A SANTA RÚSSIA NA GUERRA PATRIÓTICA

OS CRIADORES E CONTINUADORES DO EXÉRCITO VERMELHO

TROTSKY
FRUNZE
TUKATCHEVSKY
JUKOV

DEPOIS DA DERROTA IMPRESSIONANTE FRENTE AO EXÉRCITO VERMELHO E DEPOIS DE TENTAR VIRAR SEM ÊXITO OS OCIDENTAIS CONTRA A PÁTRIA DE ALEXANDRE NEVSKY A ORGULHOSA ALEMANHA DO III REICH ASSINAVA INCONDICIONALMENTE A PAZ A 8 DE MAIO DE 1945! A SANTA RÚSSIA SALVOU A

VISÃO JUDAICO-CRISTÃ DO HOMEM E DO MUNDO

HONRA AOS JUDEUS DA URSS QUE SE BATERAM CONTRA A BARBÁRIE!

HOMENAGEM AO «ESPIÃO DO SÉCULO» ( XX ) - RICHARD SORGE

ESTÁS PRESENTE NO MEU CORAÇÃO, RICHARD SORGE!

-Depois de variadas tentativas de assinar, à revelia dos «Acordos de Yalta», um convénio de rendição condicional entre o III Reich e os aliados ocidentais da URSS, podendo até almejar conseguir uma ofensiva conjunta entre estes e o que restava do Nazismo contra Estaline; depois de o sucessor de Hitler, Grande Almirante Doenitz, ter enviado Friedeburg e até o General Jodl, ao Quartel-General de Eisenhower a fim de assinar o acto de cessação de hostilidades na frente ocidental; a 7 de Maio de 1945 foi assinado em Reims, no Quartel-General do comando anglo-americano, o protocolo preliminar da capitulação das tropas alemãs perante os representantes do comando militar dos EUA, da INGLATERRA e da URSS.
A 8 de Maio de 1945, em Karlshorst, situado nos arredores de Berlim, perante os representantes da URSS, EUA, INGLATERRA e FRANÇA, o antigo Chefe do Estado Maior do Alto Comando alemão, um dos principais criminosos de guerra, Marechal Keitel, firmou o acto definitivo da capitulação sem condições da Alemanha.
Um homem extraordinário, pela coragem, inteligência e capacidade de decisão não só não pôde estar presente, como não pôde saber nada sobre este acontecimento, para o qual tanto contribuiu: RICHARD SORGE! Aquele que Hans Helmut Kirst imortalizou num romance -SORGE, o espião do século- tinha sido enforcado a «7 de Novembro» de 1944, acusado de espionagem a favor da URSS, depois de ter sido detido em 18 de Outubro de 1941, ter sido julgado e ter ficado prisioneiro na Embaixada da Alemanha, em Tóquio.
SORGE, admirador de ROSA LUXEMBURGO, membro do K.P.D. ( Partido Comunista da Alemanha ), militante do Partido Comunista da URSS, destacado militante do KOMINTERN ( Internacional Comunista ), foi encarregado, pelo seu CENTRO de espionagem, de criar um núcleo ( a que se chamou Ramsay ) destinado a obter informações úteis à segurança da UNIÃO SOVIÉTICA.
Em 1939, informou sobre a intenção de Hitler em esmagar a Polónia; em 1940 as intenções em relaçâo à França; a 2 de Maio desse ano informou que Hitler decidira invadir a URSS.
A 15 de Maio de 1941, anunciou que a ofensiva se daria a 20 ou 22 de junho; a 22 de Junho a Alemanha invadiu a URSS. Em 26 desse mês enviou uma mensagem por rádio dizendo que se dedicaria ainda com mais afinco ao seu trabalho.
Informou Estaline da intenção do Japão em não invadir a URSS, o que permitiu a transferência das tropas do extremo-oriente soviético, para a defesa de Moscovo. Informou sobre o ataque a Pearl Harbour.
SORGE, finalmente detido, defendeu-se corajosamente, alegando lutar por uma causa de defesa de um ideal humanitário, contra a barbárie racista, nazi e do Japão.
Ainda viveu tempo suficiente para saber da vitória de Estalinegrado, da reconquista das Filipinas, em suma, de que a vitória final era certa! Só não estava vivo a 8 de MAIO de 1945!...Foi conduzido ao suplício e executado a 7 de NOVEMBRO de 1944, dia da celebraçâo da REVOLUÇÃO SOVIÉTICA: foi uma vingança refinada!!! SORGE encarou a morte com grande calma; antes da abertura do estrado do alçapão onde o colocaram para ser enforcado e sobre o qual se mantinha de pé, com a corda no pescoço, ainda teve tempo de dizer distintamente:

