If Hitler had won World War Two, there would be no Israel

All Jews should put aside all ideological considerations and use their brains and they would come to the natural conclusion that if Hitler had won World War Two by defeating the Soviet Union, then there would have been no Israel. Right up to the point in 1948 when Israel was born, Palestine had been a British Protectorate. If Britain had lost the war, then Palestine would have become a German Territory. As it happened during World War One, the losers in the war lost most of their colonial territories. It happened to Germany after World War One and it would have happened to Britain and France during World War Two. So vast chuncks of the Middle, Africa and Asia would have come under German Rule and the Japanese would taken over the rest, including vast expanses of China.

Soviet Forces liberated Concentration Camps with the British and the Americans coming in as spectators once Concentration Camps had been taken over by Soviet Troops. The famous Balfour Declaration would have meant absolutely nothing and instead of migrating to Palestine, hundreds of thousands would have ended their lives in concentration camps or worse.

Whatever you might think in ideological terms, facts are facts. I wonder also what would have happened if Unternehmen Barbarossa had never happened. Entire German Divisions would with Panzer would have been available at Normandy. The Normandy Invasion would have ended with tends of thousands of American Troops, British Troops and troops of other nationalities falling prisoners of the German Wehrmacht. It must be remembered that many Europeans of countries occupied by Germany were pro-German and went on to fight for Germany. So nothing was clear cut.

When talking about history, we must put ideology aside and look at the historical facts of what happened on the battlefields.

Looking at the history of Japan and at events leading to the attack in Pearl Harbour, Admiral Yamamoto was totally against the Axis. He thought that signed a deal with Germany was against Japanese best interests. In the end, the Axe was against Germany itself. If the Axis had not existed, then the Americans would have been at war in the Pacific but would not have been at war in Europe, Africa or Middle East. President Roovevelt used Pearl Harbour as justification to spread the war. Germany made a significant mistake when it declared war against the USA.

Looking at present conflicts, it must be remembered that World War Two (or World War One, for that matter) did not happen all at once. There was a series of conflicts that started long before September 1939. Japanese expansion in Asia started long before World War Two. There was also the Spanish Civil War to consider. Each conflict became a step towards the conflict that we know as World War Two.

Kashmir: Should divided Kashmir become an independent country?

 

Kashmir exists as a divided territory - one chunk of Kashmir is under Pakistani administration and another chunk is under Indian administration.

Now, lets compare the geographic size of Kashmir to the geographic size of the United Kingdom.

243.620 km2 - United Kingdom 

222.236 km2 - Kashmir

Slightly smaller than the United Kingdom, Kashmir could become one country and Pakistan and India could reach an agreement to ensure stability. 

From a demographic point of view, about 12.5 million people live in the area controlled by India, while about 2.5 million people live in the area controlled by Pakistan. With about 15 million people would be more populous than many a country in the rest of the world and the inhabitats have a common language - Urdu.

Economically, Kashmir is about services and fundamentally about agriculture. So the main areas of activity are agriculture, tourism and little industrial development. If we look at other economies across the world, comparisons can be made that put Kashmir on a equal footing with many countries. So, as a country, it would be viable. A united and stable Kashmir would mean more stability for the entire Subcontinent.

India and Pakistan at war: yet another conflict. Wait until dots are joined and we have a new World War

 India and Pakistan: Joining the dots towards World War Three

In the last few hours, a new war has started. The time will come when joining the dots we will have World War Three.

Two Nuclear Powers - one of them with massive size and population, but demographic is not all what it seems. If Pakistan faces the danger of being overrun by India the use of Nuclear Weapons is a given.

UK Elections: Not since the days when Labour replaced Liberal Party as the other party has anything similar happened in Elections

In a Parliamentary By-Election fought due to the resignation of a Labour MP, the Labour Party in government lost a seat to Reform Party, a newly formed political party led by Nigel Farage MP who became Member of Parliament in July 2024. But not only that. In local elections, the Reform Party managed to win control of 10 Local Councils and turned the remaining Local Authorities to No Overall Control. Massive losses for both the Conservative Party in Opposition and for the Labour Party in government.

As reported by the BBC, the number of seats allocated to each political party, of the 1637 seats being up for election, was as follows:

Her Majesty´s Opposition, the Conservative Party, lost 674 seats. Her Majesty´s Government, the Labour Party, managed to retain barely 98 seats. The main issue is this elections was Immigration, although lack of trust and opposition to policies implemented since July 2024 played a very important role. To sum up, neither of the two main parties - Conservative Party and Labour Party inspire trust. There are conflicts within both major political parties. Keir Starmer, as Prime Minister and Labour Party Leader is facing increasing rejection from his own party. Kemi Badenoch, as newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, has not managed to make voters forget about 14 years of a Conservative Party that saw a succession of party leaders and Prime Ministers, due to internal upheaval. From Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party had to go through an election in which it was left with little more than 100 MPs, many of which do not see eye to eye. The local elections and Mayoral Elections and a Parliamentary By-Election were supposed to be litmus test for both major political parties.

