The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Barbarossa: Suvorov's Revisionism Goes Mainstream
A review of Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

On Sunday morning June 22, 1941, driven by his hatred of “Judeo-Bolshevism” and his insatiable greed for Lebensraum, Hitler treacherously broke his pact of non-aggression with Stalin and launched the invasion of the Soviet Union. Caught off guard and badly commanded, the Red Army was overwhelmed. But thanks to the heroic resistance of the Russian people, the USSR finally routed the Germans, at the cost of some twenty million dead. It was the beginning of the end for the Nazis.

This is, in broad outline, the story of Operation Barbarossa as told by the victors.

The vanquished, naturally, had a different version. At 4:30 am on the morning of the attack, the Russian ambassador in Berlin received a formal declaration of war, later read to an international news conference, justifying the attack by the “steadily increasing concentration of all available Russian armed forces along a broad front extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.” It justified the attack as preemptive:

Now that the Russian general mobilization is complete, no less than 160 divisions are deployed against Germany. The results of reconnaissance carried out in recent days have shown that the deployment of Russian troops, and especially of motorized and armored units, has been carried out in such a way that the Russian High Command is ready at any moment to take aggressive action at various points against the German frontier.

The US government ignored the German justification, and claimed that Germany’s attack was part of Hitler’s evil plan “for the cruel and brutal enslavement of all peoples and for the ultimate destruction of the remaining free democracies.”[1]Quoted in Mark Weber, “Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents,” on unz.com.

In the following months, referring to reports from the front, Hitler claimed that the Soviet forces massed on his Western border were even greater than he had thought, and proved that Stalin’s intention had been to invade not only Germany, but all of Europe. He told a large audience in Berlin on October 3, 1941:

We had no idea how gigantic the preparations of this enemy were against Germany and Europe and how immeasurably great was the danger; how we just barely escaped annihilation, not only of Germany but also of Europe. … Lord have mercy on our Volk and on the entire European world if this barbaric enemy had been able to get his tens of thousands of tanks to move before we could. All of Europe would have been lost.[2]Ibid.
(Quoted in Mark Weber, “Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents,” on unz.com.)

Hitler repeated it to the Reichstag deputies on December 11, 1941:

Today, we have truly crushing and authentic material to prove that Russia intended to attack. … [H]ad this wave of more than twenty thousand [Soviet] tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of guns, accompanied by more than ten thousand planes, unexpectedly started to move across the Reich, then Europe would have been lost.[3]Adolf Hitler, Collection of Speeches, 1922-1945, online at archive.org.

This remained the line of defense of the military commanders accused of “crime against peace” before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1945-46. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of the Armed Forces High Command, argued that “The attack on the Soviet Union was carried out to preempt a Russian attack on Germany,” and was therefore a legal act of war.[4]Pretrial questioning, June 17, 1945, quoted in Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started World War II, PLUK Publishing, 2012. His second, General Alfred Jodl, Chief of the Operations Staff, similarly testified: “It was undeniably a purely preventive war. What we found out later on was the certainty of enormous Russian military preparations opposite our frontier. … Russia was fully prepared for war.”[5]Quoted by Adolf von Thadden, Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg (“Stalin’s Trap: He Wanted War”), Kultur und Zeitgeschichte/Archiv der Zeit, 1996, quoted from Daniel Michaels, “New Evidence On ‘Barbarossa’: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Dec. 2001. Both Keitel and Jodl were denied access to the documents that would prove their point. They were found guilty and hanged.

The Suvorov thesis

Was the Soviet threat to Germany and Europe real, or was it just Nazi propaganda? To this day, history textbooks say nothing about it. But it has entered the scholarly debate, thanks to the books of Vladimir Rezun, a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the West in 1978, and wrote two groundbreaking books under the pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov: first in 1988, Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?, and in 2010, after new Russian archives had become accessible, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. I first learned about Suvorov from Ron Unz’s 2018 article “When Stalin almost conquered Europe,” and I have since read what I could on the subject, starting with articles on Mark Weber’s indispensable site http://www.ihr.org/ , including his own (reposted on unz.com).

ORDER IT NOW

Suvorov’s thesis can be summed up as follows: on June 22, 1941, Stalin was about to launch a massive offensive on Germany and her allies, within days or weeks. Preparations had started in 1939, just after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and had accelerated at the end of 1940, with the first divisions deployed to the new expanded Soviet borders, opposite the German Reich and Romania, in February 1941. On May 5, Stalin announced to an audience of two thousand military academy graduates flanked by generals and party luminaries that the time had come to “switch from the defensive to the offensive.” Days later, he had a special directive sent to all command posts to “be prepared on a signal from General Headquarters to launch lightning strikes to rout the enemy, move military operations to his territory and seize key objectives.”[6]Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started World War II, PLUK Publishing, 2012 . New armies were being raised in all the districts, with mobilization now reaching 5.7 million, a gigantic army impossible to sustain for long in peacetime. Close to one million parachutists—troops useful only for invasion—had been trained. Hundreds of aerodromes were built near the Western border. From June 13, an incessant movement of night trains transported thousands of tanks, millions of soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition and fuel to the border.

According to Suvorov, if Hitler had not attacked first, the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty and then, in the context of the war, to take control of the continent. Only Hitler’s decision to preempt Stalin’s offensive deprived him of these resources by piercing and disrupting his lines and destroying or seizing about 65% of all his weaponry, some of it still in trains.

Suvorov displays an impeccable knowledge of the Red Army, and an acute expertise in military strategy. Regarding Stalin’s intentions, generally very secret, he produces numerous quotes from the 13 volumes of his writings. He sifted through mountains of archives and the memoirs of hundreds of Russian servicemen. It is not exaggerated to say that the “Suvorov thesis” has revolutionized World War II history, opening a totally new perspective to which many historians, both Russian and German, have now added details: among Germans can be mentioned Joachim Hoffmann, Adolf von Thadden, Heinz Magenheimer, Werner Maser, Ernst Topitsch, Walter Post, and Wolfgang Strauss, who has reviewed Russian historians on the topic.

Suvorov’s thesis has also generated much hostility. His opponents fall into two categories. Some authors reject completely his analysis and simply deny that Stalin was planning an offensive. When considering the symmetrical concentrations of the German and Russian armies on their common border in June 1941, they interpret them differently: German concentration proves German bellicose intentions, but the same movement among the Russians is interpreted as proof of the incompetence of Soviet generals for defense.

This trend is illustrated by David Glantz’s Stumbling Colossus, about which Ron Unz wrote: “Although purporting to refute Suvorov, the author seemed to ignore almost all of his central arguments, and merely provided a rather dull and pedantic recapitulation of the standard narrative I had previously seen hundreds of times, laced with a few rhetorical excesses denouncing the unique vileness of the Nazi regime.”

Another detractor of Suvorov is Jonathan Haslam, who attacks Suvorov for his “highly dubious use of evidence.” Haslam admits that, on May 5, 1941, Stalin had announced an imminent offensive, but interprets it as Stalin’s prevision of Hitler’s attack. He then adds: “The fact that every piece of evidence at our disposal also indicated that he showed considerable surprise when the Germans invaded on June 22 always created something of a puzzle for historians. How could Stalin both expect war and be taken by surprise at the same time?” To answer this question, Haslam gets lost in fuzzy conjectures, while Suvorov’s answer is the only logical one: Stalin knew war with Germany was imminent, but he didn’t expect Germany to strike first.

Not surprisingly, one of the harshest attacks against Suvorov came from a longtime apologist of Stalin, Tel Aviv University professor Gabriel Gorodetsky (Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia). Gorodetsky calls Suvorov’s books “flimsy and fraudulent” because they “engender myths and consistently and deliberately obstruct the search for truth by simplifying a complex situation.” Yet, as one reviewer notes, Gorodetsky “negligently ignores Suvorov’s work after page eight” and his book is replete with contradictions and unsubstantiated claims.

The second variety of authors criticizing Suvorov are those who agree with him in general, and differ only in details. One French example is a recent 1000-page book by French specialist Jean Lopez, Barbarossa 1941. La Guerre absolue (2019). Lopez does admit that Stalin was preparing to invade Europe, but treats Suvorov as a fraud and, in an earlier essay, discounted as a “myth” the notion that “Hitler anticipated an attack by Stalin,” with this argument: “According to several accounts, Stalin believes that the Red Army will not be ready until 1942. No Soviet attack, therefore, could have been undertaken before that date.”[7]Jean Lopez et Lasha Otkhmezuri, “Hitler a devancé une attaque de Staline,” in Les Mythes de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Jean Lopez and Olivier Wieviorka (eds), Perrin, 2015, online on books.google.fr This is provably false: it is true that Stalin had originally planned his massive offensive for the summer 1942, as Suvorov himself stated. But there is also plenty of evidence that, in 1940, worried by Germany’s quick victory over France, Stalin had accelerated his war preparations. According to General Andrei Vlassov, captured by the Germans in 1942, “the [Soviet] attack was planned for August-September 1941.”[8]Adolf von Thadden, Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg (“Stalin’s Trap: He Wanted War”), Kultur und Zeitgeschichte/Archiv der Zeit, 1996, quoted from the book review by Daniel Michaels, “New Evidence On ‘Barbarossa’: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Dec. 2001. It is hard to make sense of Lopez’s contradictions.

Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War

ORDER IT NOW

Even more paradoxical in its treatment of Suvorov is a book released a few weeks ago: Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II, by Sean McMeekin of Bard College in New York. I found out about it while searching (unsuccessfully) for an affordable copy of Ernst Topitsch’s book by the same title, Stalin’s War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War (1987). I expected McMeekin’s new book to quote from Suvorov extensively and favorably. I was surprised to find Suvorov mentioned only once. After noting that Suvorov “turned up thousands of intriguing documents” in support of his thesis and that “scores of Russian historians have investigated the ‘Suvorov thesis’,” producing in the process “two thick volumes” of more documents, McMeekin concludes: “But considerable mystery remains surrounding Stalin’s intentions on the eve of war,” and adds that no clear written document can be produced that unambiguously “proves that Stalin had already resolved on war, whether preemptive, defensive, or otherwise.”[9]Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War, A New History of World War II, Basic Books, 2021, p. 267

I struggled of make sense of this dismissive comment, since McMeekin actually agrees with almost every major points made by Suvorov. Just like Suvorov, and with the same sources, McMeekin shows that, despite his tactical pretense at “socialism in one country,” Stalin was unconditionally devoted to Lenin’s goal of the sovietization of Europe. His analysis of the way Stalin baited Hitler into a war on the Western front with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is totally in line with Suvorov. McMeekin attributes the same significance as Suvorov to Stalin’s announcement, on May 5, 1941, that “we must shift from defense to offence” (to which he devotes his “prologue”). His interpretation of Stalin’s simultaneous self-appointment as president of the Council of People’s Commissars exactly echoes Suvorov’s: “From this moment forward, all responsibility for Soviet foreign policy, for peace or war, for victory or defeat, lay in Stalin’s hands alone. The time for subterfuge was over. War was imminent.”[10]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 20. McMeekin repeats most of Suvorov’s evidence that Stalin’s war preparations were offensive and potentially overwhelming. He insists, like Suvorov, on the undefended air bases built near the border:

The most dramatic material evidence of more offensive Soviet intent was the construction of forward air bases abutting the new frontier separating Stalin’s empire from Hitler’s. The “Main Soviet Administration of Aerodrome Construction,” run by the NKVD, ordered the construction of 251 new Red Air Force bases in 1941, of which fully 80 percent (199) were located in western districts abutting the German Reich.[11]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 222.

In view of the evidence, McMeekin believes that “the ideal launch date for the Soviet offensive … fell in late July or August.”[12]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 267.

McMeekin even reinforces Suvorov’s argument that Hitler’s mobilization on the Eastern Front was a reaction to Stalin’s war preparations, rather than the opposite, by showing that, as early as June 1940, the Germans were receiving Intelligence reports that

the Red Army, capitalizing on the Wehrmacht’s concentration in the West, was preparing to march from Lithuania into virtually undefended East Prussia and German-occupied Poland. … On June 19, a German spy reported from Estonia that the Soviets had informed the departing British ambassador in Tallinn that Stalin planned to deploy three million troops in the Baltic region “to threaten Germany’s eastern borders.”[13]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 182.

McMeekin uses the same archives as Suvorov, but never gives him credit for first bringing them into the light. The only exception is in a single endnote, where he mentions that one of Stalin’s reasons for believing that Hitler would not attack in June was that he had “learned, via spies inside Germany, that OKW had not ordered the sheepskin coats experts believed to be necessary for winter campaigning in Russia, and that the fuel and lubricating oil used by the Wehrmacht’s armored divisions would freeze in subzero temperatures.” The note says: “Not all of Suvorov’s claims stand up, but this one gels well with Stalin’s sanguine attitude toward reports of the German arms buildup.”[14]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 257. In another footnote, McMeekin disputes Suvorov’s claim that Stalin ordered in spring 1941 the dismantlement of the “Stalin Line” of defense that would hamper the advances of his troops: it was not dismantled but simply “neglected”, says McMeekin, before adding: “Here, as elsewhere, Suvorov hurts his case by over-egging the pudding.”[15]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 768. Such criticism would be fair, if McMeekin had also acknowledged the overwhelming mass of facts that Suvorov got right.

Apparently McMeekin thought it tactically wise, not only to snub Suvorov even when he proves him right, but also to endorse his most virulent opponent David Glantz (who, he says, was “right to emphasize how poorly prepared for war the Red Army was in reality”)[16]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 283. even when he proves him wrong, with abundant evidence that in June 1941, the issue of the war “would be determined by who would strike first, gaining control of enemy airspace and knocking out airfields and tank parks.”[17]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 270.