«Viva o Partido Comunista! Viva a União Soviética! Viva o Exército Vermelho! »


«CAMARADE SORGE»

Author:
NICOLE CHATEL ET ALAIN GUÉRIN ( avec la collaboration de KEIKO KISHI ),Julliard,Paris. POSTFACE D'YVES CIAMPI
ISBN:
A fim de resolver o enigma SORGE, os autores decidiram escrever este livro। Para isso, deslocaram-se a BERLIM, TÓQUIO, MUNIQUE, WASHINGTON, PARIS, MOSCOVO, onde na companhia de KEIKO KISHI, seguiram as pégadas de RICHARD SORGE...

Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day 2009Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day 2009

Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day 2009

On this day we remember the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. This year's central theme is "Children in the Holocaust."

Video of opening ceremony at Yad Vashem (Hebrew)

Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day (Yom Hashoah in Hebrew) is a national day of commemoration in Israel, on which the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust are memorialized. It is a solemn day, beginning at sunset on the 26th of the month of Nisan (Monday evening, April 20, 2009) and ending the following evening, according to the traditional Jewish custom of marking a day. Places of entertainment are closed and memorial ceremonies are held throughout the country.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "This evening, the State of Israel marks Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day. Six million of our brethren were massacred during the Holocaust. Sadly, not everyone learned the lesson. While we gather to honor their memory, in Switzerland there will assemble a conference allegedly aimed against racism. Its guest-of-honor is a racist Holocaust-denier who does not hide his intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I commend the countries that are boycotting this show of hatred. As opposed to those dark days, today a strong Jewish state stands to ensure the continued existence of the Jewish people in the face of this new anti-Semitism."

This year's central theme is "Children in the Holocaust." During the annual "Unto Every Person There is a Name" ceremony, the names of children murdered in the Holocaust will be read aloud. 

About one and a half million of the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust were children. The number of children who survived is estimated in the mere thousands. Some found refuge in the homes of decent people whose conscience would not allow them to remain passive; others were hidden in convents, monasteries and boarding schools; still others were forced to roam through forests and villages, relying entirely on their own ingenuity and resourcefulness. Many were forced to live under assumed identities, facing constant fear and danger, where a wrong word could lead to discovery and death. Some were so young when separated from their parents that they forgot their real names and Jewish identity.

At the end of the war, many of these children were lost to their families and their Jewish heritage forever. For others, the war's end marked a beginning of their return to their real selves. Very slowly, they emerged from hiding, from the forests and the camps, and began the long and painful process of rehabilitation. Liberation did not end their suffering as most had no home to return to, no family to take them in.

The central ceremonies of Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day are held at Yad Vashem and are broadcast on Israel television. In the presence of the President of the State of Israel and the Prime Minister, dignitaries, survivors, children of survivors and their families gather together with the general public to take part in the memorial ceremony at Yad Vashem in which six torches, representing the six million murdered Jews, are lit. The following morning, the ceremony at Yad Vashem begins with the sounding of a siren for two minutes throughout the entire country. For the duration of the sounding, work is halted, people walking in the streets stop, cars pull off to the side of the road and everybody stands at silent attention in reverence to the victims of the Holocaust.

Afterward, the focus of the ceremony at Yad Vashem is the laying of wreaths at the foot of the six torches, by dignitaries and the representatives of survivor groups and institutions. A ceremony for youth movements with the participation of hundreds of youth will take place in the Valley of Communities at Yad Vashem. Other sites of remembrance in Israel, such as the Ghetto Fighters' Kibbutz and Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, also host memorial ceremonies, as do schools, military bases, municipalities and places of work.

On the background of Durban II in Geneva - Remember Iranian terrorin Switzerland‏

Iranian terror in Switzerland against opposition activists

Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz's met on Sunday with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Geneva, a day before Jews worldwide commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day.

I can understand that, for obvious real politick, economic and "protocol" reasons, the president of a democratic country meets with a known Holocaust denier who also calls for the destruction of Israel.

