas.

The extremist wing praises Stalin as the only true salvation and the only real ruler suited for Russia. They see his “strong hand” policy as the only true way to have revived the Russian state.

Today the role of Stalin in Russian history is the subject of bitter public debate, with a number of Russian history textbooks calling him “an effective manager” and others presenting him as absolute evil.

RT's series of documentaries provides a detailed thrilling desciption of Stalin's purges.
 
Jeremy F Kreuz said:
Russia media is also increasingly discussing Stalin - here a article (only in Russian - and mine is not yet good enough to understand/translate fully)

Миф о Сталине: разоблачение фальсификаций - http://politrussia.com/istoriya/menya-sprosili-nuzhen-456/
(The Stalin Myth: dispelling falsifications)

Right now about 52% of Russians have a positive opinion of Stalin, while only 30% a negative one. The article points out that USSR's population actually grew considerably during the Stalin era (no mean feat, considering the damage wrought by WW2), as compared to the decrease during the "liberal" rule of the 1990s. Moreover, even at the height of the Purges, a smaller proportion of USSR's population were repressed than are imprisoned in the United States today. That Stalin presided over a tremendous developmental leap forward goes without saying.

In the process of reading it, at the economy chapter right now. I think that's not the best sign they get their data from "Наука" (Wiki.ru) / Nauka (publisher) - I'm pretty sure it was full of propaganda data back in the 1970s.

To get an idea about the mystery behind that 'economic boom', I recommend Sutton's summary:

_http://mailstar.net/sutton.html
((1) Sutton's Conclusions to his Trilogy; Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945 to 1965)

In the 1970's(!) Sutton wrote a well documented trilogy on Western involvement in Soviet economy in the years 1917-1965. The three volumes of over 500 pages each can be found here:
_http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Western_Technology_%26_Soviet_Economic_Development
but to have an idea just read the conclusions linked above. I'm not sure Stalin deserves full credits for that boom. And the price was 1) paying mostly with raw materials and 2) complete dependence on the West.

And add to it the German-Soviet credit agreement of August 19, 1939, signed just 4 days before the M-R Pact:
_http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cmr_1252-6576_1995_num_36_1_2425
Between the political arrangement of August 1939 and the German attack on June 1941, economic relations between the two states had increased in an extraordinary way on the basis of the credit agreement of August 19, 1939, and the two economic contracts of February 11, 1940, and January 10, 1941. While in 1939 the German- Soviet trade capacity of 61 million RM hit the low of the time between the two world wars, it rose to a total turnover of 600 million RM in 1940 and reached a peak of about 425 million RM in the first half of 1941. ...
 
Just thought I'd throw this out. We know that Hitler was one sick puppy and Stalin was definitely not an "angel" either. But both of them went against the money power in an unexpected way and were demonized because of THAT, not because of their evil deeds. They undermined the private central banking interests.

In Nicolai Starikov's book Ruble Nationalization: The Way to Russia's Freedom, he outlines how the Russian Constitution was written in the 1990's by "western experts" to enslave Russia to the IMF and Bank of International Settlements (the only country that has this written into the constitution, in addition to the Law about the Central Bank). He also lays out how Stalin didn't ratify the Bretton Woods agreement that set the post WWII monetary, financial, and economic system dominated by US in place. Starikov advocates to ditch the IMF agreements and nationalize the Russian central bank to be able to issue Rubles for their own development needs without restrictions from international bankers. He credits Stalin's stance on this issue as one of his greatest accomplishments under huge pressure. FWIW.
 
Regarding the wars between Soviet Union and Finland, that's really a can of worms! In the recent year, I've started (finally) to read about it, from different sources. The more I read, the more murky everything gets. There was something really fishy going on in Finland during those times. For instance, the highly lionized character Mannerheim, seems to have been nothing of the sort that is believed.

As it happens, I just published on the Finnish SOTT an article about a book that has just come out. The Finnish researcher, Aleksi Mainio did a whole doctoral dissertation on the topic of "The invisible war: Finland as a base for counter revolutionary terrorism and spying during 1918-1939" [my translation of the Finnish title]. The book he wrote based on that dissertation is (so far) only available in Finnish, it's called "Terroristien pesä: Suomi ja taistelu Venäjästä 1918 - 1939." [rough translation: The terrorists' nest: Finland and the battle for Russia 1918-1939].

