Hiroshima 1945: Didn't the A-Bombs Prevent the Red Army from Sweeping through Western Europe and the Entire Continent from Falling Under Stalin's Iron Fist?

One of the most common criticisms concerning the use of the atomic bombs is that it was "only" used to intimidate Stalin (suggesting that the head of the USSR was a trustworthy ally of the West who should have been allowed to join the war in the Pacific theater instead of being treated in such a cruel fashion). 

What is not addressed is that the atomic bomb did indeed sabotage the Kremlin's (secret) plans — not with regards, or not only with regards, to Japan or to the Asian continent, but with regards to… Western Europe.

For two decades before being abruptly and brutally canceled, No Pasarán regularly brought stories about little-known facts and quotes regarding the atomic bombings over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945 (the full list of articles on the Wayback Machine can be found at the bottom of this post). The present post is certainly one of the most important of them all.

For once, indeed, the crux will not be on the Americans and the Japanese — whose country was far more brutal and bloodthirsty than that of their Nazi allies. Indeed, the Imperial Japanese Army was every bit as evil as the Nazi SS, and more lethal, as evidenced by the horrific treatment of civilians during Japan's "Reign of Terror". No, the crux will be on the Soviets and the Europeans.

As you learn how the "trustworthy" Vojd was planning on betraying his allies and letting the Red Army's divisions run roughshod through and conquer all of Europe (the Western part as well as the Eastern part) — that is, until Beria shot the plans down when he informed Stalin of America's terrifying new weapon — all I can say is how grateful I am, and how grateful we should all be, for Harry Truman dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bombs which indeed saved countless lives (aligato, Glenn Reynolds-san and Ed Driscoll-san).

The main gist of this story picks up below photos taken by my father at the tender age of 12 of the British forces build-up during the Summer of 1945 after the Nazi surrender on V-E Day.

Montgomery's British forces rushed to the North of Germany, beating the Red Army in forcing the surrender of the German forces in Northern Germany and occupied Denmark (that will be the content of a future post), and thus avoiding the fate of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and all the other Eastern countries — for 40-something years.

Many praise the Russians for winning World War II. If it hadn't been for the Anglo-Americans, wouldn't the Russians, wouldn't Stalin, have continued all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, taking all of Western Europe (or at least the mainland) as well?

 

Following the Nazi surrender, Marshall Montgomery paid a visit to Copenhagen and drove through its streets. From May to July 1945, British ships accosted and RAF planes landed in droves. Normally, with a disciplined army having surrendered (one which moreover hadn't engaged in much fighting whatsoever), such a show of force would be unnecessary. But they weren't there for the surrendering German prisoners; they were there to guard against the Red Army

Accompanied by his uncle, my father went to Copenhagen and visited the city's harbor and airfields to see the British armada at the harbor and the planes landing in the airfields. He was all of 12 years old. 

Montgomery driving through Copenhagen on May 12, 1945 (my father's photo at age 12)

HMS Birmingham docks on May 10, 1945 (photo by Eskil Svane, 12)

HMS Birmingham in København Harbor on May 10

HMS Birmingham was quite popular with the Danish people

Mosquitoes at Kastrup airfield, July 1, 1945

A Spitfire on Kastrup airfield as the RAF holds on airshow (and
probably not just for the Danes, but for any Soviet diplomat present)

Douglas Dakota DC3s on show at Denmark's largest airfield

The Soviet Union's (secret) intentions and plans were confirmed after Antony Beevor spent time in Moscow, unearthing many a previously top secret document in the archives, and leading to his writing in his history of The Second World War about "the two pitiless totalitarian systems which fed off each other."

In the penultimate chapter, Cities of the Dead, Beevor writes that after the German capital fell in May 1945, the American ambassador to Moscow paid a visit to the Kremlin:

'It must be very pleasant for you', [Averell] Harriman said, making conversation, … 'to be in Berlin after all your country has suffered.'  The Soviet leader eyed him. … 'Tsar Alexander went all the way to Paris,' he replied.

That was not entirely a joke.  Well before Churchill's [notion of a war erupting between the Western allies and their USSR ally], a meeting of the Politburo in 1944 had decided to order the Stavka to plan for the invasion of France and Italy, a General Shtemenko later told Beria's son.  The Red Army offensive was to be combined with a seizure of power by the local Communist Parties.  In addition, Shtemenko explained, 'a landing in Norway was provided for, as well as the seizure of the straits [with Denmark].  A substantial budget was allocated for the realization of these plans.  It was expected that the Americans would abandon a Europe fallen into chaos, while Britain and France would be paralysed by their colonial problems.  The Soviet Union possessed 400 experienced divisions, ready to bound forward like tigers.  It was calculated that the whole operation would take no more than a month 

 … All these plans were aborted when Stalin learned from [Beria] that the Americans had the atom bomb and were putting it into mass production.'  Stalin apparently told Beria 'that if Roosevelt had still been alive, we would have succeeded'.  This, it seems, was the main reason why Stalin suspected that Roosevelt had been secretly assassinated

… Stalin had achieved everything he wanted at Potsdam, even though he had been forced to cancel the invasion of western Europe out of fear of the atom bomb

"The western Allies were finding that they could liberate half of Europe only at the cost of enslaving the other half." As it happened, explains Antony Beevor in the final pages of his 900-page book, "one half of Europe had to be sacrificed to the Stalinist maw to save the other half."

(Indeed, in "Northern Germany the British 7th Armored Division was approaching Hamburg, while the 11th Armoured Division advanced rapidly ahead towards Lübeck on the Baltic. This followed Churchill's secret instruction to Field Marshall Montgomery … to prevent the Red Army from seizing Denmark".)

Astounding News

This is astounding news. Nothing less. What does it say about the use of the atomic bombs — not to mention, for that matter, McCarthyism along with the alleged paranoia regarding the later Red "Scare" as well as the alleged daftness of the American people?

When unhappy Western elites — quite a number of them from Europe, especially Western Europe — criticize Uncle Sam's atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as evil and useless war crimes and no more than a(n outright hateful?) warning to the USSR, they usually mean it to mean that tens of thousands of Japanese citizens were sacrificed simply to prevent nothing more harmless than a few handfuls of (gallant soldiers in) Koba's Red Army joining in some little way in the victory over the Japanese Empire. 

But as we can see, the revisionists and Post-facto critics not to mention communism admirers — quite a number of them, again, from Western Europe — who claim that Hiroshima had little military value but instead was a strategic ploy to impress Stalin do not realize that the Manhattan Project's atomic bomb did more, far more, and not in Asia and on the Pacific front but on the European front half a world away.

It was indeed a sign to the Red Army, and it did prevent Stalin from prolonging the war mercilessly after the Nazis' defeat and achieving his project to take over all of European continent. 

Incidentally, while Western governments are routinely taken to task for expecting selfishly that the Germans and the Russians bleed each other dry on the Eastern Front (or expecting the same, 40 years later, during the Iraq-Iran war), there is a theory that it was in fact Stalin who expected his Western allies and the Germans to bleed each other dry on the Western Front; and that, in that perspective, the defeat during Operation Market Garden and the near-defeat during the Battle of the Bulge (America's most bloody battle during World War II) were due to Moscow sharing, however directly or indirectly, intelligence with Berlin — their assumed mortal enemy. (What wonderful allies, those Russians.)