It is not difficult to guess the motive for McMeekin’s ostentatious contempt of Suvorov. Suvorov has crossed the line by suggesting that Barbarossa saved Europe from complete sovietization. Although he expresses no sympathy for Hitler, Suvorov agrees with him that, if he had not attacked first, “Europe was lost.” Suvorov has committed an unforgivable sin. It is an untouchable cornerstone of both Western and Russian historiography that Hitler is the embodiment of absolute Evil, and that no good whatsoever could ever have come from him. And so academic historians of the Eastern Front are expected to display their good manners by shunning Suvorov, and by not asking: What if Hitler had not attacked first? They must not suggest that Hitler ever told the truth, or that his military commanders were wrongfully hanged.

Well, if the price for bringing Suvorov’s revisionism into mainstream scholarship is to deny one’s debt to Suvorov, so be it. World War II historians must be smart: one careless phrase or reference can cost you a career and a reputation, as happened to David Irving (not in McMeekin’s bibliography, incidentally). Some obvious conclusions are better left for others to draw. There is no question that McMeekin’s book is a great achievement and it must be hoped that it will become a new landmark in the historiography of World War II. It is already receiving mostly praise in the press, and giving “revisionism” a good name. Over with the “good war”!

McMeekin’s main thesis is that World War II was primarily willed and orchestrated by Stalin, whereas Hitler was only tricked into it. This is precisely what Suvorov meant when calling Hitler “Stalin’s icebreaker”. (This is also, more or less, what A.J.P. Taylor argued in The Origins of the Second World War in 1961).

There are, indeed, slight nuances between McMeekin’s and Suvorov’s perspectives. Rather than insisting on the fact that Barbarossa ruined Stalin’s plan for the conquest of Germany and Europe, McMeekin points out that Barbarossa was for Stalin “a kind of public-relations miracle” that turned him from a “mass murderer and swallower of small nations … into a victim in the view of much of the Western public.” Stalin himself, in his July 3, 1941 radio address, said that the German aggression had brought “tremendous political gain to the USSR,” creating a support in London and Washington that was “a serious and lasting factor that is bound to form the basis for the development of decisive military successes of the Red Army.”[18]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 330. That is a good point, but a minor one. From what we know of Churchill and Roosevelt’s secret intrigues before Barbarossa, it is doubtful that Stalin would have been deprived of their support if he had attacked first. Churchill had been urging him to attack Germany since 1940, and Roosevelt had started planning to help him right after his second reelection in November 1940, when he told Americans that their country must become “the great arsenal of democracy,”[19]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 231. and appointed pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins to start making arrangements.

In fact, McMeekin shows that “Roosevelt did everything he could to improve relations with Stalin” from the early years of his long presidency, starting with official recognition of the USSR in 1933. He purged the State Department of anti-Communists and staffed it with sympathizers or outright NKVD agents, such as Alger Hiss. As early as November 1936, he appointed a Soviet sympathizer, Joseph Davies, as his ambassador in Moscow, to replace William Bullitt who had become too openly critical of Stalin. “Where Ambassador Bullitt had seen deception and guile in Stalin’s foreign policy, his successor saw unicorns,” lavishing him with compliments: “You are a greater leader than Catherine the Great, than Peter the Great, a greater leader even than Lenin, etc.”[20]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 54-55.

And so, even though Barbarossa made it easier for Roosevelt to turn American public opinion favorably toward Stalin, it doesn’t mean that Roosevelt would have prevented Stalin from gobbling up Europe had he attacked first.

Stalin’s plan for the conquest of Europe

Just like Suvorov, McMeekin gives undisputable evidence that Stalin was planning to invade Europe in 1941, and had planned it for a very long time. Like Suvorov, he points out that the Comintern, founded in Moscow in 1919, aimed at the sovietization of the whole world, as symbolized by its emblem, later incorporated into the banner of the USSR.

Lenin’s primary goal was Berlin. For this, he wanted to blow up Poland, a country reconstituted after the First World War between Russia and Germany. During the summer of 1920, the Soviet cavalry attempted to invade Poland with cries of “to Berlin!” But the Poles pushed back the Russians and inflicted them losses of territory (Peace of Riga). Lenin then proclaimed a new strategy at a Moscow party congress on November 26, 1920: “Until the final victory of socialism in the whole world, we must exploit the contradictions and opposition between two imperialist power groups, between two capitalist groups of states, and incite them to attack each other.”[21]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 25.

The failure of the communist uprising in Germany in October 1923, confirmed that fomenting revolutionary unrest was not enough to overthrow Social Democracy in Germany. What was to be done was to help create the conditions for a new world war and, during this incubation period, put a damper on internationalist discourse in order to maintain trade relationships with the capitalist countries (who will ultimately “sell Communists the rope they would use to hang them”).[22]Lenin as quoted by McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 86.

McMeekin agrees with Suvorov that Stalin was the true heir of Lenin, whose public cult he orchestrated: “Stalin’s dialectical view of Soviet foreign policy—in which metastasizing conflict between warring capitalist factions would enable Communism to advance to new triumphs—was firmly rooted in Marxism-Leninism, based on the precedent of Russia’s own experience in the First World War, and clearly and consistently stated on many occasions, both verbally and in print”[23]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 13., most notably in his first major work after Lenin’s death, Foundations of Leninism (1924), in which he recalled that the Bolshevik revolution had triumphed in Russia because the two chief coalitions of capitalist countries had “been clutching at each other’s throats.”[24]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 29. When a new capitalist war breaks out, Stalin told the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1925, “we will have to take action, but we shall be the last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive weight on the scales, the weight that can turn the scales.”[25]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 30. Also quoted in Albert L. Weeks, Stalin’s Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 108.

While preparing for World War II, Stalin’s domestic policy consisted, on the one hand, in consolidating his control over the population, and on the other hand, in building a huge military-industrial complex. “Stalin’s industrialization drive,” McMeekin writes, “was conceived, sold, and executed like a military operation targeting the capitalist world. … Whenever onerous production targets went unmet, capitalist saboteurs were blamed, as if they had been spies in an army camp.”[26]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 34.

Since the first Five-Year Plan was inaugurated in 1928, the Soviet economy had been on a war footing. The production targets of the third Five-Year Plan, launched in 1938, were breathtaking, envisioning the production of 50,000 warplanes annually by the end of 1942, along with 125,000 air engines and 700,000 tons of aerial bombs; 60,775 tanks, 119,060 artillery systems, 450,000 machine guns, and 5.2 million rifles; 489 million artillery shells, 120,000 tons of naval armor, and 1 million tons of explosives; and, for good measure, 298,000 tons of chemical weapons.[27]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 213.

Along with the establishment of a war economy, the first two five-year plans included the collectivization of agriculture. But here too, the goal was closely linked to the war, as Jean Lopez shows. In 1927, reports indicated that the peasant world, under the leadership of the kulaks, would sabotage the war effort. “The worst nightmare of the Bolshevik leaders lies in the emergence of a popular rejection of war similar to that which brought down the Romanov dynasty.”[28]Jean Lopez and Lasha Otkhmezuri, Barbarossa 1941. La Guerre absolue, Passé Composé, 2019, p. 55. This is what motivated the “Great Turn” of 1928, whose victims, either by execution, deportation, or famine, are estimated at between 10 and 16 million. During this time, Stalin sold an average of 5 million tons of grain abroad each year to finance his armaments.

In 1939, all Stalin needed was to maneuver capitalist countries into fighting each other in a new deadly war. That was the main purpose, from Stalin’s viewpoint, of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on August 23, 1939, with a secret protocol for the partition of Poland and the distribution of “spheres of influence”.

The Gangster Pact

Just two months earlier, Stalin was still negotiating, via his Foreign Minister Molotov and his ambassador to London Maiski, the possibility of a military alliance with England and France in order to contain Germany and protect Poland’s integrity. On June 2, 1939, Molotov handed the British and French ambassadors a draft agreement, under which the Soviets might provide mutual assistance to smaller European states under “threat of aggression by a European power.”[29]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 82. On August 12, an Anglo-French delegation arrived in Moscow for further discussion. But Stalin then changed his mind, and Molotov did not receive the delegates.[30]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, pp. 81-82 In a speech to the Politburo on August 19, 1939, Stalin explained why he had finally opted for a pact with Germany:

The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western powers. War would be avoided, but down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany’s proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war. …

Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and, with a refusal, politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia …

For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for as long as possible, and all forces, with which we are actively involved, should be directed toward this goal …

Therefore, our goal is that Germany should carry out the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such a degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovietized Germany.

Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR—the workers’ homeland—that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work in such a way that this war, once it is declared, will be prolonged maximally. We must strengthen our propaganda work in the belligerent countries, in order to be prepared when the war ends.

This speech was leaked to the French news agency Havas the same year. Stalin immediately denounced it as a fake in Pravda, which was exceptional on his part. Its authenticity has long been debated, but in 1994 Russian historians found an authoritative text of it in the Soviet archives, and the authenticity is now generally accepted. In any case, there are other sources confirming Stalin’s ploy so that there is no doubt, for McMeekin, that with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, “Far from wishing to forestall a European war between Germany and the Western powers, Stalin’s aim was to ensure that it would break out.”[31]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 86. For Stalin,

the benefits of the Moscow Pact for Communism were obvious. The capitalist world would soon be embroiled in a terrible war, and the USSR would be able to spread its territory substantially westward against seemingly helpless foes. All Stalin needed to do was ensure that neither Germany nor its opponents secured a decisive advantage. Once the two sides had exhausted themselves in a death struggle, the path would be clear for the armies of Communism to march in and seize the capitalist world by the throat.[32]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 90.

But how could Stalin be so sure that France and England would not declare war to Russia too? One part of the answer is that he had not broken off negotiations with Great Britain after signing a pact with Hitler. It is even thought that on 15 October 1939, less that two months after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a British-Soviet secret agreement was signed behind Hitler’s back.[33]Toomas Varrak, “The Secret Dossier of Finnish Marshal C.G.E. Mannerheim: On the Diplomatic Prelude of World War II”: A Study “Finland at the Epicentre of the Storm”
by Finnish historian Erkki Hautamäki, based on a secret dossier originating from Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim, Commender-in-Chief of the Finnish armed forces.

With the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler thought he had countered the British encirclement policy against Germany. And he believed that the pact would protect him from a declaration of war by Britain and France if both Germany and Russia intervened in Poland. He had grossly underestimated Stalin.

When Hitler invaded Poland from the west on September 1, the Red Army did not budge. On September 3, England and France therefore declared war on Germany alone. This was a bad surprise for Hitler. He urged the Russians to launch their attack, but the Russians turned a deaf ear. “On September 3,” McMeekin writes,

Ribbentrop wired Ambassador Schulenburg in Moscow, requesting that he ask Molotov whether the USSR would participate in the Polish war as promised and provide “relief” to the hard-pressed Wehrmacht. Did not Stalin, Ribbentrop asked, “consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory?”[34]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 96.

Molotov replied on September 5: “the time has not yet come. … it seems to us that through excessive haste we might injure our cause and promote unity among our opponents.” On September 8, a new Wehrmacht communiqué urged the Soviets to move forward as Warsaw was taken. The Soviets responded that the fall of Warsaw was not confirmed and that “Russia being linked to Poland by a non-aggression pact, she cannot march forward.” On September 10, Molotov declared point-blank to Schulenburg that, “for appearances’ sake we should not cross Poland’s border until the capital had fallen,” and that the pretext for Soviet entry into Poland would be to protect “endangered Ukrainians and Belorussians.”[35]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 101. Stalin even tried to persuade the Polish government, which had taken refuge in Kuty, to appeal to him for protection. Finally, on September 17, the Polish ambassador in Moscow was summoned at 3 a.m. and handed the following message:

The Polish-German war has shown the internal bankruptcy of the Polish State. During the course of ten days’ hostilities Poland has lost all her industrial areas and cultural centres. Warsaw, as the capital of Poland, no longer exists. The Polish Government has disintegrated and no longer shows any sign of life. This means that the Polish State and its Government have, in point of fact, ceased to exist. In the same way, the Agreements concluded between the U.S.S.R. and Poland have ceased to operate. Left to her own devices and bereft of leadership, Poland has become a suitable field for all manner of hazards and surprises, which may constitute a threat to the U.S.S.R. For these reasons the Soviet Government, who have hitherto been neutral, cannot any longer preserve a neutral attitude towards these facts. The Soviet Government also cannot view with indifference the fact that the kindred Ukrainian and White Russian people, who live on Polish territory and who are at the mercy of fate, should be left defenceless. In these circumstances, the Soviet Government have directed the High Command of the Red Army to order the troops to cross the frontier and take under their protection the life and property of the population of the Western Ukraine and Western White Russia. At the same time the Soviet Government propose to take all measures to extricate the Polish people from the unfortunate war into which it was dragged by its unwise leaders.

Although not mentioning Germany explicitly as an aggressor, the message was clear: the USSR is not the aggressor, but the defender of Poland. The Soviets had waited two and a half weeks before moving into Poland, leaving all the fighting to the Germans and giving the world the impression that they were intervening to prevent Germany from seizing the entire country. The USSR thus remained officially neutral, and incurred no blame on the part of France and England.

Hitler tries to get back the advantage

Although the partition of Poland had been Stalin’s idea, only Hitler was blamed for it. His Faustian pact with his worst enemy had not protected him from a war with France and England, and would not protect him either from a Soviet invasion. Clearly he had been duped. By enticing Hitler to invade Poland, Stalin had triggered the Second World War while staying on the sideline. All he had to do was wait for the countries of Europe to exhaust each other in a new war. On September 1, the very day of the invasion of Poland by Germany, the Supreme Soviet passed a general conscription law, which, under the guise of establishing military service for two years, was equivalent to a general mobilization. For Suvorov, this is proof that Stalin knew that the partition of Poland would trigger world war, rather than avoid it as Hitler hoped.

