Anarcho-Bolshevik

Oh. That is a good point. You really showed me how wrong I was. I wish that I were as smart as you.

To be honest, when I first saw the claim about the Minsk radio station I immediately wondered if it was real, but The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pg. 621 does briefly discuss it and the author cited the ‘German Foreign Office papers, […] p. 480’. Strangely, though, not that many sources discuss it, and the few that I did find had surprisingly little to say about it; finding in depth English information on this radio station is frustratingly uneasy. A couple sources (The Fate of Poles in the USSR and The Polish Review) specifically claim that this station helped the Luftwaffe bomb towns, villages, and cities: a serious accusation that has attracted suspiciously little attention and reeks of Cold War sensationalism. Now I’m starting to wonder: did the Soviets even make good on their presumable promise to help the Luftwaffe?

Here is what pg. 480 of the German Foreign Office papers says:

“The Chief of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe² would be very much obliged to the People’s Commissariat for Telecommunications if—for urgent navigational tests—the Minsk Broadcasting Station could, until further notice and commencing immediately, send out a continuous dash with intermittent call-sign ‘Richard Wilhelm 1.0.’ in the intervals between its programmes, and introduce the name ‘Minsk’ as often as possible in the course of its programme.”

I don’t know if it’s because of my limited expertise in this particular subject or if there is some context that I am overlooking, but judging from this report alone, it really doesn’t sound that scandalous. It sounds downright boring, actually. What do you think: is sending out a continuous dash and repeatedly introducing a name in navigational tests a cause for concern…? Can you feel yourself sweating at all…? Do you think that you’ll lose any sleep tonight…? Even just a little bit…? Be honest.

A funny thing, though:

“One eve­ning a soldier came to the place where I lived and told us he’d heard on the radio that every­body who didn’t want to be under German occupation was welcome in the USSR: the borders ­were open for every­body.”²¹ As she has heard about the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany, she says to herself: “Maybe ­there is a way. Maybe the USSR ­will save my life.” So together with some friends and her brother, she decides, as she puts it, to take up the “Rus­sian offer.”²² They leave Warsaw on foot on 28 September. She writes: “The next day we ­were refugees in the care of the Rus­sian Army in Bialystok. […] ​We were well treated and got some food and shelter.”²³

(Source.)

Far from possessing a single will, the reaction of Communists to the [German]–Soviet Pact and Chamberlain’s declaration of war was confused and heterogeneous, for the war shattered the Party’s whole conception of international politics.

(Source.)

Campaigns to demand shelter facilities, directed by the Communist Party, were also mounted. The government feared that Communist agitation about poor shelter provision in the working-class areas of London might provide fertile ground for political subversion. One incident of this campaign for improved shelter facilities was a demonstration at the Savoy in London’s West End. This became the subject of Cabinet investigations. The minutes of the Cabinet meeting record the recommendation that:

…strong action should, if necessary, be taken to prevent demonstrations by bodies of people purporting to seek better shelter accommodation…’

(Source.)

In January 1941, the central committee of the Communist Party of Belgium (Parti Communiste de Belgique, PCB) had started producing Le Drapeau Rouge (Red Flag) clandestinely. While formally supporting the [German–Soviet] pact and placing the blame for the war equally on Berlin and London, in its second edition proclaimed itself to be “against national-socialism, the agent of big business. The struggle for socialism continues.”

The resolution of the central committee “accepts the patriotic character of the resistance developed by certain sections of the Anglophile bourgeoisie and recognises the necessity to create a parallel movement to avoid the working class being dragged along behind”.¹⁵ Although it is equally fair to say that the anti[fascist] sentiments that were widespread in the Belgian working class pushed the PCB into opposing the occupation more forcefully than the logic of their support for the [German–Soviet] pact would imply.

(Source.)

Albert Ouzoulias, commander of the Bataillons de la Jeunesse (Youth Battalions), armed wing of the Jeunesse Communiste said:

"For us, even a Nazi was a human being. The discussions had centred on this question. The comrades refused to execute a German soldier who could have been a Communist comrade from Hamburg or a worker from Berlin. Even an officer could have been an anti-Nazi teacher. At least, everyone felt that killing a Gestapo officer was justified. But our comrades did not understand that the best way to defend our country during a war was to kill the maximum number of German officers. This would hasten the end of the war and the end of the misfortune that has affected many of the peoples of the world, including the German people. Internationalism at this time was to kill the largest possible number of Nazis".⁵⁵

In fact, the majority of Communists were happy to be rid of the [German–Soviet] pact and were quickly comfortable with the combativity of the new line.

(Source.)

Despite the [German–Soviet] pact, Communist resistance started very quickly in the Pas‐de‐Calais. The particular circumstances of the Forbidden Zone allowed for an independence of action that Auguste Lecœur and Julien Hapiot were able to take maximum advantage of. They decided, in August 1940, to begin organising illegal Communist activity against the occupying forces.⁷

[…]

Thus, the Communists of the Pas‐de‐Calais began their anti‐[Reich] propaganda very early on. Nevertheless, the Communists of the region did not think of themselves as disloyal to their party and their confidence in the Soviet Union was as strong as ever, it was simply that the daily reality of the Forbidden Zone pushed then more rapidly to a more anti‐[Reich] position than their comrades elsewhere.

(Emphasis added. Source.)

Not sure if we are supposed to agree with everything our countries have historically done.

The irony of an anticommunist saying this is palpable.

Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes

https://books.google.com/books?id=unFXfWXagqAC&pg=RA2-PT193

The new center was soon embroiled in a scandal: in October 2008 the journal Respect published a text stigmatizing the celebrated writer Milan Kundera for having ‘given’ a young student, Miroslav Dvořáček, to the Communist police in 1950. In fact, the accusation was organized by an institute employee, Adam Hradilek, a relative of Dvořáček.¹⁵

From that moment forward, the center and those running it have been the target of ever more incisive criticism. Jiří Pehe, former advisor to President Vaclav Havel and current director of the New York University in Prague, commented: ‘From its inception this Institute was occupied by people with a Jacobin style of managing history.’ His next remark leaves no room for doubt: ‘The [Institute’s] board reflects the political reality of who is in power.’¹⁶

Oops!

Investigation of Communist Crimes and the Memory of the Romanian Exile

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1127863

Archaeology […] was annexed to a political process, that of the official condemnation of communism, its role being to provide new incriminating evidence to confirm and supplement already known data about the communist repression (assembled from archive documents, testimonies of former political prisoners, eyewitnesses, local memory, etc.).

Interestingly, none of the archaeological texts regarding the exhumations has been published in academic journals or volumes; they have been published on the website of the IICCR/IICCMER and, most of them, in the journal of the Foundation Memoria (established in 1990 by a former political prisoner), suggestively titled Memory. Journal of Arrested Thought (in Romanian), a journal with an anti-communist, Eurocentrist and Christian discourse.

Huh, how strange. Could it be…

IICCR, subordinate to the Romanian government and coordinated by the prime minister

Wow! The capitalist governments facilitating the Nakba are the same ones funding these hopelessly corrupt anticommie think tanks?

I’m so surprised!

The […] Kremlin is using everything [that] it has to defeat us as quickly as possible in the hopes that it can carry out its planned extermination of the German people with what remains of its armed strength.