To recap: 

In Modern Times (The World From the Twenties to the Nineties), Paul Johnson writes that

There was scarcely a crime the Nazis or the knights of Bushido had committed, or even imagined, which the Soviet regime hand not also perpetrated, usually on an even larger scale.  It ran precisely the type of system which had produced the war and its horrors.  More specifically, the Nazi-Soviet Pact of September 1939 and the Japanese-Soviet Pact of April 1941 had made the Axis aggressions possible.

Indeed, Hitler and Stalin started the WWII together. As Jeff Jacoby points out, For the first two years of World War II, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies, with the Führer and the Vozhd secretly planning and jointly beginning the war that inflicted such horror and destruction 

There is no denying that a vast number of Soviet citizens lost their lives in World War II. Without the Russian people’s appalling suffering and sacrifice, the Allies might not have triumphed in the end.

But there is also no denying that Moscow was Nazi Germany’s partner in unleashing the war, the deadliest in human history, in the first place. Victory Day is a good opportunity to review the record of Russian culpability in plunging the world into war — a record the Kremlin’s propagandists have been trying to obscure for decades.

 … for the first two years of World War II, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies. They secretly planned and jointly began the war that inflicted such horror and destruction. 

In the months that followed the Nazi-Soviet takeover of Poland, as Hitler’s troops conquered Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, and France and bombed much of London into rubble, Stalin’s forces continued their illegal war of aggression and conquest. [the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the formerly Romanian territories of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, Finland…]

 … In short, for the first two years of World War II, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies. They secretly planned and jointly began the war that inflicted such horror and destruction.  

As Timothy Snyder’s book “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin” points out, the dictators vied with each other in the bloodbaths and the destruction of the conquered territories.

Moreover, a Lithuanian testified that his father had said if he had the choice, he would rather live under 10 years of Nazi occupation than under one single year of communist occupation.

Certainly after Hitler's betrayal and his invasion of the USSR, but possibly even before, Stalin's goal was to defeat the Axis powers but his ultimate goal was to turn thereafter against his allies and sic his divisions against those who had supported him all these years and take over the entire continent, and this he ordered the Politburo and the NKVD to plan.

The only thing that aborted the plan of 400 Soviet divisions launching a brutal, a traitorous, and a bloody attack on Stalin's erstwhile allies was the news of the atomic bombs and the realization that they could be used on Russian armies as well as on Japanese cities.

Post-War History

Is there ever anyone who jokes or sighs or rolls his eyes about paranoia or witch hunts regarding Nazism or fascism? No, and with good reason. (Indeed, after ranting and giggling for years and years about Godwin's Law, the left has dropped all pretenses and shows its usual double standards as it has been using the fascism/Nazism/Hitler charge ceaselessly against conservatives and members of the — anti-government (!) — Republican Party.) 

Why, then, should anyone (Joseph McCarthy first among them) be described as paranoid about a régime that, on the internal front, murders millions of its citizens and, on the external front, was indeed planning an invasion of Europe and the West (with the aid of those countries' domestic — i.e., traitorous — communist parties) — submitting all conquered territories and countries to the same bloody internal policies as had occurred in Eastern Europe's Bloodlands?

This brings up the so-called "paranoid" "witch hunts" against communists in post-war America. Here is a question that is seldom brought up: Who was head of the Kremlin when the term "McCarthyism" was coined? A fellow by the name of Stalin. As for the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), another question is, how many people are aware that the maligned council was not solely involved with communists? Indeed, wasn't it formed the year prior to the Nazi/Soviet non-aggression treaty, in 1938, to investigate disloyalty by subversive organizations tied to either pro-Soviet communists or — yes — pro-German fascists?

It is certainly time for two things: for Hiroshima to cease being an excuse for anti-Americanism and for "McCarthyism" to cease to be used as an allegedly neutral and objective expression.
This post could end here. 

But as a sort of addendum to this post, let me briefly refer to my revelation regarding the movie Oppenheimer, where, in their unanimous praise, members of the MSM have carefully glossed over the fact that The 2 Authors of the Book Behind the Movie Were Both Editors and Writers at "The Nation".

Over 13 years after Antony Beevor came out with astonishing revelations from the Kremlin's archives mentioned above (The Second World War was published in 2012), the historian's conclusions are still not accepted by the élites (they are not challenged — with arguments good or otherwise — they are simply ignored), leading them to call opposition to communism and to the USSR "a political movement characterized by rank know-nothing, anti-intellectual, xenophobic demagogues." 

Let this sink in: Both of the authors of the book behind what the New York Times calls "Christopher Nolan’s complex, vivid portrait of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 'father of the atomic bomb'” — "a brilliant achievement in formal and conceptual terms" — worked at The Nation and were therefore, in some capacity or other, close to communism and invariably doubling as experts in spewing anti-Americanism.

Full details here: Hollywood Shocker — The Authors of the Book Behind Nolan's "Oppenheimer" Were Both Editors and Writers at "The Nation"

Related: • For the first two years of World War II, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies; Hitler and Stalin secretly planned and jointly began the war that inflicted such horror and destruction
• Stalin's Death at 70: Some Mind-Boggling Revelations About Stalin, World War II, and a Century of Russian History

Also related:
• Hiroshima 15: Examining the Issues Surrounding the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Japan (Erik Svane) 

• Hiroshima 17: During WWII, Japan Killed 7 Times More People (Most of Them Civilians) than They Lost (Victor Davis Hanson) 

• Hiroshima 18: The Imperial Japanese Army was every bit as evil as the Nazi SS, and more lethal (Trent Telenko)

• Hiroshima 19: The Horrific Treatment of Civilians During Japan's "Reign of Terror"

• Hiroshima 14: "I regard Hiroshima revisionism as the greatest hoax in American history" (Robert Maddox)

• Hiroshima 13: Although It Is Not Said Openly, Hiroshima Also Played a Purifying Role, IE the Baptism of a New Japan, the Event that Put an End to 50 Years of Crimes (Le Monde)

• Hiroshima 20: The Day the Pilot Who Led the Attack on Pearl Harbour Met the Pilot of the Enola Gay

• Hiroshima 12: Political Correctness in Japan: The comment "tramples on the feelings of victims", so… Shut the F**k Up and Lose Your Job! (re the forced resignation of Japan's defense (!) minister)

• Hiroshima 11: If Western elites cannot find perfection in history, they see no good at all; most never learned the narrative of WWII, only what was wrong about it (Victor Davis Hanson)

• Hiroshima 10: If Not for the Atom Bombs, Japan, as we know it today, would not exist (S L Sanger, author of “Working on the Bomb”)

• Hiroshima 9: Over one million warning leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities 5 days before the Hiroshima bombing (Bill Whittle)

• Hiroshima 8: Was It Wrong to Use the Atom Bomb on Japan? (Father Wilson Miscamble)

• Hiroshima 7: Some Facts About Hiroshima and World War II That You Hear Neither From America's MSM, University Élites, and History Books, Nor From Japan's (New York Times)

• Hiroshima 16: Did Japan's top officers know a bomber was approaching Nagasaki, 5 hours beforehand, and do nothing?

