Infidel 44 – Joseph Stalibama’s War Against Truth

Most people who read my posts probably think that I’m a staunch conservative (in the American sense, not in the European sense), a devout believer in individual freedoms and rights and a sworn enemy of collectivism and totalitarianism.
They are right. I AM a staunch conservative (in the American sense, not in the European sense), a devout believer in individual freedoms and rights and a sworn enemy of collectivism and totalitarianism.
I guess, few would believe that this wasn’t always the case.
I guess, few would believe that I once was a leftist. Heck, it’s really funny that I’ve been called a biblethumbing redneck hillbilly, a zionist and all other kind of things which to me were not insults but compliments.
My conversion is a long story but in short, it was caused by two things: 9/11 and Child 44.
9/11 set a slow but steady process in motion and at one point it became clear that I never could get completely back to my prior beliefs but still there was in the back of my mind the diffuse belief that such a thing as socialism with a human face, some illusory utopia, was possible,
I always loved thrillers and so one day I came across the thriller “Child 44” by Tom Rob Smith.
This excellent thriller tells the story of a state security agent in Stalin’s Russia who hunts a serial killer of more  than 43 children.
The problem: In Stalin’s Russian Utopia crime officially doesn’t exist and therefore the state security does nothing. And so the hero of the story has to hunt the killer on his own, putting himself in mortal danger.
The danger comes mostly not from the killer but from the state apparatus who cannot tolerate anything that goes against the offcial version of the “truth”.
Now, I don’t suggest that anyone should base his world view on works of fiction even if it portrays reality accurately but this novel caused a lot of thinking on my part and at one point it made “click” in my head.
I realized that Stalin’s Russia was not some accident or some good form of socialism gone wrong but it was rather the inescapable ultimate and logical conclusion of socialism/communism.
A system that cannot work because it depends on demonstrably false assumptions about the nature of man and on many other demonstrably false assumptions is forced to lie and to redefine reality.
Such a system will inevitably become tyrannical and will repress the free expression of truth because such expression would quickly put an end to the system.
This was the final nail in the coffin of my leftist world view and from that moment on I’ve never looked back and I have never shed a tear but I enjoy my intellectual freedom instead because I love truth more than ideology.
In Joseph Stalin’s Russia crime officially didn’t exists.
In Joseph Stalibama’s America islamic terrorism officially does not exist.
I admit that we’re not yet at the point where people are killed for speaking the truth but the similarities are striking and freightening and it’s because I see where America is heading that I’m deeply worried.
Stalibama does everything to kill the free expression of truth.
He has put the FCC under pressure to implement “the strictest possible regulations” to guarantee “net neutrality”.
The FCC will vote on Feb. 26, 2015 on the implementation of massive regulations of the internet.
This insane drive to “fix” what is not broken will not only kill innovation, make the internet and internet services more expensive but it will without doubt be used to hinder free speech.
In the same way the IRS targeted certain political groups these regulations can be used to deny political opponents their right of free speech by denying approval of certain internet services for them.
Imagine what would happen if you need FCC approval for putting up a website and such approval would be denied. There goes your free speech.
I urge every American to do everything he can to prevent these FCC rules from being implemented.
Here is a good article on this latest attack on freedom: The FCC versus Internet Freedom

Dear Mr. President

Na na na na na na na na
Dear Mr. President
come take a walk with me.
Let’s pretend
we’re just two people
and you’re not better than me
“Pha! You’re nothing. Useful idiot maybe, at best. I’m a professor. Who the hell are you?”
I like to ask you some questions
if we can speak
“Honestly? No way. You don’t deserve to be told the truth. You’re too stupid anyway.”

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street?
“Frankly, I don’t give a crap.”
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep?
“None of your business. It’s only between me, allah, satan and Alinsky.”
What do you feel when you look in the mirror?
“None of your business but I feel great.”
Are you proud?
“You bet.”

How do you sleep while the rest of the world is cry?
“Stop whining. You live in my wonderful utopia now.”
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
“What’s this drivel? It says absolutely nothing. There will always be such mothers under any president.”
How do you walk with your head held high?
“I’ve accomplished more than you ever will. At least I don’t get on people’s nerves with a lousy, 10th rate voice that is at best suitable for driving away vermin and I don’t piss people off with worthless drivel. My speeches are brilliant.”
Can you even look me in the eye,
“Big deal. As if looking you in the eye requires courage. Your morals are as 10th rate as your voice.”
and tell me why?
“Who the hell are you? F*** o**!”