Meanwhile, Stalin would take every advantage he could of Germany’s predicament in the West, gobbling up three Baltic states bordering Germany and stuffing them with military bases. As McMeekin notes:

With his opportunistic moves against the Baltic states, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina in the wake of the German humiliation of France, Stalin was wringing every last drop of nectar out of his honeyed partnership with Hitler while still, somehow, escaping the hostility of Hitler’s opponents. Britain, in what Churchill called the country’s “finest hour,” now stood alone against Nazi Germany. For some reason, though, Britain had not declared war on Berlin’s alliance partner, despite Stalin having invaded the same number of sovereign countries since August 1939 as Hitler had (seven). But there were limits to Hitler’s patience, and Stalin had just about reached them.[36]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 176.

Like Suvorov before him, McMeekin underscores the hypocrisy of the British. “The number of victims murdered by Soviet authorities in occupied Poland by June 1941—about five hundred thousand—was likewise three or four times higher than the number of those killed by the Nazis.” Yet Stalin received not even a slap on the wrist from the Western powers.[37]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 112. Foreign Minister Halifax explained to the British war cabinet on September 17, 1939 that “Great Britain was not bound by treaty to become involved in war with the U.S.S.R. as a result of their invasion of Poland,” because the Anglo-Polish Agreement “provided for action to be taken by His Majesty’s Government only if Poland suffered aggression from a European power,” and Russia was not a European power.[38]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 112.

In a meeting of the war cabinet on November 16, 1939, Churchill even endorsed Stalinist aggression: “No doubt it appeared reasonable to the Soviet Union to take advantage of the present situation to regain some of the territory which Russia had lost as a result of the last war, at the beginning of which she had been the ally of France and Great Britain.” McMeekin comments: “That Hitler had used the same justification for Germany’s territorial claims on Poland either did not occur to Churchill or did not bother him.”[39]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 114.

Stalin hoped that Germany would fight against France and England for two or three years before he would intervene. He therefore continued to supply Germany with raw materials, and was careful not to cut her supply of metals from Sweden, and oil from Romania, when he had the means to do so. When the Germans launched their offensive against France on May 10, 1940, Stalin rejoiced. “Finally, Communists could enjoy watching ‘two groups of capitalist countries … having a good hard fight and weakening each other,’ as Stalin had boasted to Comintern’s general secretary Dimitrov in September 1939.” But the war turned out less bloody than he had expected.

The rapidity of the German victories was alarming, however. Stalin and Molotov would have preferred a slow, grinding, bloody battle of attrition—a German victory, yes, but one that weakened Hitler almost as much as his enemies. According to Khrushchev’s later recollection, after learning the extent of the Allied debacle later in May, Stalin “cursed the French and he cursed the British, asking how they could have let Hitler smash them like that.”[40]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 161.

Germany’s military success forced Stalin to rush his preparation for putting the Red Army on the starting blocks in summer 1941. In spring, armament, troops and transport were ready, and preparations entered the final phase. On May 5, 1941, Stalin declared to military officers that the “Soviet peace policy” (meaning the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) had allowed the USSR to “push forward in the west and north, increasing its population by thirteen millions in the process,” but that the days of such conquest “had come to an end. Not another foot of ground can be gained with such peaceful sentiments.” Anyone “who failed to recognize the necessity of offensive action was a bourgeois and a fool”; “today, now that our army has been thoroughly reconstructed, fully outfitted for fighting a modern war, now that we are strong—now we must shift from defense to offense.” For this, we must “transform our training, our propaganda, our agitation, the imprinting of an offensive mentality on our spirit.”[41]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 19. Pravda began to prepare the people:

Raging just beyond the borders of our Motherland is the conflagration of a Second Imperialist War. The full weight of its woes is pressing down on the shoulders of the toiling masses. People everywhere want no part of war. Their gaze is fixed on the land of socialism, reaping the fruits of peaceful labor. They rightly see the armed forces of our Motherland—the Red Army and our Navy—as the tried and true bulwark for peace. … Given the current complex international situation you have to be prepared for all kinds of surprises. (Pravda , May 6, 1941 editorial)[42]Quoted in Suvorov, Icebreaker.

By that time, Hitler had realized he was trapped. It may have remembered what he had written in 1925: “the formation of a new alliance with Russia would lead in the direction of a new war and the result would be the end of Germany” (Mein Kampf, vol. 2, chapter 14). With Operation Barbarossa, he was trying to regain the advantage. But, according to Suvorov, it was impossible for Germany alone to defeat Russia, for reasons related to the vastness of its territory, the harshness of the winter, and Germany’s limited resources compared to Russia’s.

Hitler made one irremediable mistake, but not on July 21, 1940, when he ordered preparations for war against the Soviet Union. The mistake came on August 19, 1939, when he agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Having agreed to the division of Poland, Hitler had to confront an unavoidable war against the West, having behind him the “neutral” Stalin. Precisely from this moment, Hitler had two fronts. The decision to begin Operation Barbarossa in the east without waiting for victory in the west was not a fatal error, but only an attempt to right the fatal error he had already made. But by then it was too late.[43]Suvorov, The Chief Culprit, p. 236.

Arguably, Hitler might have prevailed and conquered the Lebensraum of his dream, had Stalin not been saved by Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Aid: more than ten billions—equivalent to trillions today— worth of airplanes and tanks, locomotives and rails, construction materials, entire military production assembly lines, food and clothing, aviation fuel, and much else. Through four dense chapters, McMeekin makes it abundantly clear (as Albert Weeks before him in Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, 2010), that without U.S. help, the Soviet Union could not have pushed back the Germans, let alone conquer Eastern Europe in 1945. Another factor, on which McMeekin duly insists, was Stalin’s almost unlimited supply of cannon fodder: a total of 32 million soldiers throughout the war, led to the slaughter with machine-guns in their back and the threat that, if they were captured rather than killed, their families would be punished: “The USSR under Stalin is the only state in recorded history to have declared the captivity of its soldiers a capital crime.”[44]McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 300.

In the end, while Stalin actually entered the war on the side of Germany, he would come out on the side of the Allies. While the pact deciding the partition of Poland by Germany and Russia was signed in Moscow—in the presence of Stalin and not of Hitler—history will only retain the aggression of Germany, and will consider the USSR as one of the attacked countries. While England and France officially went to war to defend the territorial integrity of Poland, at the end of the war all of Poland will be under Stalin.

Yet, as Suvorov said, and as McMeekin leaves unsaid, it was probably thanks to Operation Barbarossa that Soviet troops failed to raise the red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm and possibly London.

Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, destroyed its army, and crushed a large part of Soviet industry. In the end, the Soviet Union was unable to conquer Europe. Stalin lost the war for Europe and global domination. The free world survived, and it could not coexist with the Soviet Union. Therefore, the crumbling of the Soviet Union became inevitable. … The Soviet Union won World War II, but for some reason disappeared from the globe after this distinguishing victory. … Germany lost the war, but we see her, one of the mightiest powers of contemporary Europe, at whose feet we now beg.[45]Suvorov, The Chief Culprit, p. 159.

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, 2014 (banned from Amazon). He has collected some of his earlier Unz Review articles in “Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us”: Essays on Jewish Power.

Notes

[1] Quoted in Mark Weber, “Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents,” on unz.com.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Adolf Hitler, Collection of Speeches, 1922-1945, online at archive.org.

[4] Pretrial questioning, June 17, 1945, quoted in Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started World War II, PLUK Publishing, 2012.

[5] Quoted by Adolf von Thadden, Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg (“Stalin’s Trap: He Wanted War”), Kultur und Zeitgeschichte/Archiv der Zeit, 1996, quoted from Daniel Michaels, “New Evidence On ‘Barbarossa’: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Dec. 2001.

[6] Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started World War II, PLUK Publishing, 2012 .

[7] Jean Lopez et Lasha Otkhmezuri, “Hitler a devancé une attaque de Staline,” in Les Mythes de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Jean Lopez and Olivier Wieviorka (eds), Perrin, 2015, online on books.google.fr

[8] Adolf von Thadden, Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg (“Stalin’s Trap: He Wanted War”), Kultur und Zeitgeschichte/Archiv der Zeit, 1996, quoted from the book review by Daniel Michaels, “New Evidence On ‘Barbarossa’: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Dec. 2001.

[9] Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War, A New History of World War II, Basic Books, 2021, p. 267

[10] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 20.

[11] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 222.

[12] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 267.

[13] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 182.

[14] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 257.

[15] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 768.

[16] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 283.

[17] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 270.

[18] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 330.

[19] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 231.

[20] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 54-55.

[21] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 25.

[22] Lenin as quoted by McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 86.

[23] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 13.

[24] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 29.

[25] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 30. Also quoted in Albert L. Weeks, Stalin’s Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 108.

[26] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 34.

[27] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 213.

[28] Jean Lopez and Lasha Otkhmezuri, Barbarossa 1941. La Guerre absolue, Passé Composé, 2019, p. 55.

[29] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 82.

[30] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, pp. 81-82

[31] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 86.

[32] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 90.

[33] Toomas Varrak, “The Secret Dossier of Finnish Marshal C.G.E. Mannerheim: On the Diplomatic Prelude of World War II”: A Study “Finland at the Epicentre of the Storm”
by Finnish historian Erkki Hautamäki, based on a secret dossier originating from Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim, Commender-in-Chief of the Finnish armed forces.

[34] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 96.

[35] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 101.

[36] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 176.

[37] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 112.

[38] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 112.

[39] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 114.

[40] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 161.

[41] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 19.

[42] Quoted in Suvorov, Icebreaker.

[43] Suvorov, The Chief Culprit, p. 236.

[44] McMeekin, Stalin’s War, p. 300.

[45] Suvorov, The Chief Culprit, p. 159.

 
Hide 1450 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tom Verso says:

    The usually “analysis” of diplomatic speeches and documents but what about military analysis?

    For example, Stalin’s speech about switching from ‘defensive’ to ‘offensive’ was referring to training in technological transformation of tanks and motor vehicles which lead to mobile tactics and strategies.

    Also, how could a Soviet army that was so much on a war footing get so thoroughly destroyed by the Germans?

    What about Field Marshall Zhukov’s memories, were he kept advising Stain to mobilize and Stalin replied angrily: “Do you understand that that means war”? In short, as soon as the Germans see the Soviet Army mobilizing they will attack. Does that sound like a Leader who was planning an offensive?

    Sorry I can’t provide a Zhukov footnote. It’s been years since I read the book and it’s buried in my over stocked library.

    Nevertheless any discussion about the Eastern Front generally and the start of the war particularly that does not reference Zhukov and military analysis generally is historiographically seriously wanting.

    To wit: This article!

  2. Juri says:
    @Tom Verso

    Zhukov does not have memorials. He wrote fairytale by demand of Communist Party. Others too so actually we have very little reliable inside information about Soviets before WW II.

    • Thanks: Pheasant
  3. Please refer to https://www.unz.com/print/HartBasil-1948/

    The German Generals Speak

    Compiled in 1948, revised in 1953(?)

    Not a single hint of this “story”

    German lost because their timing was messed up by the Yugoslavian coup.

    And because they believed Russian maps that claimed there were roads in areas when none were built.

  4. Big Daddy says:

    Hitler wasted (did he have to bail out his friend?) 36 days cleaning up Mussolini’s Balkan mess. Then the unlucky rains and winter cost him 21 more. If he would have gotten into the Urals Stalin was finished. He wanted to invade May 15th.

    Then the Left in this country and Britain massively supplied Stalin or Hitler would still have probably won.

    Sometimes studying history makes you puke.

  5. Tom Verso says:
    @Juri

    You write:

    “Zhukov does not have memorials. He wrote fairytale by demand of Communist Party.”

    I would be interested in what facts corroborate your claim.

    I do know that there are voluminous volumes written about the Eastern Front war that are consistent with much of what is in the book “The Memories of Marshall Zhukov” (1969); not the least of which is the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Time journalist Harrison E. Salisbury’s book “Marshal Zhukov’s Greatest Battles.” Salisbury was the first American journalist into Russia after the war and spent 6 years there.

    Also significantly, Zhukov wrote during the period of Khrushchev’s led de-Stalinization. Nevertheless, Zhukov is largely complimentary of Stalin’s war leadership; which is not to say he did not note mistakes (e.g. decision about Kiev which cause Zhukov to resign from Stavka and go to the Leningrad front).

    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @anonymous
    , @Marcali
  6. Tom Verso says:
    @Simply Anonomuse

    I agree.

    I have read some of the memoirs of captured German Generals, and I don’t recall any of them saying words to the effect that they were going to war in order to head off a Soviet Invasion of Germany.

    • Replies: @Nigel Winters
    , @NikoKaoJa
  7. badger says:
    @Simply Anonomuse

    I think the German loss was for a variety of things, not the least of which were HItler’s later fixation on a turn SouthSoutheast (which delayed advance on Moscow). Another was his failure to properly manage the lands he did occupy. The various ethnicities who held no love for Moscow initially viewed the Wehrmacht as their liberators. However, the treatment received quickly dispelled that. This fostered the emergence of partisan bands in the rear of his Army Groups, who harassed his logistical tail. The thing was really doomed the moment Hitler began a serious micro-management of it.

    • Agree: HeebHunter, bronek
    • Replies: @Nigel Winters
  8. Resartus says:
    @Simply Anonomuse

    German lost because their timing was messed up by the Yugoslavian coup.

    Actually, it was the ignorance of Italy attacking Greece…..
    Germany had to deal with Yugoslavia to pull Il Duce’s bacon
    out of the fire in Greece…..

    • Replies: @mh505
  9. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:

    Some questions:

    1) who was more Christian: Hitler or Stalin? Who was more Jewish?

    2) why did Hitler stall the drive toward Moscow when victory was within his grasp, against the advice of almost all his generals?