• Hiroshima 6: "Lance or spear practice was a regular women's exercise to practice for the anticipated U.S. landing" (a Japanese American)

• Hiroshima 5: Japan's plans for defense involved mobilizing the civilian population, including women and children, for the customary suicidal battle tactics (Thomas Sowell)

• Hiroshima 4: "Les 300 000 morts d'Hiroshima ont épargné bien davantage de Japonais, qui auraient été écrasés sous des bombes ordinaires" (Charles de Gaulle)

• Hiroshima 3: A mainland invasion could have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths—and that's not counting civilians (Wall Street Journal)

• Hiroshima 2: Hand-wringing over Hiroshima is just virtue-signaling by people who never said a bad word about Stalin or Mao’s mass murders (Glenn Reynolds)

• Hiroshima 1: Unlike the ends of the majority of conflicts, World War II in the Pacific grew increasingly bloody as U.S. forces approached the Japanese homeland (Erik Svane)

On the Sphere Podcast, Sébastien Laye Discusses the Trump Administration's Super-Ambitious AI Agenda.

Following the publication of a Valeurs Actuelles article warning of an economic revolt in France in the Fall in response to economic crises, Sébastien Laye reports that he "was thrilled to be Policy Sphere podcast's guest for their latest show. We discussed the 'AI Action Plan' released by the White House to much fanfare: its regulatory outlook, its pro-worker agenda, issues relating to national security and export controls and immigration, and more."

Ep 26 - Sebastien Laye - The Trump Administration's Super-Ambitious AI Agenda. 

On this episode of the Sphere Podcast, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, Publisher of Sphere Media, interviews Sebastien Laye, a Franco-American economist and AI entrepreneur, columnist for the Washington Examiner on AI policy and founder of the Economic Singularity Institute. They discuss the "AI Action Plan" released by the White House to much fanfare: its regulatory outlook, its allegedly pro-worker agenda, issues relating to national security and export controls and immigration, and more. 

Subscribe to the PolicySphere Morning Briefing: https://policysphere.com/subscribe

Sebastien's Washington Examiner page: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/sebastien-laye/

Subscribe to the Sphere Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sphere-podcast/id1780831168

Subscribe to the Sphere Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/48eWEcxSYDyrgjC3lO0EJZ

Subscribe to the Sphere Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB2gs2TBXeP7vyn9QUaaxjQ

"Is Macron the New Maréchal Pétain?" Karsenty Discusses Washington's Reaction to Paris's Decision to Recognize a Palestinian State

Reconnaissance de l’Etat de Palestine : selon Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du comité «Trump-France», la décision d’Emmanuel Macron provoque «la colère de Washington», dans #LaMatinale pic.twitter.com/tzBVQ58RjG

— CNEWS (@CNEWS) July 25, 2025

Suite à son passage à La Matinale pour relater les réactions à chaud des membres de l'administration Trump après la decision de Macron de reconnaître un État palestinien, Philippe Karsenty est resté au QG de CNews pour apparaître dans L'Heure des Pros. Alors qu'il apparaît dès la minute 2h36, il intervient notamment à la minute 10h32-12h32 et à la minute 27h03-29h03. "Reconnaissance de l’Etat de Palestine : selon Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du comité «Trump-France», la décision d’Emmanuel Macron provoque «la colère de Washington», dans #LaMatinale"

"La decision d'Emmanuel Macron est le nom de la frustration de n'être plus rien en France, il ne peut faire qu'exister à l'extérieur" dit-il. En effet, 78% de la population française est contre la reconnaissance immédiate de la Palestine. "C'est la frustration," poursuit le porte-parole du Comité Trump France, "mais c'est aussi la soumission, mais c'est aussi la capitulation. Et le mot que j'ai entendu à Washington, le nom que j'ai entendu à Washington de plusieurs interlocuteurs, c'est «Est-ce que Emmanuel Macron est le nouveau Maréchal Pétain?»"

C'était la deuxième fois en deux jours que Philippe Karsenty apparaissait sur CNews. Un jour auparavant, il était déjà invité sur le plateau Cnews de 180 Minutes Info pour aborder le scandale concernant l'expulsion des quelques 50 étudiants juifs français (et le placage au sol de leur directrice par la Guarda Civil) d'un vol Vueling en Espagne (7:11-22h40 & 46:23-1:03:42 & 1:25:37-1:40:08), intervenant sérieusement à la minute 11h33, à la minute 20h53, et à la minute 58h40 — "d'après les retours, [il y a] dit des choses inédites et importantes." (Philippe Karsenty reste encore plus d'une heure sur le plateau pour aborder plusieurs autres sujets; si vous voulez connaître les desserts préférés du porte-parole du Comité Trump France, dirigez-vous à la minute 6h33.)

Philippe Karsenty : «Plus il y aura d'antisémitisme, plus un état d'Israël puissant sera nécessaire», sur #180minutesinfo pic.twitter.com/pjpwbwK66a

— CNEWS (@CNEWS) July 24, 2025

Remember Epstein's Painting? The Main Talking Points of the Latest Epstein Affair

The article on the Main Talking Points of the Latest Epstein Affair follows reports on the (often dramatic) guest appearances of three Paris-based Republicans on French TV and starts below the YouTube video.

NB: While I have been fighting for two months to have No Pasarán reinstated in the face of Google's gratuitous ban, I am blogging here, at NP's sister blog. (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah.)  

On July 19 (a day after debating Democrats Abroad member Amy Porter on FranceInfoTV), Nicolas Conquer was invited to the BFMTV channel at 8:30 PM (4:10-18:48) to discuss the latest Epstein scandal. The ROF spokesman pointed out that if Donald Trump had known, or suspected, that his name was on the Epstein list, he would obviously never have made revealing the list a feature of his campaign to attract more voters… (This, by the way, is reminiscent of the Iraq war hysteria two decades ago: had Bush (and Blair) truly known that there were no WMD in Iraq, is it credible to believe they would have lied about the fact, using said lie to start a conflict against Saddam Hussein which they must have known would be uncovered following the allies' inevitable victory?) "Nicolas sets Laurence Haïm, and BFM Trump haters trying to claim that the GOP is broken, straight," writes Paul Reen, "with facts on the Trump-Epstein hysteria (they don’t listen needless to say)." 

Three days later, Nicolas Conquer appeared on BFMTV, for a discussion on Tulsi’s release of Obama files. Noting that the TV channel is playing the 1992 videos in a loop and seems "to be competing with LCI and others on who can play it the most often," ROF's Paul Reen comments: "Typical massive anti-trump bias for calling out 'saint' Obama who can do no harm. Trump called 'Obama obsessed', jealous, racist, a threat to democracy, even a pedo. Scandalous on the part of BFM. How dare he forward a funny AI video on Obama!! Nicolas did great remaining calm and firing facts, despite being remote and given far less time than others" 

Trump/Epstein : une relation embarrassante - 19/07

Dix milliards de dollars, c'est la somme d'argent que réclame le président américain au Wall Street Journal, qui porte plainte pour diffamation. Cela fait suite à la publication par le quotidien d'un message d'anniversaire qu'aurait adressé en 2003 Donald Trump à Jeffrey Epstein. On en parle avec : Nicolas Conquer, porte-parole de "Republican Overseas France". Laurence Haïm, journaliste spécialiste des États-Unis. Olivier Ravanello, consultant politique internationale BFMTV. Et Henry Arnaud, correspondant BFMTV à Los Angeles.