He has obviously done extensive research on the subject. In the abstract in English we can read:

The October Revolution in 1917 led to Europe being divided into two camps. The turmoil in Russia also affected Finland, the territory of which became a safe haven for different counterrevolutionary organisations. It is possible to even talk about an invisible war between Finland and the Soviet Union although officially the countries had reached a peace agreement in 1920.

This doctoral thesis examines how different White Russian intelligence and military organisations used the territory of Finland for counterrevolutionary activities between 1918 and 1939. It also discusses the relations of the Finnish Security Police and the Military Intelligence of the General Staff with the underground organisations and the attitude of Finnish authorities towards their illegal activities.

No comprehensive research has previously been made on these activities. Nor have the groups operating in Finland been formerly examined in a broader international context. Research on these movements and their operations in Finland has therefore remained fragmented and unconnected with the broader picture of the anti-Bolshevistic activity in Russia and the whole of Europe.

One of the main conclusions of this thesis is that the territory of Finland served as a significant base for counterrevolutionary operations. Between 1918 and 1939, White Russian emigrants organised intelligence operations and even terrorist attacks against the Soviet Union from the territory of Finland. These events resulted from the previous history of the country and its geopolitical location close to Leningrad and Moscow as well as from the traditions of Finnish activism.

This thesis also shows that the White Russian emigrant organisations were closely linked with Finnish security authorities. Arranging terrorist and intelligence operations against the Soviet Union would have been almost impossible without their active or at least passive support.

The General Staff, in particular, and the Finnish Security Police to a certain extent, were ready to tolerate and even support the secret activities of White Russian emigrants under certain conditions. This resulted from their desire to affect the developments in the Soviet Union but also from the great demand for intelligence on the neighbouring country. Without close cooperation with the emigrant organisations this would have been difficult to achieve.

Such cooperation was a major risk for Finland and its relations with the Soviet Union. From time to time it might even have brought the countries onto the verge of a military conflict. Soviet propaganda used the support of Finnish authorities to emigrant activists involved in terrorist attack plans to harm the reputation of Finland and to justify the shift towards an increasingly totalitarian system.

If I've understood correctly, the 'White Russians' were those who were cast out during the revolution in Russia. Perhaps they can seen like the '5th column' of their time. I think I need to read the book to understand this correctly. In any case, if nothing else, this proves - once again - how the Finnish authorities were involved in highly suspicious activities, staging strong provocations against the Russian leadership. Adding to that, the Finnish alliance with Hitler's Germany, must have been (at least) one of the causes that made Stalin start the wars against Finland. Saying this in Finland is a big no-no. If you even hint at the fact, that Finland acted as an aggressor before the war(s) started, you're labeled as a Kremlin-troll, Putinist, whatever.

I may be way of with my assessment, but the book and dissertation looks in any case interesting!
 
SeekinTruth said:
Just thought I'd throw this out. We know that Hitler was one sick puppy and Stalin was definitely not an "angel" either. But both of them went against the money power in an unexpected way and were demonized because of THAT, not because of their evil deeds. They undermined the private central banking interests.

Are you sure? From Sutton's 'Conclusions' chapter in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler book:

We have demonstrated with documentary evidence a number of critical associations
between Wall Street international bankers and the rise of Hitler and Naziism in Germany.

First: that Wall Street financed the German cartels in the mid-1920s which in turn proceeded
to bring Hitler to power.

Second: that the financing for Hitler and his S.S. street thugs came in part from affiliates or
subsidiaries of U.S. firms, including Henry Ford in 1922, payments by I.G. Farben and
General Electric in 1933, followed by the Standard Oil of New Jersey and I.T.T. subsidiary
payments to Heinrich Himmler up to 1944.

Third: that U.S. multi-nationals under the control of Wall Street profited handsomely from
Hitler's military construction program in the 1930s and at least until 1942.

Fourth: that these same international bankers used political influence in the U.S. to cover up
their wartime collaboration and to do this infiltrated the U.S. Control Commission for
Germany. ...

Finally, in Chapter Eleven we examined the roles of the Morgan and Chase Banks in World
War II, specifically their collaboration with the Nazis in France while a major war was
raging.