Na na na na na na na na
Dear Mr. President,
were you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
“Were you a molested girl?”
How can you say
“No child is left behind?”
“If I speak it, it becomes truth.”
We’re not dumb and we’re not blind
“If you only knew how stupid you are.”
They’re all sitting in your cells
“Yes, and they have internet, flat screen TV and halal meals.”
While you pave the road to hell
“How so, little child? Anyway, isn’t this the place all Liberals are longing to go?”

What kind of father would take his own daughters rights away?
“Let me guess. A Pakistani who wants his daughter to get married to her cousin?”.
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?
“A devout muslim?”.
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say!
“Honestly, she doesn’t give a crap as long as she doesn’t have to wear a veil at a Saudi funeral.”
You’ve come a long way,
– from whiskey and cocaine!.
“Not exactly. It was marihuana. But I guess your line of business is known for its high moral standards and zero tolerance for drugs. Gimme a break.”

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye?
“We’ve answered that nonsense already.”

Let me tell you ’bout hard work
“You’ve no idea how hard working on your golf swing is.”
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
“Excellent, these are my voters.”
Let me tell you ’bout hard work
“Like singing crappy songs?”
Rebuilding your houses after the bombs took them away
“No, you didn’t build that.”
Let me tell you ’bout hard work
“YOU want to tell ’bout hard work? Your lack of expertise on this subject is glaringly obvious.”
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
“Please, don’t make me laugh! How much money do you make with crappy songs like this? I bet you never build a bed let alone anything else.”
Let me tell you ’bout hard work!
Hard work!
Hard work!
You don’t know nothing ’bout hard work!
“Here we go again. YOU don’t know nothing about how hard I have to work for thankless idiots like you. Pha! You don’t deserve it. I’ve made America such a wonderful utopia and this is what I get. I’m fed up. You don’t deserve my brilliance, my excellence, my genious.”
Hard work!
Hard work!!!
“Yeah, f*** o**!”

How do you sleep at night?
How do you walk with your head held high?

Dear Mr. President, you’d never take a walk with me…
“You can take that to the bank.”
Or would you…??
“No way in hell!”