Le 20/07 à 00h53 | Durée : 18:48  

"Is Epstein's Ghost Trump's Nightmare?" Later that evening (of July 19th), John Lowe was a guest at another TV Channel, TF1's LCI channel at 22:30 PM (17:41-38:28). "In the face of 5-6 Trump haters implying that he’s probably a pedo," comments Paul Reen, ROF's vice-president (a lawyer by trade) "did a good job trying to explain Pam Bondi’s reluctance to publicize info from a legal standpoint. Images from 1992 on loop of course" — i.e., 13 years before Epstein's very first indictment. 

Le 22h Haddad du samedi 19 juillet 2025

Publié le 19 juillet 2025 à 22h13

Au sommaire : Algérie, la France doit-elle durcir le ton ? Ukraine, la cible d'une nouvelle attaque massive. Russie-Chine, l'Europe attaquée d'ici 2027 ? Le fantôme d'Epstein, cauchemar de Trump ?

Source : 22h 

On July 25, Erik Svane was a guest on BFMTV's BFM Soir at 11:35 PM (1:33:48-1:48:33) Notice how the French absolutely do not want to hear any mention of Democrat sins in the Epstein affair, especially the damning fact that Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of an American man dressed as as a woman. Given the fact that the blue dress he is wearing in the painting belonged to Monica Lewinsky, it is clear that the POTUS is not Donald Trump but Bill Clinton. Notice how the presenter keeps interrupting the ROF spokesman — "let's get back to the issue at hand!" — and, at the end, as he tries to make a final point, even starts wagging her fingers at him!

| BFM Soir

Émission du 25 juillet 2025

BFM Soir fait le tour des images marquantes et des déclarations fortes de la journée et fait vivre l’info du soir, entouré de chroniqueurs, d’invités et d’éditorialistes.

1h48min|2025|

Diffusée le 25 juillet 2025 à 22h00 sur BFM TV

Here are what I consider the main talking points of the Epstein affair.

The Main Talking Points of the Latest Epstein Affair 

Besides the fact that the (relatively rare) photos of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in the 1990s, before the latter's very first indictment (2005) — while MSM channels seem to be playing a 1992 video in a loop in what looks like a competition on who can play it the most often — Trump cut ties with him before said indictment. 

In that perspective, there are far more photos of Epstein with such luminaries as Bill Clinton. Perhaps the most damning fact in favor of Trump that should invariably be mentioned in any debate is that if Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of an American VIP on a wall of his Manhattan mansion, it wasn't that of Donald Trump. Indeed, given the fact that the blue dress that the VIP — dressed as, wearing make-up as, and seductively posing as a woman — is wearing in the painting is supposed to be the one that once belonged to Monica Lewinsky (as are the VIP's shoes), it is clear that the POTUS in question is Bill Clinton.

There you have it. As it is highly visual, the Clinton painting is the main talking point to throw back in the face of the Democrats, and if you have no time for bringing up more arguments to make a stronger case, that is the single most important one to bring up. Again, notice how, in the video above, when I try to mention such sins on the Democrats' side (5:44 & 6:11), the TV host immediately starts interrupting me…

The general principle here is that in any interview, the media will be hard-bent on their (partisan) questions focusing on following the Democrats' "narrative," but at all times, you must think outside the box. Instead of directly answering a question about, say, the alleged birthday card of 45/47, point out the numerous times that 42 took the Pussy Express. This, indeed, explains why leftists (be they part of the media or politicians or university professors or what have you) so rarely want to debate people who are leaning right. 

Here is another example of thinking outside the box. The question is not why the Donald Trump administration is not releasing information about Jeffrey Epstein — as Democrats are now clamoring for. 

The more obvious question — certainly in view of the fact that the media (like the Dems, but we are being redundant, aren't we?) are posing as honorable truth-seekers with the purest of motivations —is, why didn’t the Joe Biden administration release the Epstein dossier for the four years that he was at the pinnacle of the government? And, indeed, in that perspective, why didn't Democrats and MSM journalists (but I repeat myself) clamor loudly for the president — i.e., for a member of their own party — to do so while the child-hair-sniffer (another feature more associated with the Epstein crowd) was in the White House? 

And if any Democrats had found Donald Trump‘s name on any list during their time in power, isn’t it obvious — after ten years of innumerable bogus indictments and sham lawsuits against "the existential threat to democracy" — that they would have released that information? 

Then there is Brad Edwards (4:54-6:46), the attorney who represented 70 Epstein victims as he spent a decade on the case, who testified that in 2009, Trump was "the only person who picked up the phone and said, 'Let's just talk, I will give you as much time as you want, I will tell you what you need to know' and was very helpful in the information that he gave"… 

Do you know the name of Marcwayne Mullin? Everybody should have the name of the Senator from the Sooner State on their lips. Like with the French (notably, as we have seen, on their TV shows), the Epstein affair is all that America’s Democrats are talking about:

But: As it turns out, when the Oklahoma Republican called for the release of all files regarding this subject, it turned out to that democrats voted AGAINST it: “apparently, [Democrat] lawmakers were just joshing about that whole “transparency” thing. They didn’t really want the White House to release the documents. Otherwise, they would have fully supported Mullins’ resolution.”

So the question becomes, Why Is the Left Desperate to Turn Jeffrey Epstein into a Trump Scandal? 

 … it’s painfully obvious what’s going on. The media’s desperate attempts to link Trump to Epstein aren’t based on facts—they’re based on fear. Fear of what might happen if the real truth about Epstein’s client list ever comes to light. Fear of who might be exposed. Fear that the public will finally see just how deep the rot goes—and that it overwhelmingly runs through their side of the aisle. 

So instead, they keep recycling half-baked stories, grasping at birthday cards and blurry associations, hoping something—anything—will stick to Trump. 

But it won’t. Because the facts are clear: Trump cut ties with Epstein long before it was politically convenient. Meanwhile, powerful Democrats wined and dined with him for years. That’s the story the media refuses to tell—and that’s exactly why they’re working overtime to distract you. 

Do not allow the French media's (or the American media's) obsession with the Epstein scandal hide the fact that the main reason the Democrats are so obsessed with it is that it is a distraction from what is the real scandal right now: Tulsi Gabbard‘s unearthing of the Russia hoax, in which none other than Barack Obama himself got just about everybody in his entourage and in the government to lie in 2016-2017 about the bogus theory (begun, indeed, by none other than themselves) of Donald Trump‘s being an agent of the Kremlin. This, indeed, is far far worse than the Watergate scandal of 50 years ago…

🇺🇸Erik Svane, Spokesperson Republicans Overseas France, will appear tonight at 23H20 on BFMTV to set them straight on France's favorite anti-Trump subject - Jeffrey Epstein. You don't want to miss it!