    3) what does Hitler’s refusal to go for the jugular of his enemies (first at Dunkirk, then at Moscow) tell us about his command capability, if not his actual intent?

    Tired of hearing “Hitler dindu nuffin”.

    • Replies: @Mackerel Sky
    , @Jake
  10. Rahan says:

    I used to be into “Suvorov” back in the day. Today, not so much.

    Although he expresses no sympathy for Hitler, Suvorov agrees with him that, if he had not attacked first, “Europe was lost.”

    “Lost”? At most the Soviet Empire would have collapsed 20 years earlier, spread too thin, and Europe would have experienced some class-based oppression as an alternative to ethnicity-based oppression.

    our goal is that Germany should carry out the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such a degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovietized Germany.

    So literally the same position which England and France had about trying to get Germany and Russia to bleed each other out.

    When a new capitalist war breaks out, Stalin told the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1925, “we will have to take action, but we shall be the last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive weight on the scales, the weight that can turn the scales.”

    That’s back when he had to play the game, before purging the Trotskyists a decade later, and winding down their “sacrifice Russia to fuel the world revolution” obsession, substituting for it the “socialism in one country” fortress Russia philosophy..

    Since the first Five-Year Plan was inaugurated in 1928, the Soviet economy had been on a war footing.

    Five-six years after foreign intervention from every possible power, including Frogs, Limeys, the Japs and Yanks? Shocking. After nationalizing banks and industries and knowing world capital will try to crush them any minute now? Double shocking.
    From a 1931 Stalin speech:
    „Мы отстали от передовых стран на 50–100 лет. Мы должны пробежать это расстояние в десять лет. Либо мы сделаем это, либо нас сомнут.“
    “We are lagging behind leading countries by 50-100 years. We have to take this distance in ten years. Either we achieve this, or we shall be crushed.”
    https://cont.ws/@bia354444/752068

    according to Suvorov, it was impossible for Germany alone to defeat Russia, for reasons related to the vastness of its territory, the harshness of the winter, and Germany’s limited resources compared to Russia’s.

    Europe’s resources. Not Germany’s. Europe’s. Which includes colonies.

    Arguably, Hitler might have prevailed and conquered the Lebensraum of his dream, had Stalin not been saved by Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Aid

    Slavs were saved. Not Stalin. Slavs. Many others too.

    It’s one thing to want to apply the Belgian Congo Negro-extermination system to Slavs, Tatars, and the rest. It’s another to try to theoretically invade other countries in order to shoot their elites, install your own elites, and make these countries your vassals. One is “crazy genocidal boohoo I also want to behave like colonial powers and have subhumans to exterminate stuff”, the other is “normal imperial land empire stuff”.

    But I still see no evidence the USSR was planning to “take Europe” by 1940. At most Stalin was trying to
    a) take back lost Russian Empire territory (Finland, Poland, the Baltics), and
    b) do what he did anyway after WWII (but at a vastly higher price)—create a buffer belt of vassals between Moscow and the West.

    Suvorov’s stuff was great twenty-thirty years ago, and still is for whoever prefers to linger in the sweet summer child phase, and needs a fatherly Hitler talisman-image in order to stay strong against today’s madness. Self-defeating, IMO.

  11. @Big Daddy

    I remember how a former associate with whom I worked, a much older man than myself at the time, told me that Eleanor Roosevelt’s many private gatherings, always started off with the singing of the Communist International, by those who attended. It was an interesting claim that I have never come across before.

    • Thanks: Pheasant, Trinity
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  12. @Rahan

    The Slav attitude of Hitler’s was shared by some German Generals, Seep Dietrich for one but many were totally opposed to it. In fact, there were quite a number of soldiers of Slavic background in the German armed forces.

    • Replies: @bronek
  13. Pheasant says:
    @Tom Verso

    ‘Also, how could a Soviet army that was so much on a war footing get so thoroughly destroyed by the Germans?’

    Have you tried reading icebreaker? It is freely available on the internet.

    You should before you post such inanities.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
    , @LeoB
  14. Pheasant says:
    @Big Daddy

    There is also the idea that Hitler paused to build airfields in the balkans but how accurate this is I do not know.

    • Replies: @Abbott Hall
  15. Pheasant says:
    @Tom Verso

    ‘I do know that there are voluminous volumes written about the Eastern Front war that are consistent with much of what is in the book “The Memories of Marshall Zhukov” (1969); not the least of which is the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Time journalist Harrison E. Salisbury’s book “Marshal Zhukov’s Greatest Battles.” Salisbury was the first American journalist into Russia after the war and spent 6 years there.’

    If you remember Zhukov was pushed aside by Stalin post war because of his popularity with the high command and ordinary Russians. Stalin could not denounce him because of his popularity but certainly froze him out.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
  16. MarkU says:
    @Tom Verso

    I agree with you.

    We are being asked to believe that the Soviet Union was on the verge of launching an offensive against the Germans, I don’t believe that for several reasons…..

    1) I have read huge amounts of WW2 material, none of the historians even mentioned that possibility.
    2) The Soviet Union had been outclassed by the Germans during the Spanish civil war only two years earlier.
    3) Similarly the Soviet army was humiliated by the Finns during the Winter war and although they eventually prevailed that was only because of a massive superiority in numbers, the idea that they would willingly go to war against the Wehrmacht seems fanciful.
    4) German accounts of the start of Barbarossa tell of huge amounts of materiel but also say that it was mostly obsolete and lacking vital parts.
    5) The Red army had still not recovered from the great purges of its generals.
    6) The Russian airforce, although large, was mostly obsolete and even their latest aircraft were mostly markedly inferior to Luftwaffe aircraft.
    7) A nation about to go on the offensive will usually have a very good idea of where the enemy’s forces are situated, this does not seem to be the case.
    8) Where were the counter-offensives? An army already preparing for an offensive would surely be capable of more effective counter-offensives than actually occurred.

    Aside from all that, information from defectors is notoriously biased and unreliable. According to his Wiki page “Since the late 20th century, Suvorov has been an occasional columnist for the Ukrainian UNIAN news agency’s web site” Doubtless any contributions that whitewashed Hitler and set the Russians up as the bad guys would be music to the ears of the Nazi-infested Kiev regime.

  17. Ron Unz says:
    @MarkU

    1) I have read huge amounts of WW2 material, none of the historians even mentioned that possibility.

    That’s interesting. Did any of those WWII histories happen to mention that during spring 1940 the British and the French were on the verge of launching a massive strategic bombing offensive against the Soviet Union, until Hitler’s sudden attack and conquest of France preempted those plans?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

    • Replies: @Notsofast
    , @Levtraro
    , @Seraphim
  18. Anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:

    Boris Sokolov’s Myths and Legends of the Eastern Front is another excellent source on this. He agrees with Suvorov that Stalin was planning an attack, but that it was a bad plan and that the Germans would have been able to effectively counter it. Ultimately the war in the East probably would have played out similarly to how it did anyway, the Germans effectively lost the war by failing to capture Moscow before the rainy season.

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @animalogic
  19. WW2 was a war of Russo- American conquest of Europe.
    From the outset.

  20. Mulegino1 says:

    The preemptive invasion theory is validated by the position of the Soviet forces themselves at the onset of the invasion.

    If you are planning for a defensive campaign:

    You don’t deploy the bulk of your forces in vulnerable positions such as the Lvov and Bialystok bulges, where they could be (and were) easily encircled by an enemy offensive.

    You don’t demine minefields and bridges and demolish large areas of your defensive emplacements, which was the case with the Stalin Line.

    You do not have your front line air forces sitting in their airfields totally vulnerable to an enemy air attack (Virtually the entire Soviet front line air force was destroyed during the first few days of Barbarossa, mostly on the ground).

    You don’t deploy large glider forces and paratroops, nor do you deploy light infantry in a mountainous salient such as the Carpathians , with a view to defense.

    Enormous Soviet forces were deployed within close proximity to the Romanian oil fields, Germany’s only European source of crude oil. How long could Germany itself have lasted without a stable crude supply? If Germany collapsed, the rest of Europe would have fallen like a house of cards in the face of a Soviet onslaught.

    The USSR’s real record of war and aggression during 1939-1941 tells a completely different story than that of the establishment historians. The battles of Khalkhin Gol, invasions of Eastern Poland and Finland, the annexation of Bessarabia and the Baltic states – and subsequent to Barbarossa- the Russian-Anglo invasion of Iran demonstrate that the USSR’s record of aggression was at the very least equal to that of Hitler’s Germany. And- unlike the case with Germany- not a single European state had declared war on the USSR.

    Operation Barbarossa struck the Soviet forces at their most vulnerable, i.e., the preliminary staging for a massive invasion of Europe. This explains perfectly the vastness of the encirclements and the capture of the unprecedentedly enormous numbers of prisoners made in the first few weeks and months of the invasion.

  21. Voltarde says:

    There’s a recent video release (2017) that I found interesting regarding Zhukov’s legacy as viewed by the current Russian military and government.

    The video series is called “Forgotten Leaders“. It bears the official imprimatur of the “Russian Military History Society” (I may not have the exact name right). It’s in Russian, but subtitles are available.

    It used to be available for free if you have Amazon Prime. It’s still available on Amazon to purchase.

    These are the “Forgotten Leaders” the series covers:

    1. Dzerzinskij
    2. Voroshilov
    3. Molotov
    4. Budenly
    5. Zhdanov
    6. Abakumov
    7. Beriya – Part 1
    8. Beriya – Part 2

    The most interesting installments are the last two, where Beria’s legacy undergoes what seems to be quite a significant rehabilitation. Beria’s downfall after Stalin’s death is treated as a real travesty of significant consequence for the development of the USSR. In the process, Zhukov’s role in Beria’s fall results in a portrayal of him as an opportunist and a fool who is subsequently discarded by Stalin’s successors.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  22. Notsofast says:
    @Ron Unz

    if this is fact true, they were planning on bombing the baku oil fields, in my opinion to deny the nazis (and soviets) this all important resource. at the time the ussr couldn’t handle poland on their own let alone the nazi war machine.

  23. Anonymous[769] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Yes. Not to mention that, if Stalin was trying to avoid war with Germany, he wouldn’t have sent Molotov to Berlin in November 1940 with a list of demands and ultimatums.

    Re. the respective air forces, a fun fact is that the single worst day of the war for the Luftwaffe was the first day of the invasion. Soviet military effectiveness was at its height in 1941, it degraded throughout the war, and it was Soviet superiority in resources that carried the day, contra Team Russia nut-huggers.

    None of this implies that the Soviets were actually ready for the war they intended, only that they did intend war. Defenders of the official account should keep this distinction in mind.

    • Replies: @Notsofast
    , @Mulegino1
  24. Anonymous[769] • Disclaimer says:
    @Voltarde

    Sounds interesting, thanks. Beria was in charge of manpower allocation during the war (ie slave labor), so his role in the Soviet victory is probably quite important.

  25. Notsofast says:
    @Anonymous

    soviet superiority? if they were so superior why did the u.s. and u.k. give them 15,000 fighters and 3.000 bombers. were the all the luftwaffe planes shot down in dogfights, or were they brought down by antiaircraft batteries? maybe it was the witches in their biplanes, the nazis were out occulted with superior dark forces. anonymous trolls like you should man up and own your statements, asshole.

  26. Right_On says:
    @Big Daddy

    Hitler wasted (did he have to bail out his friend?) 36 days cleaning up Mussolini’s Balkan mess

    He had little room for manouvere. After Mussolini’s abortive attack on Greece, the British offered their support and sent light bombers to Greece. Hitler realized that the Brits could now also send in heavy bombers which would be able to reach Romanian oilfields. He had no choice but to help out his Italian ally.

    • Replies: @Right_On
    , @bronek
  27. Right_On says:
    @Right_On

    “manoeuvre” is the spelling I intended.
    “maneuver” if you’re a Yank.
    Alas, my five-minute edit time ran out. Dontcha’ just hate it when that happens?

  28. Right_On says:

    When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they were following the cunning plan devised by the Imperial Japanese Navy; the Army’s preferred option had been to invade the USSR from Manchuria. Presumably, Stalin was aware of the threat, so maybe his having so many tanks, planes and troops was to anticipate Russia having to face two formidable foes simultaneously.

    • Replies: @Malla
  29. The objectives of Operation Barbarossa seem to cut against the pre-emptive attack, defensive war hypothesis. Operation Barbarossa planned to capture Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev, while simultaneously destroying the Red Army. That strikes me as a war of aggression, even if, arguendo, the USSR planned its own attack. While it’s quite likely that Stalin planned an eventual attack, in 1941 he was looking at a Red Army that had performed fairly miserably against the Finns, and a German military that crushed the (previously) most highly-regarded army in Europe: France. Moreover, the German Army had knocked Russia out of the war in 1918 and Stalin probably had very vivid memories of that debacle. So maybe a 1942 offensive, but certainly nothing before that.

    A German spoiling attack that moved to more easily defended lines and than engaged in mobile defense might have been justified under international law (Israel in 1967), but that’s clearly not what happned. Although professional historians dislike counter-factual history, a German spoiling attack followed by a mobile defense had probably a greater chance of success than Barbarossa; the World War I German victory over Russia resulted from a war of attrition with exchange ratios highly favorable to the Germans that resulted in the undermining of the Czarist and Kerenskky governments. Stalin could easily have found himself in a similar position.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  30. “Socialism in on country” Stalin.

    needs correcting.

    But thanks. Careful analysis, very convincing.

  31. The concept of “the West” is becoming more and more sickening to me. Is Westism any better than Nazism from a moral standpoint?