An Iranian Utopia

I’ve just read an article by Robert Kaplan, titled “Warming to Iran” and published in “The Atlantic”.
He makes the case for rapprochement with Iran despite Israeli and Saudi objections.
His argument is rational and it would be convincing if there were not serious flaws, namely its dependence on way too optimistic assumptions not only with regards to Iran but also with regards to the behaviour of the US itself.
He doesn’t explicitely mention containment of a nuclear Iran but since he wrote in his article “Living With a Nuclear Iran”, published in 2010, that he thinks that a nuclear Iran can be contained I’m assuming that he would accept a nuclear Iran as part of the rapprochement.
Moreover he fails to address one problem that is, I think, a critical one: How would the countries in the region respond to a nuclear Iran?
Even if Iran’s mullahs were rational and would not nuke Israel or Saudi Arabia at the first opportunity, what would happen if the Iranians would merely have nukes?
It’s not only the Israelis who are unwilling to outsource their security and reserve the right to act as they deem necessary in matters of survival. The same goes for the Saudis because they would be a prime target of Iranian expansionist ambitions.
Would they trust in America to protect them? Hell no.
Not only have they expressed their distrust in the current US administration but it would be foolish to make themselves dependend on ANY US administration in these matters of life and death.
The following illustration makes the point clear.
In 1994 Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the US signed the Budapest Memorandum in which the signatories gave security assurances to Ukraine.
In exchange Ukraine gave up all nukes it had inherited from the USSR.
Do I need to stress what happened? This memorandum turned out to be a worthless piece of paper.
US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt stated “The Budapest Memorandum was not an agreement on security guarantees,”.
Much has been said about how the US would contain a nuclear Iran and that Iran would be annihilated if it dared attacking the US with nukes but very little has been said about this:
Would the US engage in a nuclear exchange with Iran if they would drop a nuke on the Saudis?
Would the US engage in a conventional war against a nuclear Iran that attacked the Saudis?
The answer to the first question is: hell no!
The answer to the second question is: maybe!
That’s my personal opinion but I’m pretty convinced that the Saudis won’t wait to find out the answers and you can be pretty certain that they would try to aquire nukes from Pakistan the minute the Iranians go nuclear.
Not only that but even the Egyptians have stated that they would go nuclear if Iran does.
It’s also reasonable to expect that countries like Turkey would take the same path.
The Middle East is such an oasis of peace and stability that a bunch of countries getting nukes won’t hurt, yeah.
Another scenario that is not much discussed is this: Iran getting control of Saudi land with Shia majorities even without nukes.
It is not widely known that most of the Saudi oil and gas reserves are laying in precisely these parts of Saudi Arabia.
Iran getting control of these parts of Saudi Arabia would mean that they would have control over 56% of the world’s oil and gas  reserves.
People like Robert Kaplan hope that countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia would rebalance a mightier Iran if the US reduces its commitment to the region in order to pivot to Asia but the moment the Iranians would control 56% of the oil and gas reserves it would be game over for the Sunnies and for the West.
That would mean not only immense control over the world economy but in addition to blackmailing the West it would mean also that with these resources at its disposal Iran would in the long run defeat its Sunni rivals.
The idea to play Sunnis against Shias could quickly turn into a fata morgana.
Assuming that the Iranians ARE rational, it’s reasonable to expect that Iran would use nukes as soon as it has them to achieve its expansionist goals because if they would wait too long the other countries in the region would, by aqcuiring nukes, offset that initial advantage.
Using nukes doesn’t necessarily mean nuking cities but they could be used to threaten countries into submission.
We see how bad Iran behaves even against nuclear armed US and Israel now.
Imagine what they’ll do if they have nukes.

PS: If you want to understand how influential people rationally explain the US President’s current unstated policies read the article “Warming to Iran”.
However, if you want to understand his true, equally unstated, motives I recommend watching the films of Dinesh D’Souza.

Be Afraid Of Climate Change! Be Very Afraid!

The pathetic excuse for a president who is currently occupying the White House and who is leading from nowhere while decisively doing nothing recently told the world that climate change is a bigger threat than the islamic state.
In a deeply immoral act of deceptive use of language he not only failed to mention the nature of the enemy the West faces but he also kept silent about the Jewish identity of the victims killed by the terrorists in Paris.
Of course, we know that Jordanian pilots suddenly start burning because of global warming, don’t we?
Is the US President a moron in chief, a clown in chief, an incompetent in chief or simply a traitor?
I’m convinced that he is the latter but anyway, whatever his motivations, the end result is the same disastrous one.
Let us ignore for a moment that the whole gobal warming scare (aka climate change) is a proven hoax.
Let us ignore for a moment that it takes just one sentence stating facts and data to prove conclusively that it is a hoax, namely the fact that all data shows that the level of CO2 always rises or falls AFTER the temperature rises or falls and therefore the level of CO2 cannot be the cause of change in temperature.
Let us ignore all that for a moment and pretend that anthropogenic global warming is true.
Here, then, are the reasons why you should fear climate change:

  • Climate change doesn’t take years to take place but it strikes suddenly and unexpectedly anywhere anytime without warning.
  • Climate change kills you if you don’t believe in climate change.
  • Even if you believe in climate change it will kill you if you are insufficiently radical and devout in your belief.
  • Climate change kills you if you publish pictures or photos of climate change.
  • If you’re a woman not covered head to toe or you’re an ‘infidel’ woman climate change will rape, enslave or kill you.
  • If you’re a gay, lesbian or transgender climate change is going to kill you.
  • If you’re a Jew, it’s really bad for you. Climate change is particulary lethal for Jews.
  • If you’re a good politically correct liberal who would call climate change a peaceful force of nature there is good news and bad news. The good news: Climate change will leave you alone for the moment. The bad news: It will kill you after it has killed all the others mentioned above.
  • Worst of all climate change will kill you if you insult it. “Hey you stupid, barbaric climate change. You are nothing but a piece of crap!”. Oh, I’ve done it. Dammit, now I need a concealed weapon, additional protection and a new identity. I can’t sleep tonight. Maybe I’m lucky and just get jail time for hate speech.