🇫🇷Erik Svane, porte-parole de Republicans Overseas France, sera ce soir à… pic.twitter.com/vuj1NWibYi

— Republicans Overseas France (@ROverseasFrance) July 25, 2025

 

The Sixth Month Anniversary of Donald Trump's Presidency Provides ROF's Randy Yaloz and John Lowe with an Opportunity to Debate French Leftists

If that ("to debate") is the word (with regards to hysterical leftists)… 

As Donald Trump celebrated his sixth month in the White House, Randy Yaloz was invited numerous times to appear on French media to discuss the anniversary. His BFMTV appearance does not seem to be visible as a replay, but TF1's LCI channel on July 21 at 11:30 PM (1:31:47-1:54:11) to discuss the sixth month anniversary of Donald Trump's presidency. Despite the ROF President’s excellent defense of the greatest 6 months in Presidential history, the anti-Trump panel calls Trump nothing more than a media man, President of “image” rather than “substance”. Clown show.

Le 22h Misrachi du lundi 21 juillet 2025

Publié le 22 juillet 2025 à 0h00

Au sommaire : Russie-Ukraine, réunion prévue mercredi (Zelensky). Drones : les secrets de la production russe. Trump-Poutine : se verront-ils un jour ? Nucléaire : Trump réarme l'Europe ? Trump, déjà six mois : waouh, le temps passe vite !

Source : 22h

• #Donald Trump
• #22h

A day earlier, John Lowe was invited to appear on Franceinfo at 1:35 PM for the same anniversary, where the ROF Vice President went up against, in the words of Paul Reen, "some ex Science Po Prof who doesn’t think Trump has done anything good (not even on illegal immigration!) and thinks the only solution in Gza is a Palestinian state. what a surprise"

1944-1945 : Beaucoup d'infos inédites et surprenantes lorsque Radio Courtoisie revient sur la dernière année de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale

Mercredi, à midi, Radio Courtoisie a consacré une heure et demie au sujet de “Les quatre-vingts ans de la victoire en Europe“ sur la dernière année de la guerre en Europe, depuis le Débarquement en Normandie jusqu'à la prise de Berlin.

Une partie du sujet du Libre journal du nouveau monde du 23 juillet 2025 s'est porté sur la question, "Ne serait-il pas temps que les Français mettent fin à leur anti-américanisme obsessionnel couplé à leurs fantasmes sur la Russie éternelle ?", autrement dit sur Ce que personne ne vous dit sur l'Armée Rouge pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale.

Evelyne Joslain, assistée d’Eric, reçoit :

• Erik Svane, journaliste, blogueur

Thème : “Les quatre-vingts ans de la victoire en Europe  “

Étiquettes : Erik Svane Nouveau Monde

Patron d'émission

Joslain Evelyne

Archives du patron d'émission

"There must be indictments of those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time"

Holy Jesus, exclaims Damian Bennett.

I'll just leave this here. 

• Gabbard To Release More Obama Russiagate Files, 'Cannot Fathom' How Durham, Mueller Missed Evidence Of 'Years-Long Coup' July20, 2025

Gabbard: "There is no rational or logical explanation for why [previous special counsels] failed. ... The only logical conclusion that I can draw in this…is that there was direct intent to cover up the truth about what occurred and who was responsible and the broad network of how this seditious conspiracy was concocted and who exactly was responsible for carrying it out. ...

"There must be indictments of those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time [scil., OBAMA], no matter who was involved in creating this treasonous conspiracy against the American people. They all must be held accountable. For the American people to have any sense of trust in the integrity of our democratic republic, accountability, action, prosecution, [and] indictments for those who are responsible for trying to steal our democracy is essential for us to make sure that this never happens to our country again."

Oh. Did you want some dessert?

• Gabbard Exposes Obama’s Direct Role In Orchestrating The Russia Hoax July20, 2025
• Accountability? DNI Gabbard Says Whistleblowers Are Now 'Coming Out Of The Woodwork' On Russiagate July20, 2025

Madam, Monsieur, ton digestif.

• Flashback To John Brennan Warning Against Tulsi Gabbard As DNI Makes A Lot More Sense Now July 19, 2025

Is the Trump administration the most overperforming administration in our history? In my lifetime -- yes.

 

As French TV Examines the Epstein Affair, Pro-Trump Frenchman Is Constantly Interruped

Le 17 juillet, Philippe Karsenty était invité sur CNews (0:00-43:30). Deux jours après, le porte-parole du Comité Trump France apparaissait sur BFMTV pour évoquer les relations Trump-Epstein. 

Affaire Epstein : une épine dans le pied de Trump ? - 19/07

Donald Trump porte plainte pour diffamation vendredi 18 juillet contre le Wall Street Journal, et réclame au journal dix milliards de dollars. Le journal américain avait publié un article attribuant à Donald Trump une lettre salace adressée au financier américain Jeffrey Epstein en 2003, à l'occasion de son 50e anniversaire. De quelle manière Trump parvient-il ou pas à maîtriser cette histoire qui l'embarrasse ? On y revient avec : Naoufel El Khaouafi, envoyé spécial BFMTV à Washington D.C. (États-Unis). Laurence Haïm, journaliste spécialiste des États-Unis. Olivier Ravanello, consultant politique internationale BFMTV. Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole de "Comité Trump France". Henry Arnaud, correspondant BFMTV à Los Angeles. Et Michel Fayad, analyste géopolitique, enseignant en géopolitique du pétrole et du gaz à l'IFP.Voir moins

Hier à 19h09 | Durée : 23:45

Dear 16-Year-Olds, Dear High School Students: Do You Have Any Brains?!

"If you don't support the Left when you are 20, you have no heart", Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying; "If you don't support the Right when you are 40, you have no brains."

Why — why on Earth — should high school students (and for that matter, university students as well) join in deciding the future of the country, if they… have no brains?! 

Sorry if you (or your parents) feel offended, but the question is an honest one. Most young people are more interested in girls or boys than in how a government works. In fact, most boys' political choices are more about impressing girls (and, in the best case — in their point of view — ending up in bed with one of them). 

One of the Danish high school students who was interviewed when lowering the age limit was discussed in Denmark a few years ago admits as much when she confesses upfront that "the political views of my friends are quite limited."

Instapundit's Ed Driscoll reports that in the UK, 16-Year-Olds Can Vote in the Next British General Election. When the idea was floated in Denmark in 2022, I responded with the current text (slightly shortened, for space reasons, when sent to the local newspaper). When a feminist wrote that democracy should be inclusive (meaning voting for 16- and 17-year-olds as well as for foreigners — not distinguishing between legal and illegal aliens), I shot back that democracy should not be inclusive, but rational. Why should foreigners have the right to vote, I asked? I lived in Paris for more than 20 years and never received (or even asked for) French citizenship. (Cheers for the Instalink, Sarah.)

As a young Dennis Prager reacted, when 18(!)-year-olds got the vote in 1971: "Why are they giving me the vote? I don't know anything!"

In America, the 26th Amendment dates back to the Vietnam War: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." But notice what is (very) wrong with this — simplistic — quote (see Alexis de Tocqueville quote below). The message is this: You cannot — no one can — trust your families to defend, or even care for, you: Our fathers and mothers are so indifferent to our well-being that they would vote for war and not care that we would fall on the battlefield; in fact, the only angels wise enough to defend us (as well as our aforementioned fathers and mothers) are those in government — as long as it is run by (left-wing) politicians and bureaucrats. 