In other words, as in our two previous examinations of the links between New York
international bankers and major historical events, we find a provable pattern of subsidy and
political manipulation.

The Pervasive Influence of International Bankers

Looking at the broad array of facts presented in the three volumes of the Wall Street series,
we find persistent recurrence of the same names: Owen Young, Gerard Swope, Hjalmar
Schacht, Bernard Baruch, etc.; the same international banks: J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust,
Chase Bank; and the same location in New York: usually 120 Broadway.

This group of international bankers backed the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequently
profited from the establishment of a Soviet Russia. This group backed Roosevelt and
profited from New Deal socialism. This group also backed Hitler and certainly profited from
German armament in the 1930s. When Big Business should have been running its business
operations at Ford Motor, Standard of New Jersey, and so on, we find it actively and deeply
involved in political upheavals, war, and revolutions in three major countries.

The version of history presented here is that the financial elite knowingly and with
premeditation assisted the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in concert with German bankers.
After profiting handsomely from the German hyper-inflationary distress of 1923, and
planning to place the German reparations burden onto the backs of American investors,
Wall Street found it had brought about the 1929 financial crisis.

Two men were then backed as leaders for major Western countries: Franklin D. Roosevelt in
the United States and Adolf Hitler in Germany. The Roosevelt New Deal and Hitler's Four
Year Plan had great similarities. The Roosevelt and Hitler plans were plans for fascist
takeovers of their respective countries. While Roosevelt's NRA failed, due to then-operating
constitutional constraints, Hitler's Plan succeeded.


Sutton said:
In exchange for financial and industrial support arranged by yon Schrader, he later gained
political prestige. Immediately after the Nazis gained power in 1933 Schrader became the
German representative at the Bank for International Settlements, which Quigley calls the
apex of the international control system, as well as head of the private bankers group
advising the German Reichsbank. Heinrich Himmler appointed Sehroder an S.S. Senior
Group Leader, and in turn Himmler became a prominent member of Keppler's Circle. (See
Chapter Nine.)

In 1938 the Schroder Bank in London became the German financial agent in Great Britain,
represented at financial meetings by its Managing Director (and a director of the Bank of
England), F.C. Tiarks. By World War II Baron Schrader had in this manner acquired an
impressive list of political and banking connections reflecting a widespread influence; it was
even reported to the U.S. Kilgore Committee that Schrader was influential enough in 1940
to bring Pierre Laval to power in France.

Sutton analyses also a lot of indirect connections to big bankers in his book.

There is an interview on YT: Antony C Sutton: Wall Street and the rise of Hitler & communism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sah_Xni-gtg

Am I missing something? :huh:
 
My reference to Hitler was the way the Nazi regime began to issue currency to pay off the reparations from WWI and create jobs in Nazi Germany (high unemployment and the awful economy had caused a crisis). I know the Wall Street bankers financed the Nazis to come to power (just as many of the Bolshevik revolutionaries were western banker financed). I was just saying that when both Hitler's and Stalin's regimes took control over issuing their own country's currency, there was a big backlash (and a major reason for a drive to war - the bankers and industrialists profited from war, but also wanted to destroy the regimes to get money creation as national debt back under their control). For some reason, there is a widespread myth that only private central bankers can issue currency "responsibly" that is widely accepted. It's only so they can skim off huge profits from endless debt, control whole countries' and continents' economies, and own everything valuable if the indebted are unable to pay the debts.

An interesting question is why did the Nazis (aside from the more recent in-your-face revisions and attempted rehabilitation) become so demonized when they were also financed and backed by the transnational oligarchs? Same with Stalin, the Bolshevik Revolution was financed and backed by the same oligarchs and bankers. There's the point of geopolitical strategy to weaken / destroy Germany and Russia, the military-industrial complex, etc. But I think the control of the of the money supply is a major issue for why they were demonized too. After WWII, there were also several crazy programs to nuke the Soviets.
 
Z said:
FWIW in this documentary there is an interesting account about Stalin from Gurdjijeff starting at 24:50


Yeah, there are some speculations that Gurdjieff and Stalin could possibly study together in Tiflis Spiritual Seminary between 1899 and 1901. It's a fact that Stalin studied there, but I couldn't find anything concerning Gurdjieff. None of his biographies I could find (including William Patrick Patterson's book) ever mention Gurdjieff's study in Tiflis Spiritual Seminary.
 