I can also understand that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "regrets" the absence of the United States and eight other Western nations from the UN conference "on racism." He, to be sure, never criticized Iran and its president for calling for the destruction of another member state of the United Nations, precisely Israel.

alt="Iranian President Mahmoud..." title="Iranian President Mahmoud..." border=1 rendermode=live>

 

What is difficult to understand is why the Swiss judicial authorities did not inform their president that Iran's highest authorities are responsible for at least two assassinations of Iranian opposition activists on Swiss soil.

In April 1990, Kazem Radjavi was assassinated in Coppet, Switzerland. He was a renowned human rights advocate and elder brother of Iranian opposition leader Massoud Rajavi.

In connection with the assassination of Kazem Radjavi at Coopet, Switzerland, on 24 April 1990, it was reported that the Investigating Magistrate of the Canton of Vaud, Judge Roland Chatelain, has issued 13 international arrest warrants against Iranian citizens holding service passports, including former Iranian intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, and transmitted rogatory letters via Bern to the Iranian authorities, without receiving a reply. Two of the 13 people covered by international arrest warrants, Mohsen Sharif Esfahani, aged 37, and Ahmad Taheri, aged 32, were detained in Paris on 15 November 1992. On 10 February 1993 the indictment division of the Court of Appeals in Paris handed down an opinion in favour of their extradition to Switzerland. On 29 December 1993, however, the two Iranian nationals were expelled from France and sent to Tehran. After extensive investigations, Roland Chatelain, the Swiss magistrate in charge of the case, and Swiss judicial and police officials confirmed the role of Rafsanjani's government and the participation of thirteen official agents of the Iranian regime who had used "service passports" to enter Switzerland for their plot. (Cited from the United Nations Report Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 14 October 1994, see at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/74e1f21f50a70017802566fe005ba67c?Opendocument

Ironically, Kazem Rajavi was Iran's first Ambassador to the United Nations headquarters in Geneva following the 1979 Islamic revolution. Shortly after his appointment, he resigned his post in protest to the “repressive policies and terrorist activities of the ruling clerics in Iran”. He then intensified his campaign against mass executions, arbitrary arrests, and torture carried out by Iran’s theocratic leadership.

At the age of 56, he held six doctorate degrees in the fields of law, political science, and sociology from the universities of Paris and Geneva.

 

In August 1987, Col. Ahmad Moradi-Talebi was assassinated in Geneva, Switzerland. A former member of the Iranian Air Force and an F-14 pilot, he was reportedly against the current regime’s ideology and wanted a more democratic government in Iran.

 

 