In other words: the 26th Amendment is based on typical anti-family Marxism. 

"We must help the poor"; "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"; "we stand for tolerance"; "no person is illegal"; "we must fix the climate." As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, as far back as the 1830s, "It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth."

The Left loves teenagers because children — like the Leftists themselves — are drama queens (not to mention emotionally unbalanced) who fall for simple platitudes and who love the idea of joining in the Left's next hysterical Crusade. That is why socialists constantly want to lower the voting age — to 18, to 17, to 16, to — what'll be the next thing? 11?!

But if Greta Thunberg is right (that we are "at the beginning of a mass extinction"), shouldn't the only logical conclusion be that "young people" like her alone should be allowed to vote, while we pathetic adult twits who, after all, "have stolen [their] childhood" should be denied that right? 

"Ignorant, officious, self-important students shouldn’t have that much influence," opines law professor Glenn Reynolds, while Ed Driscoll adds that "the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience."

"The problem isn’t that I don’t get what you’re saying or that I’m old" laughs Bill Maher. "The problem is that your ideas are stupid." 

It's even worse than it looks, says P.J. O'Rourke: "The grim truth is, kids are born communists." 

Again: Why — why on Earth — should brainless Maoists with stupid ideas vote? 

As for the green transition, do children — and let's be honest, many adults — have any idea that the miserable times (with price hikes, fuel shortages, etc.) we have been living through are largely due to the green movement's ludicrously absurd "climate-friendly" energy decisions that have been failing across Europe and North America (in the USA's case, until January 2025)? 

"You become an adult when you decide to act like one," thunders Dennis Prager. "You don't become an adult because you turn a certain age." 

Here is a new and better proposal: Change the law, so people don't get the vote until they reach about 25; unless they get a job at a younger age (including, naturally, serving in the military) and until they have paid their first tax bill.  

• "Demokratiet skal ikke være inkluderende men rationelt"
Villabyerne Vol 117 # 47, 24. november 2022, s 8 

ROF's Nicolas Conquer Discusses Being Among the Victims of the French State Agency Censoring Right-Leaning Individuals in France:

Appearing on Tocsin Media to discuss how rightist speakers and journalists are unduly censored by l'ARCOM (Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique, Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication), is one of the victims, ROF's very own Nicolas Conquer. 

💥« L’épouse du président de l’Arcom dirige Destin Commun, un think tank immigrationniste financé par George #Soros. »

Réécouter l'émission 🔗https://t.co/RdSsXEecHk

🗣️ @ConquerNicolas, porte-parole du parti Republican Overseas (la branche française du Parti républicain… pic.twitter.com/jkgK9Xd49n

— Tocsin (@Tocsin_Media) July 7, 2025

Arcom censors the right on TV shows 🔷 With Nicolas Conquer Spokesperson for the Republican Overseas Party (American Republican Party in France)

Ne serait-il pas temps que les Français mettent fin à leur anti-américanisme obsessionnel couplé à leurs fantasmes sur la Russie éternelle ?

Il n'y a, en général, que les conceptions simples
qui s'emparent de l'esprit du peuple. Une idée fausse,
mais claire et précise, aura toujours plus de puissance
dans le monde qu'une idée vraie mais complexe.
— Alexis de Tocqueville

En défendant la Grèce aux Thermopyles en 480 av. JC, 300 Spartes ont vaillamment résisté à l'armée perse de Xerxès I pendant trois jours, avant de sombrer en martyrs.

Pourtant, ce n'est pas les dizaines de milliers de soldats perses de Xerxès qu'on traite de braves, de héros (même en Iran) ; ce sont les Spartiates du roi Léonidas qui, eux, n'ont perdu "que" quelques centaines de combattants.

Ce qui nous ramène en France aux XXe et XXIe siècles, où on nous avance sans cesse que parce que l'URSS aurait perdu 50 fois plus de morts que l'Amérique pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, nous devons, et l'Europe doit, plus de gratitude aux Russes qu'aux Américains (qui, il faut le dire, n'étaient point mutuellement adversaires — a priori ; voir ci-bas).

De fait, je n'ai jamais participé à, ou même entendu, un discours en France sur la Seconde Guerre Mondiale sans que quelqu'un dise, souvent avec un sourire entendu : "Mais les Ricains l'ont fait pour leurs propres intérêts (économiques)" 

Il paraît que ce ne serait pas de l'anti-américanisme pur, pur et dur.  En êtes vous sûr ?

Réflechissez-y : Comment quelqu'un pourrait dire — à tort ou à raison — que "les Belges ou les Français  ou les Danois ou les Philippins ont fait la guerre pour leurs propres intérêts?"  C'est du non-sens.  Absolu.  Il n'y en a que pour les Amerloques, comme jadis Monsieur Sylvestre était le seul Guignol qui n'était pas la caricature d'un seul individu particulier (français ou étranger) mais le stéréotype de tout un peuple.

Par ailleurs, plus de 16 millions Américains ont servi sous les drapeaux dans les années 1940.  Pense-t'on qu'il y avait en Amérique des dizaines de millions de parents qui auraient dit : "Oui, notre fils adoré : quitte notre Home Sweet Home, prends un fusil, enfile l'uniforme, traverse les océans, vas-t'en en guerre, nous voulons risquer que tu perdes ta vie pour que Coca-Cola puisse vendre plus de bouteilles aux Frenchies" ?!

Ah oui, si les capitalistes yankees sont tellement macchiavéliques — diaboliques, pourrait-on dire — ou abrutis, commme le martèle la propagande communiste, c'est que ladite propagande a effectivement fait fondre les cerveaux des Français.

Suite à l'article d'Évelyne Joslain sur le 80e anniversaire de la victoire en Europe (VE Day, Les 4 Vérités nº 1495), un lecteur a "bondi au plafond" par ce qu'il appelle une "réécriture de l'histoire" : "les troupes anglo-américaines" insiste-t'il, "n’étaient pas des héros mais des amateurs qui se battaient pour les intérêts économiques de leur pays et rien d’autre." 

Comme de nombreux Français — qui ne semblent, bizarrement, jamais parler des intérêts des Soviétiques — Jean-Marie Pichard ne semble pas s'en rendre compte, mais de fait, si quelqu'un est dupe de la réécriture de l'histoire, c'est bien lui : avec les mensonges gauchistes, tout est tourné sur la tête.  Doublement.  Les Américains et non les communistes sont accusés de faire la guerre pour leurs "propres intérêts."  Tandis que les gens — que dis-je, les peuples — qui sont loués pour leur courage inné et considérés l'équivalent des Spartiates sus-nommés sont les Soviétiques et non les Yankees.

On souffre donc sous une double déception : d'un côté, on attribue les sombres desseins (très réels — voir plus loin) de Staline aux Yankees ; De l'autre, on attribue aux fantassins cocos tant des vertus martiales que des vertus quasi-bibliques dans un fantasme où le peuple russe est comparée aux Spartiates ci-haut nommés. Avec cette russolâtrie, nous faisons face, selon Evelyne Joslain elle-même, à "des inversions parfaites de la réalité factuelle".