You see how dangerous climate change is?
Countries with a majority of non-believers in climate change are particulary threatened by climate change.
In contrast to climate change the non-islamic islamic state kills just randomly and indiscriminately and with no ideology behind it.

Now, for the fun of it, imagine how the traitor in chief would react to a catastrophic flooding of Haiti caused by climate change.
Imagine that the threat of climate change was real and that he would react in a manner comparable to his reaction to the terrorist attacks by the islamic state.
The equivalent of his remarks applied to climate change would be this:

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious physical causes that drown people or randomly fry a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that.”.

Of course, as he would have pointed out before, climate change was not the real problem but the impending gravitational collapse of the solar system caused by the disintegration of one of Saturn’s 5692 rings, the “ring change” which was much more dangerous than climate change.

” It’s not a sexy story. And  RING CHANGE is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”

Now, barely two days later he tells us that he needs authorization and wide-ranging powers to act against the threat of, drum roll please, the islamic state.
What does he need those powers for? For decisively doing nothing, for forcefully surrendering, for aggressively retreating or for principled appeasement?
It’s like asking to become virtuous in order to participate in drug-fueled bacchanalian parties.

Anyway, there is no hope but there is change. It’s not climate change but the constant change in this veritophobe’s narrative.
I have no respect for this consistently inconsistent joke of a president.
I despise liars but a skillful liar at least doesn’t insult the intelligence of his victims.
This traitor who looks like a moron is so drunk with power that he thinks he can tell the greatest baloney no matter how stupid it is.
If we wait long enough then maybe climate change will become a JV natural phenomenon or a random effect without any obvious cause.

There was a time when the words of any US President had enormous weight in the world.
In our times those words have as much weight as a toilet orbiting the earth and they are suitable only for comedy and ridicule.

Enough of this crazy stuff.
Signing off.

Sweden, Die Faster, Please!

Sweden is indeed a strange country. Being a constitutional parlamentary monarchy its policies have been dominated by the Swedish Social Democratic Party since the end of WW2.
The result was an all-encompassing welfare state, indeed a nanny state, that hit its first financial crisis in the 1990s. Though this forced the socialists to undergo reforms Sweden did not fundamentally change its established model of society.
The socialists/progressives took Sweden further down the road to national suicide.
They embarked on an insane policy of allowing mass immigration, mostly from islamic countries, in order to transform Sweden into a multicultural utopia.
This resulted in drastically increased levels of violent crime and antisemitism.
The Swedish City of Malmö has become the rape capital of Europe and Jews are leaving Sweden.
What was the socialist’s answer?
Restriction of free speech and silencing those who would point out the problems by implementing a form of censorship called political correctness.
For the most part the polical elites and the media kept silent and pretended that the problem didn’t exist.
Not only that, but the ruling elites answer was even more immigration which they will continue in the future.
But in recent years it has become worse, much worse.
The progressives have embarked on a new insanity, the gender insanity.
The goal is to “deconstruct masculinity” and force gender awareness upon everybody.
This starts in preschool where boys are punished for being boys.
They screw around with the gender identity of both boys and girls totally confusing both.
What they are doing to these poor kids is criminal, destroying them with their social engineering experiments.
I can describe this only as gendercide.
But progressives wouldn’t be progressives if they wouldn’t go much further, screwing with the kids even more.
They instill “tolerance” in the preschool kids by telling them “You can love the same sex or you can love the different sex. You can love animals. You can love no one. You can love in distance, living in differnt countries or you can love just yourself.”.
How utterly disgusting. Teaching children that bestiality is OK. What’s next? “You can love your parents?” (paedophilia). That wouldn’t surprise me in the least, knowing that progressives are perverts disguising their utterly disgusting perversion in the cloak of “tolerance”. My friends, this is no longer a minor thing. This outright evil of the worst kind. Messing children up in this manner is criminal.
I urge everyone to watch the video I’ve provided. May this raise your vigilance and help you protecting your children from such evil.
Sweden is THE model country for all the socialists/progressives around the world.
It saddens me to see Sweden destroying itself because everytime I visited this country I was overwhelmed by the friendliness of its people and the beauty of its nature.
But if the Swedes are really hellbent on destroying their country, if they really must commit national suicide, then they should do it as fast as possible.
This way they would show to the rest of Europe how the progressive multicultural utopia looks like.
This way Sweden would serve as a warning.
This way there would be perhaps enough time for other countries which are on the same path, albeit with a slower speed, to end the insanity and save themselves from destruction.