Basic disagreement concerning the two-state solution

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) April 19, 2009       Basic disagreement concerning the two-state solution: The Palestinian refusal to recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people has resurfaced, as it did at the Annapolis meeting   Benjamin Netanyahu shaking hands with George Mitchell (Amos Ben-Gershom for the Israeli Government Press Office, April 16, 2009). Overview 1. The Israeli media have reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told George Mitchell , the American envoy to the Middle East, that the Palestinian Authority had to recognize Israel as a Jewish state before a discussion of the two-state solution (Israeli Radio Channel 2, IDF Radio, April 17, 2009). The prime minister's office made it clear that “the prime minister has never set that as a pre-condition for the opening of negotiations and dialogue with the Palestinians” (Prime Minister's office, April 20, 2009 ). After meeting with Mitchell on April 16, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Israel expected an unequivocal commitment from the international community regarding not only issues of security but regarding Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people (Israeli Foreign Ministry website). 2. After meeting with Foreign Minister Lieberman, George Mitchell said he had “reiterated to the foreign minister that U.S. policy favors, with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two-state solution which will have a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel ” [emphasis ITIC] (Reuters from Jerusalem, April 16, 2009). 3. In response, spokesmen for the Palestinian Authority vehemently rejected the recognition of Israel as Jewish state, as they had also done at the Annapolis meeting . They claimed that the Israeli demand was meant to make it possible for Israel to reject the two-state solution and not honor previously-signed agreements. Saeb Erekat claimed that the United States and other countries refrained from recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, ignoring unequivocal American statements which do recognize Israel as a Jewish state (President Bush's speech at Annapolis, 1 Mitchell's statement quoted above). Palestinian Authority responses to statements made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 4. Saeb Erekat , chief PLO negotiator team, told a press conference that Mahmoud Abbas had met with Mitchell on April 17 and stressed the importance of the principle of the two-state solution and the PA's commitment to it (Palestinian Television, April 17, 2009 ). However, in other interviews with the media Saeb Erekat rejected out of hand the [so called] approach of Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state before entering into negotiations for a Palestinian state. He also said that the Palestinian claims are based on previous agreements of Israel as a “state,” but, he said, “what Netanyahu is demanding now – that we recognize Israel 's religious background – is unacceptable .” He also claimed that Netanyahu's statements made it clear that the government of Israel opposed the two-state solution and rejected previously-signed agreements (Saeb Erekat interviewed by the AKI news agency, Ramallah, April 16, 2009 ). 5. Interviewed by Al-Jazeera TV, Saeb Erekat said that the issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state before conducting negotiations was “ absolutely unacceptable .” He claimed (contrary to fact) that the United States , since the Truman administration, and other countries, recognized Israel as “the State of Israel” and not as “a Jewish state.” He said that Netanyahu's proposal was nothing more than a new way of rejecting the two-state principle and previously-signed agreements. He added that the ball was now in the American court and that “it is the first test of the Obama administration...” (Al-Jazeera TV, April 16, 2009 ). 6. Nabil Abu Rudeina , Palestinian Authority presidential spokesman, claimed that the new Israeli government had already begun posing obstacles to the two-state solution based on international legitimacy, the road map, the Arab peace initiative and the understandings reached during the Annapolis meeting (ignoring the fact that at Annapolis President Bush made it clear that the United States recognizes Israel as a Jewish state). He said it was a “challenge” for international efforts and the international community, especially the United States, which had to “take care of” Israeli policy “out of the fear of its destructive implications for the entire region” (Wafa News Agency, Ramallah, April 16, 2009). Fundamental disagreements concerning the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people during the Annapolis process 7. The Palestinian Authority's intense objection to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, expressed with the formation of the new Israeli government, is not new . The issue of the two-state solution was a subject of dispute during the contacts held by the Israeli and PA negotiating teams when they tried to forge a joint document which would be ratified at the Annapolis meeting. The Israeli side insisted that the stating point would be Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, while the Palestinians utterly rejected the demand. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, along with fundamental disagreements over other core issues, were obstacles to formulating a joint Israeli-Palestinian document. Both sides were forced to make do with a vague “joint understanding,” which did not relate to the disputed issues. 8. The following statements about the Annapolis meeting were made by Palestinian Authority spokesmen: i) Abu Alaa' , head of the Palestinian negotiating team, meeting with the heads of the Palestinian security services, said that the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state was “unacceptable.” He added that the Palestinian side was completely opposed to a population exchange “inside” [i.e., within the State of Israel] and refused to relinquish the [so called] Palestinian refugees' right to return, according to UN Resolution 194 (Wafa News Agency, November 14, 2007 ). ii) Saeb Erekat , a member of the Palestinian negotiating team, said of Prime Minister Olmert's demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state, that Israel wanted “something new.” He said that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state could not even be discussed internationally . He again said that “it is not part of the agenda of the international community, the Palestinians or their leadership” (Voice of Palestine Radio, November 13, 2007 ). iii) Yasser Abd Rabbo , secretary of the PLO's executive committee, said that Olmert's demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state meant imposing ideological conditions to fan the flames of the conflict and lead to escalation. He added that “peace is decided between two countries or sides, and it is not Israel 's business, or the Palestinians' business, to enter into discussions about international legitimacy and the basics of the peace process” (Voice of Palestine Radio, November 13, 2007 ). 9. During the Annapolis meeting, despite the positive atmosphere and Arab and international support, there were still fundamental discrepancies between Israel and the Palestinian Authority concerning the issues to be negotiated, one of which was the Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. After the Annapolis meeting, Mahmoud Abbas seemed satisfied during interviews he gave to the Arab and Western media. However, when he and his aides were asked about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, an issue raised in a speech by Ehud Olmert during the meeting, 2their responses were uniformly negative : i) Mahmoud Abbas said that “there is the two-state idea – Palestine and Israel – and we, the Palestinians, do not have to give titles to any country ...” He added that the Israeli population was Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and that there were other ethnic groups living there as well (Agence France Presse, November 29, 2009 ). ii) As to the question of Israel as a Jewish state, Mahmoud Abbas said: “We oppose that appellation and we say that there is Israel and there is Palestine . There are both Jews and non-Jews [living] in Israel ” (Agence France Presse, December 1, 2007 ). iii) Nabil Abu Rudeina , Palestinian Authority presidential spokesman, said that the Palestinians had not agreed to a joint document because the Israelis raised an issue which was unacceptable for them: “ They [the Israelis] insist that the state is Jewish, and we did not accept that at all . Their have their reservations about the Arab peace initiative...” Therefore, he said, the joint document was replaced by a joint understanding, which was read by President Bush (Radio Sawt Al-Arab, November 28, 2009 ). 1 On November 27, 2007 , President Bush said “the United States will keep its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people ” [emphasis ITIC] (White House website). 2 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the negotiation would be crowned by achieving President Bush's vision of the two-state solution: A Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, Jewish and democratic, living in security, the home of the Jewish people [ITIC emphasis] (Israeli Prime Minister's website, November 28, 2009).