À lire aussi : Ce que personne ne vous dit sur l'Armée Rouge pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale 

Les statistiques de la mort au combat seraient symboliques d'une espèce de bravoure intérieure, qui de plus est nationale ou communale et reflète la nation entière, faisant preuve d'une valeur, d'une vaillance sans équivalent et qui manqueraient (cruellement?) aux cœurs des Yankees fourbes.  

Beaucoup de lecteurs des 4 Vérités et d'auditeurs de Radio Courtoisie se révendiquent de la religion chrétienne, mais ne faut-il pas se demander si nous versons vers une superstition quasi-païenne, avec des louanges quasi-mythiques à la Russie profonde et immortelle et des panégyriques à l'âme de la Russie éternelle.  Qui n'est pas sans rappeler Ein Volk, Ein Reich, ein Führer, nichtwar?

D'ailleurs, l'avez-vous remarqué ? Quoi qu'ils fassent (ou qu'ils ne fassent pas), les Américains ne peuvent pas gagner.  "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Quand ils font la guerre, c'est pour des raisons crapuleuses.  Et quand ils essaient de rester en-dehors de la guerre, ils sont condamnés pour ne pas être entrés dans le conflit assez tôt. 

"Les chiffres parlent d’eux-mêmes" prétend Jean-Marie Pichard : "les pertes totales US de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale sont de l’ordre du cinquantième des pertes russes (militaires et civils additionnés)." M. Pichard ne sait-il pas pourquoi les statistiques sont à comparer avec un bikini ? Parce que les deux dévoilent beaucoup, mais elles cachent l'essentiel.

La vérité n'est-elle pas que l'hécatombe soviétique dans la Grande Guerre Patriotique est entièrement due à l'inclinaison des dictateurs de ne pas avoir le moindre estime pour la vie de leurs sujets et de considérer ces troufions, souvent mal formés et "envoyés au casse-pipe", comme de la chair à canon (comme, 2500 ans plus tôt, les Perses de Xerxès).  Dans cette perspective, l'Allemagne et le Japon ont eux aussi perdu (beaucoup) plus de vies, tant parmi les civils que parmi les militaires, que les USA (ou le Royaume-Uni) — faut-il aussi multiplier les louanges sur la culture des SS et des Japonais fanatiques par-dessus celle, républicaine et démocrate, des GIs (et des Tommies) ?! 

Comme le dit Antony Beevor à propos de l'hécatombe soviétique, n'est-il pas plutôt dû au "mépris stupéfiant quant à la vie humaine de la part de Staline" ? Dans The Soviet Role in World War II, l'historien écrit que l' 

On ne peut jamais s’attendre à ce que l’armée d’une démocratie libérale combatte aussi impitoyablement que celle d’une dictature.

Par ailleurs, Jean-Marie Pichard sait-il que parmi les millions de soldats soviétiques morts, selon lui, à cause de "l’acharnement de l’Armée Rouge à défendre le sol natal", des centaines de milliers ont perdu la vie abattus et mitraillés par… ladite Armée Rouge ? Oui, l'ordre nº 227 du Tyran Rouge du Kremlin interdisait aux soldats de battre en retraite, ordonnant à la troupe à l'arrière d'abattre froidement leurs camarades s'ils contraignaient à cet ordre et revenaient, perdants, vers la "sécurité" des lignes soviétiques.          

On parle aussi de centaines de milliers de soldats soviétiques qui ont été exécutés par ordre de Moscou (pour ne pas parler des Polonais de Katyn).

Soyons réalistes : Les seuls qui ont fait la guerre pour leurs propres intérêts (économiques ou autres) ce sont les dictatures : l'Allemagne nazie, le Japon impérial et — oui — la Russie communiste.
Le seul qui après 1945 sort gagnant est le Vojd, à tel point qu'un historien (Sean McMeekin) a appellé son livre sur le conflit Stalin's War (étonnamment, non traduit en français).

• Quant à l'avance éclair des Rouges, à quoi faut-il vraiment l'attribuer ? au désir du citoyen moyen de Murmansk, d'Astana, de Vladivostok et de Novosibirsk de libérer … la Roumanie, la Hollande ou la France (?!).  Encore une fois, faut-il attribuer "le rouleau compresseur russe [qui] avance inexorablement à l’est" à la bravoure innée des valeureux qui symbolisent l'âme russe éternelle ?

Ou n'est-ce pas plutôt aux jeeps et aux camions de l'Oncle Sam — 400 000 en tout  ? C'est l'avis de l'historien Antony Beevor qui écrit dans La Deuxième Guerre Mondiale : "Sans les camions américains fournis dans le cadre du Prêt-bail (Lend-lease), l'Armée rouge n'aurait jamais pu atteindre Berlin avant les Américains."

Selon Nicolas Lecaussin, patron de l'IREF (Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales), sans l’Amérique, l’URSS n’aurait jamais pu résister à l’envahisseur allemand :

Au total, l’aide américaine a représenté environ 180 milliards de dollars (d’aujourd’hui) : 400 000 jeeps et camions, 14 000 avions, 8 000 tracteurs, 13 000 chars [etc, etc, etc…]

Dans leurs mémoires, l'ambassadeur américain à Moscou, Averell Harriman, et Nikita Khrouchtchev ont tous les deux cité Staline en personne : "L'Amérique est un pays de machines ; sans ces machines, nous perdrions cette guerre."  

Voici ce qu'écrit Raphaëlle Branche dans son compte-rendu pour le quotidien Le Monde de Les Guerriers du froid de Catherine Merridale (Vie et mort des soldats de l'armée rouge, 1939-1945 ; Ivan's War: The Red Army at War 1939-45 by Catherine Merridale)) :

Une fois la reconquête du territoire national achevée s'ouvre un autre chapitre : en Roumanie d'abord, en Hongrie, puis en Prusse-Occidentale, les soldats soviétiques se livrent à « une orgie de crimes de guerre » au premier rang desquels les viols massifs.

Par ailleurs, après l'invasion de Normandie et après nombre de victoires depuis un an environ — Rome tombe aux mains des alliés deux jours plus tôt,  le 4 juin 1944 — voilà que les alliés subissent des défaites importantes ou en tout cas des revers quasi-catastrophiques, notamment pendant l'Opération Market Garden pour s'emparer des ponts en Hollande ou pendant l'offensive-surprise de von Rundstedt qui inaugurera la Bataille des Ardennes (la bataille la plus sanglante pour les Américains pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale); il y a des théories comme quoi le Kremlin a partagé moults renseignements des Occidentaux, directement ou indirectement, avec Berlin, afin de saigner tant les Alliés que les Allemands.  Quels formidables alliés ces Russes !

Dans cette perspective, une autre excuse pour vilipender l'Oncle Sam est d'avoir lâché deux bombes atomiques sur le Japon, et cela "seulement" pour intimider notre grand allié russe. 