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Joe Levantine
  32. j2 says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Soviet troops were in attack formation in 1941. Therefore Hitler had to attack,
    but Hitler’s war was not preventive offensive. Finns made a preventive offensive
    and stopped it in 1941 to borders that were easier to defend, Germans continued
    the attack and were stopped by Russians. That is the difference. There was no
    need for Germans to try to take Moscow or Leningrad, if it was a preventive
    offense. What Hitler tried is not so clear, but it was not a preventive attack. He
    may have tried to crush Soviets, or maybe not. His decisions later in the war,
    contradicting with the opinions of German generals, make me think that he
    had a different goal, connected with the transports of Jews. He did not take
    Moscow, the nod in railroads and roads, important in strategic sense, but
    proceeded to all areas where Jews lived.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @animalogic
  33. mh505 says:
    @Resartus

    That is indeed the most likely explanation coming closest to the truth.

    Even the most anti-German historians as well as eminent Jews (e.g. Hobsbawm) agree

  34. Anonymous[255] • Disclaimer says:

    Once the Germans struck, they pretty much had no choice but go all-in. Allowing the Soviet government to survive would only mean the war would start anew once the Soviets recovered/rebuilt (since they were able to move a lot of industrial capacity to the Urals), so the Germans were at long-term risk. And it’s laughable to think the Anglo-Americans would have accepted the legitimacy of any limited defensive lines established in the SU, they would have continued funneling support to Stalin. Which is probably why the Germans rejected Soviet offers of the Ukraine and Baltics in the fall of 1941.

    BTW post-war statements by the German generals here should be viewed with a big grain of salt, as they were primarily self-serving and directed at absolving themselves of individual blame (collective blame having been decreed as beyond doubt by the victors at Nuremberg).

  35. Anonymous[896] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    It’s worth noting that the Finns came under intense American pressure to limit their advance, well before the Americans officially entered the war. It’s probably safe to say that the Finns were (justifiably) leery of putting all their eggs in the German basket.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  36. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:

    @Tom Verso #5

    “. . . not the least of which is the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Time journalist Harrison E. Salisbury’s book “Marshal Zhukov’s Greatest Battles.” Salisbury was the first American journalist into Russia after the war and spent 6 years there.”

    I guess “Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist”, Walter Duranty, wasn’t available, eh?

    • Thanks: Irish Savant
    • LOL: Hamlet's Ghost
  37. Kleist says:

    Konstantin Rokossovsky said “The German army is a machine, and machines can be broken” He was right. The German meat grinder machine couldn’t handle all the meat it received and eventually it broke in the end. All this combined with the war delayed + in combination of some silly military mistakes during the war gave the Soviets their victory.

  38. It could be this counter-narrative is being tolerated as anti-Russian narrative, i.e. the Russians were just as much to blame for WWII as were the Germans.

    Never mind the so-called democracies were also imperialist powers that had conquered much of the world and ruthlessly crushed the opposition. How was the British Empire not an Anglo-White supremacist order? It was enlightened and did a lot of good but was still a form of supremacism.

    And the war wouldn’t have gotten so escalated if UK and France hadn’t declared war on Germany over Poland.

    If Stalin really had intended to invade all of Europe, would that have been a bad thing? Looking back, no. Look how Eastern Europe is now saner than Western Europe. Having experienced communism, the Eastern Europeans lost faith in radical leftism. Also, communism was culturally rather conservative and politically rather nationalist. Soviets had no problem with nationalism in Eastern Bloc nations AS LONG AS it wasn’t anti-Soviet. In contrast, nationalism per se was rejected in the West(though whites all had to support Jewish nationalism and supremacism for some reason, hmmm).

    Communism could be useful. Maybe a kind of national communism. Use communism to round up and destroy all globalist and decadent elements. And then, allow the development of new capitalism on nationalist basis. It is what China did.

    Imagine if we can have national communism in the US. We would round up all the ‘woke’ CEO’s and send them to gulags. We could confiscate the property of all the deep state yuppie duppies and the urban elite class. Many of them would be sent to the gulag or lined up and shot.

    And then, when the existing capitalists have been utterly crushed, we can build a new capitalism based on nationalism and populist-social-democracy. A kind of neo-fascism.

  39. @Tom Verso

    For example, Stalin’s speech about switching from ‘defensive’ to ‘offensive’ was referring to training in technological transformation of tanks and motor vehicles which lead to mobile tactics and strategies.

    Me thinks Stalin had the French example in mind. France declared war on Germany but went totally into defensive footing. It played tortoise to Germany’s racoon.
    Perhaps Stalin felt that if Soviet Union put itself in offensive footing, Germany would go more into defensive footing. But wouldn’t Soviet actions had provoked a German war? Stalin thought that Hitler wouldn’t risk a two-front war that brought it to defeat in WWI. He thought Hitler was too smart to make a dumb move like that. And Hitler probably thought that Stalin thought that Hitler was too smart to make a dumb move like that. Therefore, Stalin wouldn’t expect it, and thus, the dumb move could be a smart move simply because it wouldn’t have been expected.

    Sort of like Custer’s logic in LITTLE BIG MAN except that Hitler was right and had a real chance of winning.

  40. @Mulegino1

    It is nice to hear some reality in this discussion.
    Thank you.

    • Thanks: Mulegino1
  41. An interesting sideshow occurred in Persia (now called Iran). The British condemned the Germans for joining the Soviets to invade and partition Poland, and even declared war on the Germans. Germany had mostly taken areas where eight million Germans lived that were lost after 1919 agreements made to avert further mass starvation caused by Anglo-American port blockades. However, the Soviets had invaded much larger areas where no Russians lived, to include Finland and the Baltic states, but the British were okay with that and never declared war.

    Just two months later, the British joined the Soviets to invade and partition Persia in August 1941! Britain was broke and could not afford to pay Persia oil royalties so invaded and stole it. All this was possible with free American (lend lease) aid before the USA even joined the war. Lend lease was a Roosevelt scam to avoid American law that prohibited providing free military aid. So the aid was “leased” for small payments and technically returned to the USA in 1945, used up, worthless, so never shipped back the USA. The American army took over Persia in 1942 and shipped arms through Persia to the Soviets during the war, and never left until forced out in 1979.

  42. @Priss Factor

    Sounds very idealistic.
    How to rout out the jews, masons, etc. That is, how do you kill off all the psychopaths and lunatics that infest our societies?
    It would require a world wide effort, at this point, to extirpate all these psychos.
    I have to admit it is tempting.

  43. Almost 30 years ago, I attended a lecture by a Soviet colonel, who had been on the Soviet general staff, and who had fought at Kursk as a young man. His topic was on the development of Soviet combined arms tactics

    After the lecture, I talked with him for about an hour. He mentioned that he had researched in top secret archives and found that Stalin planned to attack Hitler and that Soviet troops only had maps for advancing into German held territory and not for defending Soviet territory.

    I was surprised, as I had never heard of anything like this.

    This wasn’t a defector, just a retired Soviet colonel on the lecture circuit talking to a young kid interested in talking with him.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  44. Seraphim says:

    The curious fact that McMeekin presents the same thesis as Suvorov without quoting him suggests that he simply plagiarized him. But it can suggest also that both were writing from a script prepared by someone else. The script of ‘eternal ”Russian aggression”. No surprise that this ‘discovery’ was made amid the ‘concerns’ about the Russian ‘aggression’ in Ukraine.
    McMeekin is not at his first ‘discovery’ of ‘Russian aggression’. In 2012 he also ‘discovered’ ‘The Russian origins of the First World War’ (2012) which was nothing else than the German revisionist thesis of ”Kriegschuldlüge”, relayed by Harry Elmer Barnes in his ”The Genesis of the World War” of 1926, generously funded by the German Foreign Ministry. McMeekin was funded by the Turks and aimed to exonerate the Turks for the Armenian genocide.
    Flogging dead horses.

    • Replies: @Nigel Winters
  45. Franz says:

    McMeekin’s main thesis is that World War II was primarily willed and orchestrated by Stalin, whereas Hitler was only tricked into it… (This is also, more or less, what A.J.P. Taylor argued in The Origins of the Second World War in 1961)

    The history of that parenthetical book is interesting: When it came out, and even through most of the 1970s. it was considered a balanced study. It was okay to cite in papers on the war; student bookstores stocked it.

    Then it was superseded by newer works. THEN it was roundly attacked by other historians as bad stuff. Taylor had noted that Hitler was a politician who took opportunities as he saw them and most certainly didn’t want any sort of war. He’d ordered building projects all over and just about ran out of labor to build roads and factories. You don’t do that if your whole goal is a war.

    For arguing a sane interpretation of The Good War, Taylor has been become an unperson.

    But he’s still worth reading.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  46. Mikhail says: • Website

    Dubious Claim

    Suvorov’s thesis can be summed up as follows: on June 22, 1941, Stalin was about to launch a massive offensive on Germany and her allies, within days or weeks. Preparations had started in 1939, just after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and had accelerated at the end of 1940, with the first divisions deployed to the new expanded Soviet borders, opposite the German Reich and Romania, in February 1941.

    Numerous particulars to the contrary. The Soviet military was at the time too weak as evidenced by the war with Finland and the purge of much of the Soviet officer corps.

    It has been said that Stalin was reluctant to attack into Germany in a not so well prepared and strong manner, given Russia’s WW I experience.

    If partitioning Poland was Stalin’s idea why did he let Germany take Warsaw which had been with the Russian Empire and not with Germany and Prussia? The answer has tom do with Stalin not bring in such a strong position.

  47. GMC says:

    No big deal – what the Soviet Bolsheviks didn’t accomplish in taking Europe – the Americans did – for some of the same old Zionist Bolsheviks – just a little later.

  48. Bankotsu says:

    I have a better one:

    “…And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

    In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West.

    Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism…

    In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

    (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
    (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
    (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

    The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of…”

    http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @Baron
    , @789
  49. Alfred says:
    @Anonymous

    the Germans effectively lost the war by failing to capture Moscow before the rainy season.

    You totally fail to understand the Russian mentality. Russia is not France.

    Napoleon did capture Moscow and a fat lot of good that did him. His army occupied Moscow for the grand total of 35 days. Contrary to myth, Napoleon’s army started its retreat from Moscow long before Winter – on October 19, 1812. His army was not defeated by the Russian winter.

    The USSR was a huge country with many provinces and nations – numerous republics. In WW2, most of industry was evacuated to the east of the Urals. They kept control of all their oil fields. Oil is vastly more important than any capital city. If the Germans had as much oil, they would have won.

    This famous painting is old fake news:

    • Replies: @CMC
    , @RUR
  50. Amazing that nobody here seems to be able to read German, or at least familiar with recent German-language historiography. Least of all of course McMeekin, like all anglo-saxon so-called experts, luminaries and court historians. The few who are truly knowledgeable, such as David Irving, are subject to persistent calumnies and character assassination.

    As for German official historians: they are living in an occupied country and their jobs (and livelihoods and mortgage payments) depend on their goose-stepping in tune with the music that Washington DC plays.

    In 2015 Dr Bernd Schwipper, a retired NVA-general, published Deutschland im Visier Stalins. Working with newly accessible Russian sources and the very few German sources that escaped purges by the allies, Schwipper unequivocably demonstrates that Suvorov, Topitsch and other “revisionists” mentioned above by Laurent Guyénot are right: Operation Barbarossa was launched in self-defense, to prevent an attack on Germany by the Red Army.

    • Agree: HeebHunter, HdC
    • Replies: @siberiancat
  51. @Anonymous

    One answer is that he was off his face on drugs. See the book Blitzed for a disturbing insight into how a great man effed up after he was effed up. NB the book is badly written and structured and contains a number of annoyingly smug asides, but the idea that Hitler was doped up regularly by his personal physician is laid out well.

  52. Alfred says:
    @Tom Verso

    how could a Soviet army that was so much on a war footing get so thoroughly destroyed by the Germans?

    A ridiculous statement. An army preparing to invade is in a totally different formation from an army preparing to defend.

    Armies preparing to attack are in several narrow arrowheads. They aim to penetrate the defences of the enemy at their weakest points and to lunge into the undefended interior so as to encircle the defenders and to deprive them of provisions and reinforcements.

    Armies preparing to defend long borders are obliged to disperse their forces and to dig trenches and bunkers. These fortifications are defended by mine fields, anti-tank barriers and barbed wire.

    The Soviet armies were easily encircled by the attacking German formations and a huge number of prisoners were taken. That alone is ample proof that the Soviets were planning to invade the West. I suspect that if the Germans had attacked Moscow and Leningrad in a feint and concentrated on occupying the oil fields further south, the outcome would have been very different.

    Battle of the Caucasus

    • Replies: @GMC
    , @Anon
  53. glib says:

    So, the USSR intended to attack

    1) to get hold of Germany’s bountiful natural resources, namely, oil fields
    2) Hitler decided on a defensive war 2000 km from home, just so Germany could become a master of ling supply line logistics (those supply lines eventually failed)
    3) Russia was way behind in its development, but wanted to hurry up and invade Germany

    Are we seeing here, in a way or another, how confused people become when they try to interpret everything within an ideological framework? And by that I mean those who first came up with the idea that Stalin would sacrifice 5M+ just to say that they got a piece of Europe…

    • Troll: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @JM
  54. Vojkan says:

    The only logical inference is that both sides planned to attack. I don’t see how that exonerates the Germans. A lot of people on Unz seem to have their judgment clouded by their disliking of Jews.

    Planning an offensive and going on the offensive are not the same thing. The guilty side is always the side that initiates hostilities. In this case, the Germans. As were the Soviets when they attacked Finland and the Baltic states. As in more recent history, were the Americans when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretexts, or the American-British-French trio when they attacked Libya.

    Perception of intention of misdeed doesn’t justify preemptive misdeed. There exists no possible circumvention around the fact that Germans started WWII and that Germans attacked the USSR. End of story.

  55. …how could Stalin be so sure that France and England would not declare war to Russia too? One part of the answer is that he had not broken off negotiations with Great Britain after signing a pact with Hitler. It is even thought that on 15 October 1939, less that two months after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a British-Soviet secret agreement was signed behind Hitler’s back.