There might be soon yet another Parliamentary By Election due to troubles affecting the Labour Party in Government. The Labour Party still holds a majority of more than 400 Members of Parliament but due to internal disagreement regarding policies being implemented by the Labour Cabinet, 2025 is bound to be a critical year. Industrial unrest could be on the cards, affecting the Civil Service, the National Health Service and Education. If Labour supporters choose to vote for other political parties - i.e. in a by-Election in Lambeth, Labour voters decided to support the Green Party that got a handsome majority with 48%, leaving the Labour Party in second place with 39% - or to abstein then the leadership of Keir Starmer will be increasingly challenged. The fundamental question to ask is "If there was a General Eleciton, would the Labour Party lose the General Election?"  

BBC should be told that May 9th is one of the most important dates on the calendar of the Russian Federation

Dmitri Medvedev has stated that should anything unbecoming happen during the May 9th Celebrations in Moscow and should Ukraine be responsible for any attacks in Moscow on that day, the consequences for Ukraine will be catastrophic.

The former President of the Russian Federation has been very outpoken and very direct and has been asking for a stronger military response in the conflict in Ukraine.

No one should be in any doubt in terms of what such military response would be. While President Vladimir Putin has been very measured in terms of decisions made, Dmitri Medvedev wants to put an end to the conflict with a massive military response of the Russian Federation to wipe out any resistance in Ukraine.

While Western Politicians and Western Media, with their profound ignorance and lack of understanding of Russian Affairs have been constantly targetting President Putin, they are pretty oblivious of the fact that authorities in Kiev are still alive because the Russian Federation allows them to stay alive.

 

USA: Deal for Ukrainian Minerals

Why is a piece of land important? Land is a resource. It could be fertile land for farming. It could be strategic land allowing free passage. It could be many things but there has to be a value attached to it. For Ukraine it means surrendering mining that from now it will be exploited for the benefit of the USA and of American companies.

In 1973, the USA destroyed President Salvador Allende in Chile. Why? President Allende dared to nationalize Chilean copper mines that were American owned. This time, Ukraine has surrendered its mines to American interests willingly.

Now, what does it mean in the context of a military conflict? If some of the resources are in territories that are now a battlefield, the deal is only worth the papers used to sign the deal. The sides in the conflict will have to reach an agreement and if there is a territorial deal and the resources are not on land controlled by Ukraine, the deal is basically worthless. Therefore, we are dealing with non reality. Melodramatic, but not Reality, as real as works of fiction.

So, if more weapons are provided to Ukraine, the war will not stop and it does not give the Russian Federation any reason to stop fighting. Quite the opposite. It will reinforce the determination of the Russian Federation to continue fighting. On top of the human conflict of having to protect ethnic Russians, it adds the economic argument to prevent the enemy from controlling vital resources for industries.

In the present context, the deal is a Death Sentence for Ukraine.

Ukraine: When we have non entities making idiotic statements, it is practically impossible to reach peace

Germany breathed with relief when Ursula von der Leyen became President of the European Union Commission. She would no longer be able to ruin the German Armed Forces as Defense Secretary. Then we have got fifth or seventh rank politicians of Finland and the Baltic Republics - non entities - make warmongering statements and talking about going to war. Look at history. When were Finland or the Baltic Republics big decision makers in European Affairs? Never. They were colonies or about to be colonies of other European countries. Why? They do not have the size or the military might of other European countries. When it comes to European Wars, which countries write the headlines?

The media give a lot of space of statements made by leaders of Eastern European countries that are empty spaces when it comes to decision making. They want to fight wars. With what? Toothpicks? They do not have the numbers, do not have the money, do not have the infrastructure and do not have the mental strength to fight any wars. When it comes to wars on the continent, which countries have been at the top? Germany, France and Russia. The rest do not count. Borders have come and gone because of these three countries.

Since World War Two, Europe became an appendix of the USA. They could decide nothing and they could do nothing without the USA. Not much has changed. One European country has more American bases on its territory that any other country in the entire World and this country is Germany. Why? Because it was the way to ensure that Germany did not become Germany again. NATO was not created to protect Europe. NATO was created to control Germany. Because of present events, Germany has decided to put itself on the way back to being a European Master, but it might come at a cost even when 600 Billion Euros is not much money when it comes to real military might. Poland is the only country that is reportedly standing up to Germany in military terms. But will Poland have the stomach to stand up to Germany? People talking about Blitzkrieg and the rapid fall of Poland. What they do not talk about is that Poland, given that Poland was a militaristic state during World War Two, was not in such state of weakness to justify the speed with which Poland collapsed.

When it comes to France, France was better equipped, had better quality military equipment, had greater numbers, but even so it fell in a matter of weeks. What did Germany have? Superior soldiers that although fewer in numbers had what it takes to conquer. People talk about the brilliancy of the panzers in a mechanised war. Reality was much different. Much of the German Armies during World War Two still moved around with horses and this includes the French Campaign in 1940. France and Poland were defeated by the German Spirit. It was a fact since Roman Times, a smaller number of troops, better organised, could defeated greater armies. A country is the people. People occupy a territory, but the country is the people who live in it. I do not support Jus Soli. I support Jus Sanguini. A Fox is a Fox and a Rabbit is a Rabbit. A Rabbit does not become a Fox simply because it is born in a different country.