Sweden – The Feminist Gender Madness – A Documentary.

Pat Condell on Sweden’s insanity

Hilarious: Hope And Change Comes To Israel.

No, this is NOT satire. Make sure not to have your coffee in your hand and don’t fall of your chair.
This interview with an Israeli leftist group called V15 made me think: “Are they braindead?”.
Never before ‘ve seen 3 and a half minutes consisting of pure stupidity and empty phrases like in this video.

A Scary Scenario. How The Islamic State And Iran Could Bring Down The Saudi Regime.

This is a scenario I have not seen discussed anywhere, hence the need for me to lay it out.
As it will become clear, there are good reasons why such a scenario is not only possible but it is likely to happen at some point in the future.
First, the good news: There is no intelligence (as far as I know) indicating that my scenario is going to happen in the immediate future.
The bad news: There are good geostrategic reasons and historical precedents that would make such a scenario possible,logical and likely.

The Geostrategic Overview

It’s no secret that Iran wants to become the dominant power in the region.
It is also no secret that the Saudis fear a nuclear Iranian as much as the Israelis.
The Saudis have good reason to fear Iran. There is not only the struggle between Shias and Sunnis going on for about 1300 years, a struggle for dominance of the muslim world, but there is also a struggle for control of resources and territory of strategic and religious importance.
Let’s look at a map for an overview of the geostrategic situation.

Geostrategic overview - MidEast
Geostrategic overview – MidEast

We see that the strait of Hormuz (circle 1) goes between Iran and Oman. 85% of all the oil from the gulf goes trough this strait.
This means that Iran can disrupt the flow of oil at least for a limited amount of time.
Iran threatened to do this as a response to an Israeli/US-attack on Iran on multiple occasions.
Yemen, the country of the latest huge Iraian success is situated on another chokepoint.
The part of Yemen controlled by Iran’s proxies, the Shia Houtis, is near the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb (circle 2).
This means that the Houtis, equipped with mobile Iranian anti-ship missiles could seriously disrupt, if not block, all maritime traffic in that strait.
A large amount of the maritime vessels travelling between Europe and the far East are passing through that strait coming and going to and from the Suez canal.
There should be no illusion that the Houti uprising is merely a local movement.
As was made crystal clear by Iran:

“The Houthi group is a similar copy to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and this group will come into action against enemies of Islam,”


“The Islamic republic directly supports the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the popular forces in Syria and Iraq,”

The next big prize for Iran is Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Árabia is not only the home of the two “holy” cities Mecca (circle 3) and Medina (circle 4) but it has also huge oil reserves.
56% of the world’s oil and gas reserves are located inside the red triangle on the map (credits to Mark Langfan for his ‘Black gold triangle’ map).
It’s obvious that much of that oil and gas is already under Iran’s control in Iran itself and in the Shia populated areas of Iraq. Most of the Saudi oil and gas is also located inside the triangle and much of it in an area with a Shia majority.
Furthermore, the state of Bahrain (cirlce 5) which has also a Shia majority is, despite it’s tiny size, of huge strategic importance since it is the home of the 5th US fleet.
That tells us all we need to know about the geostrategic importance of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

The Players And The Scenario

The US administration acts on the premise that Iran has a common goal in defeating or decimating the Islamic State and would therefore cooperate with the US to achieve that goal.
This premise is fatally flawed for multiple reasons.
According to former CIA officer Claire Lopez the American counter terrorism efforts in Yemen are paralized despite the amazing fact that the US is sharing intelligence with the Houtis.
Moreover the premise is flawed because it fails to acknowledge the fact that Iran and the Islamic State have bigger common strategic goals.
1. The destruction of Israel.
2. Bringing down the West.
3. To drive out the “infidels” from muslim lands, especially to end Western/American presence in the Middle East.
4. To conquer/control Saudi Arabia.