    I’ll have to read that, because…

    With the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler thought he had countered the British encirclement policy against Germany. And he believed that the pact would protect him from a declaration of war by Britain and France if both Germany and Russia intervened in Poland. He had grossly underestimated Stalin.

    […]

    The Soviets had waited two and a half weeks before moving into Poland, leaving all the fighting to the Germans and giving the world the impression that they were intervening to prevent Germany from seizing the entire country. The USSR thus remained officially neutral, and incurred no blame on the part of France and England.

    …it stretches credulity a little to think that Hitler was merely bamboozled by Stalin, or primarily concerned with British encirclement; it also stretches credulity to think that France and England would be fooled by the Soviet pretense vis a vis Poland. (Perhaps it shouldn’t stretch credulity – perhaps I overestimate…)

    I’ve wondered whether, just as Stalin hoped to fool the west, the west hoped to fool the east: perhaps, knowing or suspecting that Stalin intended to use Hitler as an “icebreaker”, they conspired to create a western front suited to Stalin’s needs, i.e., purportedly distracting Hitler, leaving his eastern flank vulnerable. This would’ve given all western parties time and an excuse to mobilise and escalate war production better to prepare for war against Russia. (It was called “the phoney war”, after all.) It would also have better enabled Britain (and perhaps France and the USA) to let Germany and Russia weaken each other – which would explain why they took so long to liberate France, and why they funded and supplied the Soviets.

    Perhaps Stalin wondered the same thing:

    The rapidity of the German victories was alarming, however. Stalin and Molotov would have preferred a slow, grinding, bloody battle of attrition—a German victory, yes, but one that weakened Hitler almost as much as his enemies. According to Khrushchev’s later recollection, after learning the extent of the Allied debacle later in May, Stalin “cursed the French and he cursed the British, asking how they could have let Hitler smash them like that.”

    I’m also curious to know why war was unavoidable in the west once Hitler agreed to partition Poland. Perhaps this is because the west was compelled to resist the tremendous strength of the German-Russian alliance – but then, why didn’t they declare war on Russia, too? Why declare war over the capture of Poland, and not of Czechoslovakia? And so on. Many such questions!

  56. @Tom Verso

    What about Field Marshall Zhukov’s memories, were he kept advising Stain to mobilize and Stalin replied angrily: “Do you understand that that means war”? In short, as soon as the Germans see the Soviet Army mobilizing they will attack. Does that sound like a Leader who was planning an offensive?

    It does not augur either way. It sounds like Stalin did not wish for war – but per Sukorov’s theory, Stalin was trying to hide his preparations for war in order to gain the element of surprise.

  57. @Tom Verso

    Then you haven’t read enough:

    The extent of the Soviet military preparations was such that General Halder, the German Chief of the General Staff, feared that – according to his diary entries of April 6 and 7 – the Soviet attack could be expected at any time. General Halder, a member of the “Resistance,” wrote after the war:

    […it] was his [Hitler’s] unshakable and not unfounded conviction that Russia was preparing to attack Germany. We know today from excellent sources that he was right.

    […] Hitler and his advisors now had no further doubts about Stalin’s martial plans. Halder was sure that, if one would have shown the Soviet military build-up to a neutral military expert, he would have had to admit that it was of an aggressive design. Throughout the month of March the Soviet troop movements near the border were so intense and the supply transports from Moscow toward Smolensk and Minsk assumed such proportions that Halder feared a Soviet attack on Germany could be imminent. At the time, he said that this danger could last until April 20, 1941, because the Soviets were expected to have far superior forces until then.

    Walter N. Sanning, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), Pp. 55.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  58. Regarding the Soviet invasion plans, there was a book published some time ago about this. It was called Stalins Missed Chance, by Mikhail Meltyukhov. It reveals that the Stavka (Red Army leadership) had developed invasion plans against Germany in 1940, and in 1941. Their final plan was dated May 15, 1941, and was to be put into action on June 12, 1941. It was an encirclement operation aimed at East Prussia.

    According to Meltyukhov, though, Stalin got cold feet and decided to postpone the invasion. This was due to some political developments, and to the slow military buildup of the Red Army. The buildup was not expected to be complete until July 15, and even in the absence of a German invasion, they still might not have met their own deadline. Meltyukov believes that the Soviets really were preparing to launch an invasion.

    But his evidence rests mainly on the existence of the offensive plans themselves. This is not entirely convincing, because militarys habitually make contingency plans for many different conflict scenarios. It does not indicate that they were actually prepared to follow through with it. Theres a website which shows some of the offensive plans of Stavka, this invasion map depicts their May 15 plans:

  59. @badger

    Hitler wasn’t responsible for that blunder, his generals were. Hitler was a perfectly fine and capable military general as fresh studies have conclusively shown. “Micro managing” didn’t lose Germany the war, the Generals did by ignoring Hitler’s orders and doing whatever they pleased. Karl Wilhelm Krause, who was Hitler’s personal valet, bodyguard and manservant, casually overheard Hitler’s generals talking about how they would pervert Hitler’s orders. Yet this fact conveniently goes ignored in general histories.

    Read:

    The Soviets did manage to delay the closing of the pocket until 27 July, while their relentless assaults also put intense pressure on the seriously overextended Panzer units. This was, Bock marveled on 26 July, “astonishing for an opponent who is so beaten. They must have unbelievable masses of materiel, for . . . the field units still complain about the powerful effect of the enemy artillery.” Although the Germans managed to repulse these attacks, the Russians persisted through August in intense fighting that resulted in frightful casualties to both sides. Repelling these vigorous enemy assaults, in fact, left Army Group Center so weakened that a direct thrust on Moscow was out of the question until the precarious supply situation had been remedied. Once again, as in the border battles, the Germans had landed a series of body blows but failed to inflict a knock out. This, in turn, encouraged a flare- up of the long- simmering dispute over the focal point of the operation, as German leaders struggled to prevent the campaign from deteriorating into a war of attrition.

    Ironically, this crisis of command erupted in large part from Halder’s chronic over- optimism and ongoing deception of Hitler. On both 8 and 13 July he had agreed with Hitler that troops from Army Group Center should be shifted to aid the lagging efforts in both the north and the south. The result, on 19 July, was Führer Directive No. 33, which reflected Hitler’s recognition that large- scale encirclement operations had not achieved decisive success. He now declared the immediate aim to be the final reduction of pockets and destruction of enemy units still within reach, a process that
    would entail shifting the bulk of the two Panzer groups from Army Group Center to support the drive on Leningrad and to clear Soviet troops from the Pripet Marshes. Although Hitler has since been criticized for this order, it was both true to the original Barbarossa directive and based on OKH recommendations. More to the point, it also relied on faulty German intelligence assessments; as noted, Hitler can hardly be rebuked for making decisions based on the information and advice given him by his professional military elite. Since the Panzers had largely outrun the supply system, the infantry struggled to keep pace with the armor, frontline units had received scant replacements, and the lagging effort in Ukraine threatened the entire southern flank of Army Group Center, Hitler’s order was neither unrealistic nor unreasonable. Even Halder realized a period of retrenchment was needed before resuming the drive toward Moscow.

    Stephen G. Fritz, The First Soldier: Hitler as Military Leader (Yale University Press, 2018), Pp. 179.

    Every fool who follows the meme trope that Hitler “should’ve listened to his generals” and that splitting Army group centre was a “bad idea” drinks the semen straight out of the proverbial cocks of the German Generals who were alive after the war to still rub one out.

    Nobody questioned their lies, certainly not historians, because it presented Hitler as an incompetent fool who wasn’t intelligent enough for anything – except for forging the most formidable fighting force in Europe and the most stable and popular dictatorship the world had seen since Caesar.

    The false, anti-Hitler histories allowed history buffs who didn’t want to ever be caught praising Hitler get to scorn him, while still praising certain elements of the German armed forces because it sounded nice to just blame everything on Hitler and claim that whatever they liked about Germany, was not because Hitler had anything to do with it.

    Hitler was just fine as a military commander and he was recognized as such by those condemned to death; for example at Nuremberg Alfred Jodl was still man enough to admit – before getting murdered by the Allies – that Hitler “Was a great Military Leader” (See: Richard Overy, Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945 (Viking, 2001), Pp. 214, 276ff.)

  60. Anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Verso

    Agree. There are tons of papers on WWII, all of them deny major facts and paint an angelic West and barbaric Russia and Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, facts are simple and do not need interpretations: WWII is the West’s unfinished war and ultimate failure.

    Here are the facts:
    1. Europe swiftly surrendered to Hitler with no country resisting longer than just over one month. Europe’s industrial powerhouse was focused on waging a war with the USSR. France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, and other industrial frontrunners all were making cutting edge weaponry for the Eastern Front.
    Fact 2. While all blame is laid on Germany, practically EVERY European nation sent troops to Russia, and the atrocities of many of them, e.g. Spaniards and Hungarians, could have made Germans pale with horror.
    Fact 3. The so-called Allies refused to open the Second Front in Europe waiting for the ultimate attrition of the USSR. Instead, they were chasing camels and Germans in Africa and the Japanese in high seas. Read Stalin’s utter frustration in his messages to Churchill and Roosevelt after each of their notification about postponing the opening of the second front for yet another year. With such allies, one doesn’t need any enemies.
    Fact 4. Lead-lease assistance from the USA was distributed among its allies in a very fair way – 80% to the UK and 20% to the USSR. The bulk of it went to the Russians in the last year of the war the result of which was apparent to anyone.
    Fact 5. The Allies landed in Normandy and Italy when they saw the USSR could reach the shores of the English Channel all by itself. The soldiers were brave, no doubt, we owe them our respect but the Command was lousy, and stalled in Ardennes, they asked the USSR for more activities in the Eastern front so that Germans would withdraw their troops facing off the Allies.
    Fact 6. Will you kindly visit the British government archive site and see Operation Unthinkable at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/operation-unthinkable/
    The “Allies actually planned, upon the defeat of Germany, to collect its remaining forces and jointly invade the USSR in July 1945. They expected the USSR to be completely exhausted and offer no resistance to their glorious armies. I am not sure why they backed up. Probably, the battles with Germans showed them they were not as capable in warfare while the USSR was not as weak as expected. I am inclined to think that it was the A-bomb that made them put the Operation Unthinkable in the back burner. They decided to take no chances on the ground and incinerate the USSR with new bombs which was much easier than incinerating Dresden (and pretending there were so few victims since the ashes don’t count). So the war was put on hold while they manufactured enough nuclear bombs. The Soviet bastards invented their own, moreover, overpassed the West in missiles, and the pause is still lingering. Operation Unthinkable scrapped, they made new plans of nuclear annihilation of the USSR, yet the dastardly Russians kept straining their population and industry and still making those plans fraught with a rebut.
    Fact 7. Compare the number of military losses of the Axis in the East and in the Western fronts. If you do not see clearly who had beaten the Germans and other Europeans, you should see an eye-doctor most urgently.

    These facts are unbeatable. Also, compare the map of the Third Reich and the current Fourth Reich aka the EU. Surprise!

    Thus there will be more and more smoke and mirror stories of evil Russia and the highly moral West which committed UNSPEAKABLE crimes against civilians in Russia. Russian chose not to fan the memories and hush up the atrocities, especially by those new “socialist allies” which made up a sanitary cordon from the rabid West. The new generation of Russians is much more pragmatic and had shed the silly Communist propaganda of “people’s friendship” and other crap. So I do hope the 4th Reich assault will finally bounce back, and Europe will finally receive what over 20 MILLION dead Russians are desperately calling for – expiation.

    EUROPE MUST REPENTS!

    P.S. When was the last time you looked in the mirror? Just take a look here and see what Europeans brought to Russia. Never forgotten https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe_raA1N_IQ

    • Agree: Grahamsno(G64), Garliv
    • Thanks: FB
  61. @Seraphim

    You might want to buy McMeekin’s book and read his bibliography, as it contains two of Suvorovs works.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  62. @Anonymous

    I find the “if only Hitler had taken Moscow” then victory thesis somewhat questionable.
    Napoleon, 1812 is not necessarily indicative, but it is suggestive.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  63. @Mulegino1

    If you are planning for a defensive campaign:

    And if you’re planning a preemptive strike to counter Soviet invasion you don’t fight at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, you don’t invade Crimea take Svestapol and end up in Stalingrad. Some defensive war that.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  64. @j2

    “What Hitler tried is not so clear, but it was not a preventive attack.”
    Hitler had to bring the USSR down as a political entity. Destroy it utterly or sufficiently to make it politically & militarily null & void. In this, there was no option.

  65. @Tom Verso

    What about Field Marshall Zhukov’s memories, were he kept advising Stain to mobilize and Stalin replied angrily: “Do you understand that that means war”?

    Are you seriously suggesting that one phrase from the “memoires” of one soldier (F.M. Zhukov) form a serious rebuttal to the mass of evidence in this article ?

    Have you considered that such “memoires” were probably ghost written by the Politburo to adhere to the Party Line ?

    Has it occured to you that this supposed phrase by “Zhukov” could have been yet more “evidence” for the condemnation of Stalin by Khrushchev at that time ?

    When there is the Gulag (or worse), what are such “memoires” worth ?

  66. Baron says:

    Few point, not in any particular order, to try to debunk the Suvorov’s proposition:

    ‘I believe the rains are to come, I have to prepare, but am shocked to the core they came earlier than I was ready’, would be the every day equivalent of the Suvorov’s claim that “Stalin knew war with Germany was imminent, but he didn’t expect Germany to strike first”, and Unz’s saying that’s the only logical answer explaining the Georgian thug’s shock when Barbarossa got going first.

    The unpredictability of the weather is on par with that of Hitler’s intentions. The timing is by far less important than the event that’s timed. Didn’t the Georgian thug refuse to believe Sorge at al? What shocked Stalin wasn’t the timing of Barbarossa, but Barbarossa itself.