SeekinTruth said:
An interesting question is why did the Nazis (aside from the more recent in-your-face revisions and attempted rehabilitation) become so demonized when they were also financed and backed by the transnational oligarchs?

I think it's a part of "divine and conquer" game of PTB's: pump up both regimes (Hitler and Stalin), support them secretly, then bring them to war against each other, profit from this war and then blame both villains while staying unnoticed in the shadow. It has always been so. It's good described in Gods of Eden.
 
Altair said:
Yeah, there are some speculations that Gurdjieff and Stalin could possibly study together in Tiflis Spiritual Seminary between 1899 and 1901. It's a fact that Stalin studied there, but I couldn't find anything concerning Gurdjieff. None of his biographies I could find (including William Patrick Patterson's book) ever mention Gurdjieff's study in Tiflis Spiritual Seminary.

It's here, quoted by AI from Paul Beekman Taylor's biography of G. and other sources.
 
SeekinTruth said:
My reference to Hitler was the way the Nazi regime began to issue currency to pay off the reparations from WWI and create jobs in Nazi Germany (high unemployment and the awful economy had caused a crisis). I know the Wall Street bankers financed the Nazis to come to power (just as many of the Bolshevik revolutionaries were western banker financed). I was just saying that when both Hitler's and Stalin's regimes took control over issuing their own country's currency, there was a big backlash (and a major reason for a drive to war - the bankers and industrialists profited from war, but also wanted to destroy the regimes to get money creation as national debt back under their control). For some reason, there is a widespread myth that only private central bankers can issue currency "responsibly" that is widely accepted. It's only so they can skim off huge profits from endless debt, control whole countries' and continents' economies, and own everything valuable if the indebted are unable to pay the debts.

An interesting question is why did the Nazis (aside from the more recent in-your-face revisions and attempted rehabilitation) become so demonized when they were also financed and backed by the transnational oligarchs? Same with Stalin, the Bolshevik Revolution was financed and backed by the same oligarchs and bankers. There's the point of geopolitical strategy to weaken / destroy Germany and Russia, the military-industrial complex, etc. But I think the control of the of the money supply is a major issue for why they were demonized too. After WWII, there were also several crazy programs to nuke the Soviets.

Firstly, please excuse my ignorance :-[ but I couldn't find anything reliable about Hitler/Nazis issuing their own currency, cutting off from the Wall Street gang after having been helped to come to power and fighting the Big Depression by themselves. The only sources I managed to find were Makow, rense and alike. This makes me wonder if that is not part of the same agenda with the crowd claiming that Hitler was not so bad. If you can suggest some good sources, I'd gladly read it.

You know, it just doesn't make sense to me; that's not how this world works. You can't just say 'thank you guys and now I'm going to go my way' to the Big Ones who invested in bringing you to power. And if you do it anyway, you are shortly dead.

There are also facts hard to ignore. Wall Street brought the Nazis to power. In 1930, Schacht set up the BIS. In 1933 Hitler made Schacht the president of the Reichsbank and German representative to BIS. BIS was established for the purpose of managing German reparations. Schacht was made responsible for arranging funds for the building of the Third Reich. In the years 1933-1945, Funk and Puhl (Nazi economist) were part of BIS board of directors along with some other big fish from the other side of the pond.

That's what Sutton writes about reparations in the first chapter:

The contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940 can only be described as phenomenal. It was certainly crucial to German military capabilities. For instance, in 1934 Germany produced domestically only 300,000 tons of natural petroleum products and less than 800,000 tons of synthetic gasoline; the balance was imported. Yet, ten years later in World War II, after transfer of the Standard Oil of New Jersey hydrogenation patents and technology to I. G. Farben (used to produce synthetic gasoline from coal), Germany produced about 6 1/2 million tons of oil — of which 85 percent (5 1/2 million tons) was synthetic oil using the Standard Oil hydrogenation process. Moreover, the control of synthetic oil output in Germany was held by the I. G. Farben subsidiary, Braunkohle-Benzin A. G., and this Farben cartel itself was created in 1926 with Wall Street financial assistance. ...