Conquest/control of Saudia Arabia would help greatly achieving the other goals and is becoming increasingly important by the day because of the low price of oil we currently enjoy and the Iranians suffer greatly from.
The Saudis have only one way to defend themselves against an Iran that is in the process of becoming a nuclear state which has made no secret about its regional and global ambitions.
They flood the markets with oil, thus keeping the price of oil low, thus hurting the Iranian economy which depends on much higher oil prices. As a neat side effect this hurts also the Russians who support the Iranians and the Shia Assad regime in Syria.
The other player, the Islamic State makes no secret about its desire to conquer Saudi Arabia and its hatred for the Saudi regime.
In an interview a member of the Islamic State declared: “We Will Annihilate Saudi Arabia”.

Individually both Iran and the Islamic state are not yet strong enough to bring the Saudis down.
A Shia revolt in Bahrain in the wake of the “Arab Spring” was quickly crushed.
But if both coordinate to execute a simultanious attack they would have good chances to bring the Saudi regime down.
Though the Saudis have a functioning state with a decent army they have internal weaknesses.
The regime essentially bribes the people by spreading the oil wealth around,
The prevalent islamic brand “Wahabbism” is ideologically not much different from the ideology of the Islamic State.
While the Islamic State is waging the violent fast jihad the Wahabbis are waging slow jihad by financing terrorists and mosques preaching jihad around the world and by subverting politics and institutions in the West.
If the Saudis were attacked on two fronts (by islamic jihadis and by a Shia uprising supported by Iran) it would be much more difficult to defend themselves.
If a Shia uprising could significantly disrupt Saudi oil production it would cripple Saudi economy which would quickly put the Saudi King under pressure from his own population.
Moreover, we can expect that at least some Saudis would, because of the shared ideology, join the islamic state.
If the Saudis would fall Bahrain would fall next. That would deal a huge blow to America because the headquarter of the 5th US fleet would be gone.
If the US would defend the Saudi regime against the jihadis it would galvanize support for them.
More Saudis could be expected to join the fight against the “infidels”.
For both the Islamic State and Iran such a scenario would be a win-win situation.
The US would be dragged into another war, losing men and resources while the hated Saudi regime is becoming weaker and weaker until it breaks down.
For Iran it would be a win because the hated Saudis, the Islamic State and the Americans would kill each other.
If the US would simply pull out of Saudi Arabia it would mean practically the end of the US presence in the gulf.
As oil prices would skyrocket all the bad guys (Iran, Russia and Venezuela) would make big, big money.

Because this scenario is so dangerous the West should destroy the Islamic State in Sysria/Iraq before it metastazises further.
Iran should be rolled back and its nuclear program should be destroyed.
The current threat from Iran should be used to offer the Saudis assistance on the condition that they stop all funding of mosques spreading jihad in the west and that they stop all subversive activity in the West.

The Historic Precedent

Is such a scenario realistic?
Would the Iranians and the Islamic State who want to destroy each other work together?
I say yes, if the Iranians would be confident that they could defeat the Islamic State after the collapse of the Saudi regime.
For those who still believe that the Iranians and the Islamic State hate each other too much I want to show a historic precedent.

The year was 1944.
Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union were fighting each other to the death.
One could not imagine two regimes hating each other more than these two.
The war in Russia was fought with a brutality that was unprecedented.
Huge armies annihilated each other in the greatest battles ever seen.
Whole cities were destroyed and huge numbers of civilians were killed by the Germans and by Stalin himself.
In their unstoppable advance the Russians reached the gates of Warshaw.
As the Russians were advancing the Poles were expecting them to go into Warshaw and rose up in resistance.
But the Russians didn’t go further.
In a cynical move that disgusted the world Stalin ordered his troops to halt and wait until the Germans had annihilated the Polish resistance. It took the Germans two months to annihilate the resistance completely.
Stalin’s calculation was very simple. He was absolutely confident that his military would defeat Germany and since he planned to absorb Poland in his communist empire after the war would end he wanted all potential resistance to be annihilated.
The Germans were very willing to oblige.
The rest is, as they say, history. Germany lost the war and the Soviet Union won. Poland was behind the Iron Curtain till 1989.