    Plenty of other evidence, not directly connected with the start of Barbarossa, similarly points to the fallacy of Suvorov’s theory (say) railway wagons full of cattle, grain etc., being shipped to Germany even after the war began (why would the Soviets have supplied the stuff to a soon be enemy?), the Red Army officers on holidays, the order not to respond to the first attacks on June 22 and other stuff (all well documented, undeniably true).

    Was it also that Poland were to attack Germany for the Nazis to go into Poland first, and before that into Austria, Czechoslovakia and the Low Countries, and France? If not why not, why was it only Russia that was poised to attack Germany after the latter walked over most of Europe?

    The only reason the revisionists cannot come up with such claims for the countries Hitler had conquered before hitting the Soviet Russia is the relative sizes of the Armed Forces of the countries other than Russia, the Soviet Russia ’s forces were by far bigger than any of the others, but this alone could in no way justify the claim that Red Army were to invade the West first. The size is irrelevant for the argument advanced by Suvorov.

    The Austrian Corporal had repeatedly made it clear he wants more living space, das Lebensraum was the Holy Grail for the massive slaughter, no such claim was ever made by the Georgian thug ruling Soviet Russia.

    If indeed it was Stalin’s cherished dream, his pet project from the start of the USSR to invade Europe, spread the idea of communism beyond the borders of the USSR, why wait until Germany took it over first (in the process acquiring massive potential for military hardware manufacture, the occupation of Czechoslovakia alone double its potential for the making of the military gear). Why not boost the Red Army up earlier (say) from the start of the 30s, invade the West before Hitler occupied most of it?

    What was there to stop Stalin to keep going reach the Atlantic after the fall of Berlin in May 1945, after all he had already conquered half of Europe (the East) the Red Army could have carried on, it had immeasurably more men at arms, battle tested, well equipped. ‘Impossible, it couldn’t have happened, these were allies’, you say?

    Germany was an ally, too, before Barbarossa yet Suvorov suggests the Soviet Russia were to attack first even though the ink of the Ribbentrop-Molotov parchment didn’t dry yet, why not argue the same vis-a-vis another ally, this time the West in 1945? If the Georgian thug could have broken a freshly signed pact in 1941, he could have done the same in 1945, no?

    Why is it that after the war the Georgian thug settled for controlling only the east of Europe (plus a chunk of Germany, the Prussian chunk, the nest of German militarism) if before the war he wanted he whole of Europe? Just look at the map, the last thing Stalin needed was more lands, he had difficulty governing what he had.

    Furthermore, there’s also this: most nations have evolved from indigenous tribes, these can be broken into roughly two categories, collectivist and individualistic, the former mostly in the East (Slavonic, Chinese, Vietnamese …including also the Japanese tribe) prefer strong, centralised, forcibly disciplined governance. There had never been any attempt by the Soviet Russia to conquer the West of Europe militarily, these are the lands of the individualistic tribes, the Soviet model of governance was OK for the collectivist societies, it wasn’t suitable for the individualistic ones in the European West, the Georgian thug was evil, not stupid.

    Most of the fortifications built on the Soviet side were of a defensive nature, in Germany there hardly were any defensive structures before Barbarossa got going, the German Armed forces were designed for attack, just as the Red Army was constructed for defensive purposes (hence the failure of the Finnish campaign).

    When Czechoslovakia mobilised in May 1938 (partly, later fully) that was the time the country should have attacked Hitler’s Germany, except for the airforces, other branches of the armed forces of the two were roughly on par, in some instances the Czechs had better military gear.

    There existed a clear and transparent justification for such a preemptive attack by the Czechs what with the Heinlein’s agitation and Hitler’s support for it, Hitler’s often repeated threats against the country, the mere fact Czechoslovakia was a part of a corridor that sat between Germany and the East, Hitler’s target for the Lebensraum, there was no such justification for Hitler’s invasions of either the West or the East (including that of the USSR).

    Whatever Suvorov and those subscribing to his take on the war say the undeniable fact remains, it was the Nazi Germany that invaded Russia, not the other way round. Basil, in one of the great Fawlty Towers episodes gets it right talking to a group of German tourists, “but you started it”, he says. They did indeed.

    • Thanks: Grahamsno(G64), Begemot
  67. NikoKaoJa says:
    @Tom Verso

    A testimony by Field Marshal Fridrich Paulus on 11 February 1946 confirmed that the attack on the Soviet Union had been prepared in advance and was not “pre-emptive” as Nazi propaganda had claimed.

    • Replies: @LeoB
  68. Anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nigel Winters

    McMeekin’s book is another salvo in the new propaganda outburst ahead of another assault against Russia in the making.

    OMG, what keeps you from reading a page from British archives? Just one page – https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/operation-unthinkable/:

    “Report from the British Military leaders to Prime Minister Winston Churchill on the chances of ‘Operation Unthinkable’ -a surprise attack on the USSR, 22 May 1945 (Catalogue ref: CAB 120/691)
    […]
    The date for the opening of hostilities is 1st July, 1945.
    OBJECT
    1. The overall or political object is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire.
    […]
    TOTAL WAR
    1. Apart from the chances of revolution in the USSR and the political collapse of the present regime – on which we are not competent to express an opinion – the elimination of Russia could only be achieved as a result of:…” – End of quote.

    This document shows the final goal of what we call WWII, and Hitler is merely a leader of a pack of hounds (EU) to maul the USSR before the Allies join in to crash Russia for good. So all your arguments are just funny. And the initial post here and the book it refers to is another attempt for the next stage of the unfinished war – painting Russia black so that a new attack would be justified and moral.

    I really feel frustration. The people in the West are so brainwashed and unable to see facts that neither acid nor alkaline rinsing will bring their brains back.

    It is not McMeekin or Gueynot saying, this was openly stated by British generals that the objective is “elimination of Russia” and “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire.” Fullstop. Why the hell are you joining in this propaganda campaign when everything’s so obvious – WWII was unfinished, the objective unattained, preparations are underway for a new assault which is preceded by propaganda in high gear.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  69. Gast [AKA "Gast (redux)"] says:

    I think the main weakness of Suvorov’s thesis that Hitler prevented Stalin’s conquest of Europe, is the fact that Stalin knew exactly since December 1940 through messages from British intelligence (they knew it through decoding the “Enigma” code and probably through traitors like Canaris as well) not only that Hitler was planning to attack the SU but the exact datum of the attack, which was originally the 15th of May, but was delayed through Mussolini’s extravaganza in Greece (and of course, through the same sources Stalin knew the new datum as well).

    So from a military point of view the only sensible moves for Stalin and his military leadership would be one of the two actions:

    1) to preempt the attack and launch an attack on Germany before May 15th.

    2) to device an effective defence strategy and let Hitler run into a prepared trap.

    But somehow Stalin failed to do either. I have no doubt that Suvorov’s description of a massive attacking formation which was overrun by Hitler’s Wehrmacht is more or less correct. The German military historian Joachim Hoffmann came to the same conclusion several years before Suvorov when he published an lengthy essay in the year 1982. Later he would enlarge his essay into a thorough book with the title “Stalins Vernichtungskrieg” which would cause quite a stir in Germany in 2001 (today he would be cancelled from his tenure at a university, in those days he only had to live with calumny and name-calling).

    So why did Stalin do it? Was he (or his handlers, I use “Stalin” as pars pro toto) a complete idiot? Of course not.

    I think the most plausible assumption is the following (this is very al fresco of course, you could write lengthy books on the subject): WW2 was planned by the jewish power structure as a lengthy operation many years before the first shots were fired. The jews (or Zionists if you want to be more polite) wanted to accomplish several things: The most important thing was the foundation of Israel. Very important was the invention of a victim myth (the “Holocaust”) behind which they could aggressively subjugate the whole word in the decades to come. And probably many other things as well.

    Very important as well was the decimation of the German and the Russian population in a lengthy brutal war. Jews hate both countries more than any others, so they will observe with glee that WW2 was a resounding success on that front too. Both countries are now demographic nightmares (Germany more than Russia, but Russia is in a serious demographic death spiral too).

    So, to await Hitler in an attacking formation was probably an entirely cynical move from Stalin to sacrifice a good part of his army. He knew the script and knew that he had enough reserves to “win” in the end. But little Germany, which fought against overwhelming odds (America was already prepared to enter the conflict soon enough, a necessity, since they planned the “Cold War” hoax in advance as the outcome of the war), had to be given a little head-start to make a lengthy war remotely plausible.

    So Hitler didn’t save Europe with “Operation Barbarossa”. He just played his part in the script (whether he was only played by more intelligent actors or was a willing traitor, remains an interesting question). And the partition of Europe through an “iron curtain” and the immensely profitable “Cold War” was part of a script which was written long before the first German soldiers set a foot on Russian soil.

    I know, most will dismiss my assumption as a paranoid fantasy, because they still follow the basic narratives by mainstream historians and pseudo-iconoclasts like David Irving which ignore the fact that most countries in WW2 were completely controlled by jews and jews are very capable to orchestrate complex historical events behind the razzle dazzle of diplomatic and military moves in the name of pseudo-independent countries. And most politicians are just puppets, not the mighty historical figures our history books imagine.

    • Replies: @TheJamesRocket
  70. Baron says:
    @Bankotsu

    Spot on, Bankotsu.

    Those finding the Austrian Corporal a genius on strategy cannot be more wrong, the man was a consummate liar, bluffer, couldn’t be trusted at all. His cardinal mistake was to fight on the three fronts (the East, the West and in Africa even though the African theatre of war was forced on him by the abysmal failure of his Italian ally).

    He should have finished the West, Britain was the one country that would have sealed it, thanks be to Him he failed. His prime target was indeed the Soviet Union, but even in that campaign he fugged up for many a reason.

  71. Baron says:
    @Rahan

    Spot on, Rahan, from the first to the last word.

    There’s not a smidgen of hard evidence or a reliably sourced proof that the Georgian thug wanted to attack Europe before (or after) June 22. It would have been suicidal for him, the Nazi Germany had conquered close to the whole of Europe, she had the manufacturing base and the manpower availability of the Old Continent to herself.

    For the USSR to wait and invade Europe after the Nazi Germany have already conquered it makes no sense whatever. If the USSR wanted to invade the West she should have done it earlier when Hitler was fighting the West, that would make sense, but after he took over of all European adversaries bar the British it wasn’t doable, and the Georgian thug knew it.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  72. BorisMay says:

    Interesting well written article that ignores German military records completely.

    Wehrmacht logistic planners told Hitler that he had just six weeks (6 weeks/42 days) to win should he invade Russia due to the difference in railway gauges which would force goods to be transferred at any border with Russia.

    On top of that there was almost no mechanised transport available due to other commitments.

    The German generals also thought the Russian army consisted of 185 divisions, but by the end of 1941 realised the true number was in excess of 500.

    All of this information is in German Army records available today and is always studiously avoided by writers such as those mentioned in this article.

    Clearly Hitler invaded Russia, not because he wanted to, not because he thought he could win, not because it was the sensible thing to do, but he invaded because he had no other option.

    Britain and the US had refused all offers of peace that Hitler made, which were more than a dozen. Stalin could not be trusted because his declared aim was to first invade Europe and then the world to turn it in to a Soviet nightmare (similar to Claus Schwab’s/Bill Gates’ Great Reset today).

    Italy and the Italian military were incompetent. Spain was being blockaded by the British navy and was barely able to feed itself. International Jewry had declared war on Hitler in 1933.

    Quite simply Hitler had run out of options so he did the honourable thing, he went to war to save Europe from the Bolshevik hordes. And this he did.

    One day history will be rewritten deleting the lies of the Jews and recognising Hitler as being the saviour of the West.

    Keitel and Jodl were unjustly hung for saving Europe from the Jews.

    All National Socialists murdered by execution at the fall of Germany in 1945 were martyrs that sacrificed themselves to save Europe from the Jews.

    Today we are suffering the fate Europe would have suffered in 1942 if Hitler had not intervened. Unfortunately there is no Hitler left to save us today.

    • Agree: HdC
  73. @Tom Verso

    Operation Barbarossa did not really get moving until September —-Hllter’s astrological star patterns were not in alignment and some top brass quit in frustraion–they wanted to get moving in June and be in Moscow by winter, However Hitler enentually gave the go ahead in September and it was the wettest September in many years and the Nazi war machine was slowed down. As for Zhukov –he is likely the only person who slammed the phone on Stalin’s ear and lived to tell about it. Zhukov wanted extra divisons and Stalin stated “NO!” and SLAM –down went the receiver on Stalin’s ear. Phone rang immediately back and everyone in room knew their day was up –surprisingly Stalin agreed and those present were spared . As for Kursk –Joe Zhuov was no Fool –he had the Nazis put into a giant pretzel and then squeezed —

  74. @Pheasant

    There was another nasty exchange when Zhukov stated that he did not win the war for Stalin but rather for the Motherland —and Joe Stalin was Not happy—–

  75. profnasty says:

    Remember WWII. The hatred, the fire, the glory.
    Never let US forget.
    Germany is free, Russia is free, China is phree.
    America is Communist, Quebec is Communist, and an enemy of US.
    Heaven forfend Russia, Germany, China, Mexico, Quebec (?), should unite here and now.
    US infrastructure is kaput. Our society is on the cusp of Civil War. Our very military is poised to destroy our White Kulak majority.
    Remember WWII!!! It’s our only real defence.

  76. Malla says:
    @Priss Factor

    Ironically, Communism which seemed so scary at that time (for real understandable reasons) actually came out good in the long run. Communist countries eventually turned conservative (Social Realism) while Western countries went all destructive (Cultural Marxism). In the long term Stalinism could have saved Europe. But Hitlerism could have done it even better.