Mais de fait, il s'avère que cette intimidation a réussi, et Staline a mis fin à certains de ses projets macchiavéliques.  Non pas par rapport au Japon et à l'Asie, mais par rapport à… l'Europe de l'Ouest.  C'est depuis 14 ans que nous connaissons les projets secrets de Staline, date de sortie du livre par le plus grand historien de notre génération.  L'armée Rouge n'allait pas s'arrêter à Berlin, révèle Antony Beevor dans La Deuxième Guerre Mondiale.  Les 400 divisions allaient poursuivre inexorablement leurs avancées et — avec l'aide des partis communistes locaux — rafler toute l'Europe, occidentale comme orientale.  Oui, après la défaite de l'Allemagne, le Kremlin avait pour projet de trahir ses alliés et de lâcher ses divisions sur le reste de l'Europe. Pourquoi ce projet ne s'est-il pas, finalement (et heureusement), réalisé ? Car le NKVD (l'ancêtre du KGB) de Beria a appris l'existence de la bombe atomique (autre excuse, encore une fois, pour les anti-Américains de tous pays de fustiger l'Oncle Sam). 

Quelle tristesse ! Si seulement Staline avait pu balayer les armées anglo-américaines et occuper Paris et à Copenhague avec ses chars, cela aurait évité aux nostalgiques de l'Union Soviétique d'avoir à vivre sous le cauchemar de Coca-Cola, de Hollywood et d'une souris nommée Mickey. 

Moi, je dis un grand Thank you aux GIs américains, vilipendés, ainsi qu'à leur bombe nucléaire, toute aussi diabolisée.

• Mais nous arrivons à ce que je considère comme la chose la plus ridicule, sinon obscène, du conte de fées français sur la glorification des Russes pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale.  

Effectivement, toutes les louanges sur la bravoure, vraie ou imaginée, de l'âme russe oublient une chose, fondamentale. 

Jean-Marie Pichard tonne qu'il ne faut pas récrire l'histoire.  Ce n'est pas faux, mais M. Pichard ne sait pas pourquoi.  Pour continuer son mépris du peuple américain, il se sent obligé de référer à leur "lobby pro-hithlérien" (sic) d'avant-guerre. M. Pichard, vous ne le savez pas, mais il n'y avait pas de lobby plus pro-hitlérien que… l'URSS de Joseph Staline.

En effet, c'est une erreur, une réécriture de l'histoire, voire un mythe (encore un), d'affirmer que la guerre a commencé quand Hitler a envahi la Pologne.  Non : il est plus juste de dire que la guerre a commencé quand Hitler et le petit Père des Peuples ont ensemble envahi la Pologne, la Wehrmacht la Pologne occidentale et l'Armée Rouge (deux semaines plus tard) la Pologne orientale.

De fait, Jeff Jacoby a proposé que la guerre ne devrait plus être considéré comme ayant débuté en septembre 1939 mais en août, le jour de la signature du Pacte germano-soviétique neuf jours auparavant.  La guerre n'aurait donc pas commencé le 1 septembre 1939, selon le journaliste du Boston Herald, mais le 23 août 1939.  

Eh oui, pendant les premières deux années du conflit, les Nazis et les communistes étaient alliés. D'abord, invasion de la Pologne.  Ensuite attaque et (tentative d')occupation des pays nordiques (Danemark et Norvège pour le Führer, les pays Baltes et la Finlande pour le Vojd). Plus tard, attaque de la Hollande, la Belgique et la France pour Berlin, la Bessarabie et la Roumanie pour Moscou. Tout ceci concorde, par ailleurs, avec le fait, déjà établi, que Staline a essayé de s'emparer de plusieurs pays et régions du continent et par la suite, de l'Europe toute entière — y compris (comme nous l'avons vu) la partie occidentale.

Il est de notoriété publique qu'avant l'invasion de l'URSS en juin 1941, les partis communistes tasaient toute critique sur les Nazis.  Ce qui est beaucoup plus rarement précisé, c'est que les Nazis allemands et les communistes soviétiques étaient de fait des alliés.  

Sans le pacte Ribbentrop-Molotov, Hitler n'aurait jamais commencé la guerre (et, par ailleurs, Staline non plus).  La vérité est que la Seconde Guerre Mondiale n'aurait jamais commencé sans l'aval, et sans la participation, de Staline. 

Quand les deux alliés sont devenus adversaires (mortels), ce n'est point devenu le Bien contre le Mal ; c'était (comme depuis le début) le Mal contre le Mal. 

Il y a incontestablement beaucoup de choses à admirer dans la culture russe, mais une des choses qui est régulièrement ignorée est l'extrême brutalité de cette société, impensable dans les sociétés occidentales en ces temps modernes.  Tout le monde est tenu (même si la tradition de tous les gouvernements, et surtout des autorités communistes, est de mentir ou en tout cas d'exagérer) de s'étrangler d'indignation par les pertes russes pendant la guerre.  Sait-on, par exemple, combien de Russes sont morts pendant la guerre civile russe entre Rouges et Blancs après la prise du pouvoir par les bolchéviques ? Vingt millions. Oui, c'est le même chiffre de fatalités que pendant la Grande Guerre Patriotique et par ailleurs, c'est un chiffre qui éclipse les pertes du régime tsariste pendant la Première Guerre Mondiale, prétendument des chiffres "inacceptables" (dix fois moindres que les quatre années qui suivirent et donc dix fois moindres aussi que les pertes de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale) qui exigeaient la nécessité de rien de moindre qu'une révolution communiste.

Chaque fois que j'entends un Français dire que ce sont les Russes qui ont libéré l'Europe, je l'invite à venir en vacances avec moi. Oui, partons ensemble, M. Pichard allons visiter, par exemple, les pays de l'Europe de l'Est, de l'Estonie à la Roumanie en passant par la Slovaquie.  Si jamais le Français en question commence à repéter ces âneries, je lui couvrirai (gentiment) la bouche pour éviter qu'il ne se retrouve dans une asile d'aliénés.

À Tallinn, le musée estonien de l'histoire du vingtième siècle est nommée le Musée des Deux Occupations.  Un Lithuanien, lui, disait : "j'ai vécu sous l'occupation fasciste et sous l'occupation communiste ; eh bien si c'était à refaire et si j'avais le choix, je préférerais dix ans sous les Schleus qu'une seule année sous les Ruskoffs"

Il ne faut pas être de confession juive, loin s'en faut, pour approuver la phrase du Talmud :

« Si vous êtes gentil avec les cruels, vous finirez par être cruel avec les gentils. »

Cela explique toute la politique de la Gauche en général, dans quelque pays que ce soit, et c'est particulièrement vrai avec l'indulgence française envers les soviétiques valeureux des années 1940 contrastée avec la méfiance pour les Américains prétendument fourbes.

• À lire aussi : Ce que personne ne vous dit sur l'Armée Rouge pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale 

Pour plus de détails, aller sur le blog Le Monde Watch et faire une recherche de "Ce que personne ne vous dit sur l'Armée Rouge pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale". Erik Svane et Evelyne Joslain discuteront de la dernière année de la guerre en Europe sur Radio Courtoisie mercredi 23 juillet à midi pile. Le 20 août, à la même heure, ils parleront de la Guerre dans le Pacifique depuis Pearl Harbour jusqu'à Hiroshima.