The Treaty of Versailles after World War I imposed a heavy reparations burden on defeated Germany. This financial burden — a real cause of the German discontent that led to acceptance of Hitlerism — was utilized by the international bankers for their own benefit. The opportunity to float profitable loans for German cartels in the United States was presented by the Dawes Plan and later the Young Plan. Both plans were engineered by these central bankers, who manned the committees for their own pecuniary advantages, and although technically the committees were not appointed by the U.S. Government, the plans were in fact approved and sponsored by the Government.

Post-war haggling by financiers and politicians fixed German reparations at an annual fee of 132 billion gold marks. This was about one quarter of Germany's total 1921 exports. When Germany was unable to make these crushing payments, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr to take by force what could not be obtained voluntarily. In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of bankers (headed by American banker Charles G. Dawes) to develop a program of reparations payments. The resulting Dawes Plan was, according to Georgetown University Professor of International Relations Carroll Quigley, "largely a J.P. Morgan production." The Dawes Plan arranged a series of foreign loans totaling $800 million with their proceeds flowing to Germany. These loans are important for our story because the proceeds, raised for the greater part in the United States from dollar investors, were utilized in the mid-1920s to create and consolidate the gigantic chemical and steel combinations of I. G. Farben and Vereinigte Stahlwerke, respectively. These cartels not only helped Hitler to power in 1933; they also produced the bulk of key German war materials used in World War II.

Between 1924 and 1931, under the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan, Germany paid out to the Allies about 86 billion marks in reparations. At the same time Germany borrowed abroad, mainly in the U.S., about 138 billion marks — thus making a net German payment of only three billion marks for reparations. Consequently, the burden of German monetary reparations to the Allies was actually carried by foreign subscribers to German bonds issued by Wall Street financial houses — at significant profits for themselves, of course. And, let it be noted, these firms were owned by the same financiers who periodically took off their banker hats and donned new ones to become "statesmen." As "statesmen" they formulated the Dawes and Young Plans to "solve" the "problem" of reparations. As bankers, they floated the loans. ...

This interplay of ideas and cooperation between Hjalmar Schacht in Germany and, through Owen Young, the J.P. Morgan interests in New York, was only one facet of a vast and ambitious system of cooperation and international alliance for world control. ...

By 1939 the German electrical industry had become closely affiliated with two U.S. firms: International General Electric and International Telephone and Telegraph. ... In other words, in 1939 the German electrical equipment industry was concentrated into a few major corporations linked in an international cartel and by stock ownership to two .major U.S. corporations. This industrial complex was never a prime target for bombing in World War II. The A.E.G. and I.T.T. plants were hit only incidentally in area raids and then but rarely. The electrical equipment plants bombed as targets were not those affiliated with U.S. firms. It was Brown Boveri at Mannheim and Siemensstadt in Berlin — which were not connected with the U.S. — who were bombed. ...

Looking at all the loans issued, it appears that only a handful of New York financial houses handled the German reparations financing. Three houses — Dillon, Read Co.; Harris, Forbes & Co.; and National City Company — issued almost three-quarters of the total face amount of the loans and reaped most of the profits:

Remember I.T.T. from "The Shock Doctrine"? The same ITT was tasked with preventing Allende winning the elections.

In his Introduction, Sutton quotes the US Ambassador in Germany as saying:

The U.S. Ambassador in Germany, William Dodd, wrote FDR from Berlin on October 19, 1936 (three years after
Hitler came to power), concerning American industrialists and their aid to the Nazis:

Much as I believe in peace as our best policy, I cannot avoid the fears which Wilson emphasized more than once in conversations with me, August 15, 1915 and later: the breakdown of democracy in all Europe will be a disaster to the people. But what can you do? At the present moment more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings.

The DuPonts have three allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I. G. Farben Company, a part of the Government which gives 200,000 marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion. Standard Oil Company (New York sub-company) sent $2,000,000 here in December 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans make Ersatz gas for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods. They do little of this, report their earnings at home, but do not explain the facts. The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% a year (arms manufacture, I believe), but they could take nothing out. Even our airplanes people have secret arrangement with Krupps. General Motor Company and Ford do enormous businesses/sic] here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out. I mention these facts because they complicate things and add to war dangers
.