«TÁCTICA / ESTRATÉGIA - ESPAÇO / TEMPO - GUERRILHA / GUERRA NUCLEAR»

O triunfo do tempo sobre o espaço reflecte-se sobre a guerra modificando toda a teoria clássica de inter-acção estatégia/táctica. A primeira reflexão que me foi dado ler deve-se a um texto que RAYMOND ABELLIO escreveu em Agosto de 1972, no qual apreciava os escritos de L. TROTSKY dedicados aos problemas militares: «ÉCRITS MILITAIRES», I VOL, éditions de l'Herne.
Diz ABELLIO, a concluir: A guerra atómica implica uma intensa concentração das forças;esta concentração fica em poder dum pequeno número de responsáveis; o seu próprio poder de extermínio neutraliza ou suspende o seu uso até um «instante», que em si se torna único, decisivo, pois, segundo todas as probabilidades terá de ser da ordem da «instanteinidade»: aqui o tempo sai vencedor sobre o espaço. Pelo contrário, a guerrilha é , em limite, completamente desconcentrada; difusa por todos os lados, penetra completamente as massas, o resposável aqui é legião; enfim, não extermina, causa usura, desgaste, ela destrói lentamente o adversário, quer-se durável e mesmo permanente; é o espaço que aqui vence o tempo. No primeiro tipo é realçada a estratégia, no segundo a táctica.
Estamos frente a uma abertura «absoluta», que escapa à dialéctica marxista, pois não é da ordem dos limites! Uma vez tomado o poder, pelo triunfo da revolução, trata-se então de gerir uma situação na qual a estratégia nuclear lhe escapa, por definição; trata-se de gerir a duração e não mais o «instante». Passa-se à teoria dos jogos, ao domínio da probabilidade, e assim a ideologia marxista vê-se confrontada com o risco de num golpe de «poker» desencadear e assim sofrer as consequências da «iniciativa», como por exemplo aconteceu quando Kruchev ( o homem que apoiou LYSSENKO ), foi forçado a retirar os mísseis de Cuba...


SEGUNDO UM RELATÓRIO REDIGIDO PELO COMITÊ SENATORIAL DAS FORÇAS ARMADAS DOS E.U.A., HOUVE
3.703 ALERTAS QUE IMPLICAM RESPOSTA NUCLEAR, EM 18 MESES, DE JANEIRO DE 1979 A JUNHO DE 1980.
A MAIOR PARTE FORAM NORMALMENTE IDENTIFICADOS E NÃO ACARRETARAM CONSEQUÊNCIAS, MAS 147 FALSOS ALERTAS PARECERAM DEMASIADO SÉRIOS...E FOI NECESSÁRIO SER VELOZ PARA CERTIFICAR-SE
DE QUE NÃO REPRESENTAVAM UM ATAQUE POTENCIAL!

E HOJE...CERCA DE 30 ANOS PASSADOS, ESTAREMOS MAIS TRANQUILOS?!...

NÃO SERIA VITAL REFLECTIR NAS CONSEQUÊNCIAS SOBRE O PATRIOTISMO DA RÚSSIA, DO FAMOSO ALARGAMENTO DE UM PACTO NASCIDO UM ANO APÓS O BLOQUEIO DE BERLIM
OCIDENTAL?!
PODE HAVER DISTRAÍDOS!...MAS ATENÇÃO AO «CHAUVINISMO» RUSSO...A RÚSSIA NÃO É
A SÉRVIA!...