Second, a quote from the diary of the same U.S. Ambassador in Germany. The reader should bear in mind that a representative of the cited Vacuum Oil Company — as well as representatives of other Nazi, supporting American firms — was appointed to the post-war Control Commission to de-Nazify the Nazis:

January 25. Thursday. Our Commercial Attache brought Dr. Engelbrecht, chairman of the Vacuum Oil Company in Hamburg, to see me. Engelbrecht repeated what he had said a year ago: "The Standard Oil Company of New York, the parent company of the Vacuum, has spent 10,000,000 marks in Germany trying to find oil resources and building a great refinery near the Hamburg harbor." Engelbrecht is still boring wells and finding a good deal of crude oil in the Hanover region, but he had no hope of great deposits. He hopes Dr. Schacht will subsidize his company as he does some German companies that have found no crude oil. The Vacuum spends all its earnings here, employs 1,000 men and never sends any of its money home. I could give him no encouragement.

And further:

These men were hardly out of the building before the lawyer came in again to report his difficulties. I could not do anything. I asked him, however: Why did the Standard Oil Company of New York send $1,000,000 over here in December, 1933, to aid the Germans in making gasoline from soft coal for war emergencies? Why do the International Harvester people continue to manufacture in Germany when their company gets nothing out of the country and when it has failed to collect its war losses? He saw my point and agreed that it looked foolish and that it only means greater losses if another war breaks loose.

The alliance between Nazi political power and American "Big Business" may well have looked foolish to Ambassador Dodd and the American attorney he questioned. In practice, of course, "Big Business" is anything but foolish when it comes to promoting its own self-interest. Investment in Nazi Germany (along with similar investments in the Soviet Union) was a reflection of higher policies, with much more than immediate profit at stake, even though profits could not be repatriated. To trace these "higher policies" one has to penetrate the financial control of multinational corporations, because those who control the flow of finance ultimately control the day-to-day policies.

Carroll Quigley has shown that the apex of this international financial control system before World War II was the Bank for International Settlements, with representatives from the international banking firms of Europe and the United States, in an arrangement that continued throughout World War II. During the Nazi period, Germany's representative at the Bank for International Settlements was Hitler's financial genius and president of the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht.

There is a nice documentary "Banking with Hitler" (46 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YauM5dHLn1s

Where it's said (more or less) that by 1939 almost 300 millions in gold Swiss francs had been channeled to German economy. Through BIS the Allies had been investing in the economy gearing itself for war. BIS was used for laundering (big!) money on its way from the US to Germany from early 1930s on.
 
Possibility of Being said:
Wall Street brought the Nazis to power. In 1930, Schacht set up the BIS. In 1933 Hitler made Schacht the president of the Reichsbank and German representative to BIS. BIS was established for the purpose of managing German reparations. Schacht was made responsible for arranging funds for the building of the Third Reich. In the years 1933-1945, Funk and Puhl (Nazi economist) were part of BIS board of directors along with some other big fish from the other side of the pond.

Interesting, I just read about it yesterday from here:

Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II
_http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

FWIW!
 
Hmm. What I read was not from Makow or Rense. That I know. One source is the Red Symphony, but that's not what I was thinking of either (we don't know for sure that source is reliable, either, and doesn't include the specifics I had in mind). What I was referring to is supposed to have happened after 1933, and Hjalmar Schacht was actually behind issuing a different Mark that was used to pay workers for infrastructure projects and other job creation programs. The workers accepted pay in this government issued Mark as others also accepted it to buy what they needed. I'll try to see if I can retrace and find where I read about this.
 
On the issue of the relationship among Stalin and the occult and Gurdjieff, there was a story published in Pravda in 2011.

It is known, for example, that Stalin attended Tiflis Theological Seminary, along with the future famous magician, philosopher and occultist Georgi Gurdjieff, and at one time was friends with him. There is also a theory that Joseph Dzhugashvili was a part of some kind of an occult "eastern brotherhood" that consisted of Gurdjieff and his followers. -


Interestingly, also it is said that Stalin used snuff smoke (pipe) to prevent others from entering in his "aura".

There is also evidence that the "leader of the people" possessed magical knowledge and extraordinary abilities. Parapsychologists say that the majority of portraits depict Stalin with a pipe because the tobacco smoke was Stalin's magical defense that did not let the "others" into his aura. - See more at: http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/23-06-2011/118290-joseph_stalin-0/#sthash.uluCXSt3.dpuf

FWIW
 
Back
Top Bottom