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  77. Cohen says:

    Attention Attention Colon Wright

    I am going to read this this long articles. Seems interesting, my opinion.

    Hope you will learn something and hopefully would not come up with some Bizarre delusion like David Irvin’s books are trash. While Hollywood movies are master piece of historical work. What do smoke when you write such great opinion. A few points necessary to throw at you

    Preparation by Soviets before Barbarossa. 70,000 or so Gliders and paratroopers at her Western borders. For Defense? or Offence?

    Speedy Tanks T-34 for paved road travel. Not designed for rough terrains stationed before German invasion. Sounds offense operation to me. The tank factory is still there in City of Chelyabinsk and one tank is proudly displayed in town square with yearly celebration. Go Check it out.

    Soviet Troops trained to speak some basic German language sentences were assembled at the border. Where is the road…… Where is ….. I forgot the sentences and numbers of troops.

    For city and its citizen good reason to display the tank. Unlike Columbus statue in Columbus circle in New York. May be Columbus helped the natives as you claimed in your comments. I hope you understand that Columbus never came to US or stayed in Waldorf Astoria. Why dont you try to lean a few things that may help change your opinion. As John Maynard Keynes says

    I change my opinion when I get new information. What about your sir?

    And according to Tom Paine your types commit crimes

    While knowledge is a duty. Ignorance is a crime misleading the young. Whites built USA while Black, Chinese, and Irish Slaves sat in their luxurious quarters and sipped lemonade.

    • Replies: @Miville
  78. Hoekom says:

    There was active communication between the soviet and German military military commanders between the wars. The Soviets helped recreate the german army. In one of the trips by the German High command Guderian was taken east of the Urals to show the new factories there. The point was to demonstrate to the Germans that even if they did invade, the soviets would evacuate like in 1812 back over the Urals and wage war from there.

    A colleague dated a German girl whose father was part of operation Barbarossa. He said how when they invaded there were whole plains covered by Russian troops and equipment, which were quickly overrun because they were unprepared to fight.

    As a complete aside I worked with a Polish lady whose mother was polish and her father was Jewish. She told how when the soviets invaded Poland, he as a Jew was taken and put in the Gulag. He was eventually released after the war and ended up as a prosperous businessman in Italy. I wonder how many Polish Jews in the Soviet sector had the same experience of being taken forcibly out of Hitler’s murderous range.

  79. Malla says:

    When in the Summer of 1939 the Reich government, motivated by the desire to achieve a settlement of interests between Germany and the USSR, approached the Soviet government, it was quite aware that it was no easy matter to reach an understanding with a state that on one hand claimed to belong to a community of nation states with rights and duties resulting therefrom, yet on the other hand was ruled by a party that, as a section of the Comintern [Communist International], was striving to bring about world revolution – in other words, the dissolution of those nation states.

    The German Reich government made the effort, setting aside its serious misgivings, which were based on this fundamental difference in the political aims of Germany and Soviet Russia, and on the sharp contrast between the diametrically opposed worldviews of National Socialism and Bolshevism. It was guided by the idea that the elimination of the possibility of war, which would result from an understanding between Germany and Russia, and the safeguarding of the real vital needs of the two nations, between whom friendly relations had always existed, would offer the best guarantee against a further spreading to Europe of the Communist doctrine of international Jewry. This belief was strengthened by the fact that certain events in Russia itself and certain measures of international scope undertaken by the Russian government allowed one to assume that a departure from those doctrines and previous methods of subversion of other nations seemed at least possible. The reception accorded in Moscow to this German initiative and the readiness of the Soviet Russian government to conclude a pact of friendship with Germany appeared to confirm this change of attitude.

    Thus, a Non-Aggression Pact was concluded on August 23, 1939, while a Boundary and Friendship Agreement was signed by the two states on September 28, 1939. The essence of these agreements consisted of:

    1. Reciprocal pledges by both states not to attack one another and to live as peaceful neighbors, and

    2. Delineation of spheres of interest, with the German Reich renouncing all influence in Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Bessarabia, while territories of the former Polish State as far as the line formed by the Narew, Bug and San [rivers] were to be incorporated into Russia according to the wishes of the Soviets.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Non-Aggression Pact with Russia, the Reich government in fact carried out a fundamental shift in its policy toward the USSR, and since that time assumed a friendly attitude toward the Soviet Union. The German government faithfully adhered in both letter and spirit to the treaties concluded with the Soviet Union. In addition, it had – through the defeat of Poland, that is, by shedding German blood – helped the Soviet Union to gain its greatest successes in foreign policy since its establishment. That was only possible as a result of Germany’s well-intentioned policy toward Russia and the overwhelming victories of German armed forces.

    Not unreasonably, the Reich government therefore felt justified in expecting that the Soviet Union would adopt a similar attitude toward the German Reich, especially given that during the negotiations conducted by Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop in Moscow, and on other occasions, the Soviet government had repeatedly expressed the view that these treaties would be the basis for a lasting settlement of German-Soviet Russian interests, and that the two nations, each respecting the regime of the other, and prepared to abstain from any interference in the internal affairs of the other partner, would achieve lasting good neighborly relations. Unfortunately it soon became evident that the Reich government had been quite mistaken in that assumption.

    • Replies: @Malla
  80. @Nigel Winters

    This comment section just shows how far gone the (((west))) is and how the all-lies scum deserves their current predicament.

    I heard yesterday that Sadiq Khan wins again. Based godly retribution tbh. The island monkeys deserve to be conquered by pakis and indians. Especially niggers.

    The only way to salvation is repentance, and these subhumans obviously don’t care. They want to join granddaddies in kike hell.

  81. RouterAl says:

    There is a YouTube presentation by Suvorov at

    It’s interesting to listen to the man himself and see if you believe him and his thesis, for me it was the Sheep Skin story that clinched it, it’s just so left woke it has to be true. As for the rest of the WW2 history the effects of which we are still living with then the more revisionist history we get the better.
    Some odd asides read the story of Tyler Kent the American embassy official who the British imprisoned for the duration of the war for trying to warn congress that FDR and Churchill were doing everything they could to drag Europe in to another war. People mention Zhukov , well in summer 41 he was in Manchuria practicing the tactics against the Japanese, the Soviets would use against the Germans, with huge success, he routed the Japanese.

    In WW2 history you cannot underestimate the role of the USA , they equipped , financed and won the war , that FDR had done everything he could to start. He was a Jewish stooge , Churchill was a bought and paid for Zionist stooge and the entire Soviet revolution was a Jewish show up until the late 30’s. To me WW2 was a war by Jewish bankers against the state banking of Japan and Germany. Which was producing far to much prosperity and development for the bankers taste, they wanted poverty enforced by usury , their usury your poverty(1). If you want a layman’s guide to what they were out to achieve , watch James Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life. Stewart’s Building and Loan is “State banking” prosperity , christian values, morality, property values and old man Potter is the usurer banker and the debauched sin filled Pottersville were people are nothing of worth, is the bankers creation. You just keep getting poorer and they get richer. It’s a brilliant allegorical tale and you thought it was just a Christmas story, watch what happens to Bedford Falls when Stewart has never existed to beat the bankers.

    (1) A History of Central Banking by Stephen Goodson

  82. Malla says:
    @Malla

    In fact the Comintern resumed its activities in every sphere very soon after conclusion of the German-Russian treaties. This was true not only with regard to Germany, but also regarding states friendly to Germany, as well as neutral States, and areas in Europe that were occupied by German troops. In order to avoid openly violating the treaties, methods were changed and camouflage was applied more carefully and with greater cunning. In Moscow it obviously was thought necessary to offset the impact of the conclusion of the pact with National Socialist Germany by continually denouncing Germany’s supposed “imperialistic war.” Strong and effective preventive police measures compelled the Comintern to try to conduct its subversive activities and its intelligence work in Germany in other ways, making use of centers established for that purpose in neighboring countries.

    For that purpose former German Communist officials were deployed to foment subversion and to arrange for acts of sabotage in Germany. GPU [NKVD] Commissar Krylov was in charge of systematic training courses organized for that purpose. In addition, intensive subversive activities were carried out in territories occupied by Germany, notably in the Protectorate [Bohemia- Moravia] and in occupied France, as well as in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and so forth.

    Soviet Russian diplomatic posts, notably the General Consulate in Prague, rendered valuable assistance in that regard. An active intelligence service that included radio transmitters and receivers is absolute proof of the work of the Comintern directed against the German Reich. There is also extensive documentary evidence consisting of witnesses’ statements and written materials on the full scope of other subversion and reconnaissance work of the Comintern. In addition, sabotage groups were organized, which maintained their own laboratories for making incendiary and high-explosive bombs for use in acts of sabotage. Such attacks were carried out, for example, against no fewer than 16 German ships.

    In addition to this subversion and sabotage activity, espionage was also carried out. Thus, the repatriation of [ethnic] Germans from Soviet Russia was exploited by the most reprehensible means for the purpose of gaining the services of these Germans for the ends of the GPU. Not only men but women as well were victims of shameless extortion and forced to enter the service of the GPU. Even the Soviet Russian embassy in Berlin, in operations headed by embassy counselor [Amayak] Kobulov, did not shrink from unscrupulous abuse of the rights of extraterritoriality for espionage purposes. A staff member of the Soviet Consulate at Prague, Mokhov [L. Mikhailov], headed another Russian espionage network that extended across the Protectorate [Bohemia-Moravia]. Further instances in which the police were able to take action in time provided clear, unequivocal evidence of these extensive Soviet machinations. The evidence as a whole proves irrefutably that the Soviet Union carried out against Germany illegal, large-scale subversive activities, acts of sabotage and terror, and espionage in preparation for war, in the political, military and economic spheres.
    With regard to Soviet Union’s subversive activities in European countries outside of Germany, those extended to almost all countries in Europe that are friendly to or are occupied by Germany. Thus in Romania, for example, Communist propaganda in the form of leaflets of Russian origin portrayed Germany as being responsible for all local troubles in order to foster an anti-German public mood. The same thing had been evident in Yugoslavia since the Summer of 1940. Leaflets there incited the people to protest against the [Dragiša] Cvetković government, which was aligning with the “imperialistic” governments of Berlin and Rome. At a meeting of Communist party functionaries in Zagreb the whole of Southeastern Europe from Slovakia to Bulgaria was described as a Russian protectorate that would come into being after Germany’s hoped for military decline. In the Soviet embassy in Belgrade, German troops discovered documentary evidence of the Soviet Russian origin of this propaganda. Whereas Communist propaganda in Yugoslavia sought to make use of nationalist slogans, in Hungary it was effective chiefly among the Ruthenian population, to whom it held out hopes of forthcoming liberation by Soviet Russia. Anti-German propaganda was particularly active in Slovakia, which openly agitated for annexation of that country by Soviet Russia.

    In Finland the notorious “Society for Peace and Friendship With the Soviet Union” actively worked with the [Soviet-run] Petroskoi radio broadcasting station to promote the subversion of the country, and thereby operating in an entirely anti-German way.

    [MORE]

    In France, Belgium and Holland agitation was directed against the German occupation authority. A similar propaganda campaign, but of nationalist and pan-Slavic character, was carried out in the Government General [Poland]. Scarcely had Greece been occupied by German and Italian troops when Soviet Russian propaganda commenced there as well. All this is evidence of a campaign systematically carried out in every country by the USSR against Germany’s endeavor to establish a stable order in Europe.

    Parallel with that was propaganda directly aimed at countering German policy measures, which denounced those measures as anti-Russian and sought to win over these various countries for Soviet Russia and against Germany. In Bulgaria there was agitation against that country’s joining the Tripartite Pact, and in favor of a guarantee pact with Russia. In Romania attempts were made at infiltration of the [nationalist] Iron Guard [movement] and suborning its leaders, including Groza, a Romanian who initiated the attempted putsch of January 23, 1941, and behind whom Bolshevist agents of Moscow stood as wire-pullers. The Reich government had indisputable evidence of this.

    With regard to Yugoslavia, the Reich government had come in possession of documents showing that the Yugoslav envoy [Milorad] Georgevic [Djordjevich] became convinced, on the basis of a conversation with [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov in May 1940 that Germany was regarded there as the “powerful enemy of tomorrow.” Soviet Russia’s attitude was made even more clear by its response to the requests for armaments made by Serbian military circles. In November 1940, the chief of the Soviet Russian General Staff declared to the Yugoslav military attaché: “We will give you, immediately, everything you ask for.” The prices to be paid and the method of payment were left to the discretion of the Belgrade government, and only one condition was made: to keep this a secret from Germany. When the Cvetković government subsequently approached the Axis powers, Moscow began to delay deliveries of weapons, and this was communicated curtly to the Yugoslav military attaché by the Soviet Russian War Ministry. The staging of the Belgrade putsch of March 27 of this year was the climax of those conspiratorial activities against the Reich by Serbian plotters and Anglo-Russian agents. The Serbian leader of that putsch and the head of the “Black Hand,” Mr. [Božin] Simić, is still in Moscow, where he works actively against the Reich in close collaboration with Soviet Russian propaganda centers.

    The foregoing points are only a small portion of the enormously comprehensive propaganda activities against Germany that the USSR has been carrying out across Europe. In order to furnish the outside world with an overview of these activities by Soviet Russian agencies since the conclusion of the treaties between Germany and Russia and to enable the public to reach its own judgment, the Reich government will be publishing the extensive material at its disposal. In summary, the Reich government points out the following:

    At the conclusion of the treaties with Germany, the Soviet government repeatedly made the unequivocal declaration that it did not intend to interfere, either directly or indirectly, in German affairs. When the friendship treaty was concluded, it solemnly stated it would work together with Germany in order to bring an end, in accordance with the true interests of all nations, of the war existing between Germany on one hand and Britain and France on the other, and to achieve this aim as soon as possible. In the light of the above-mentioned facts, which have steadily become more apparent during the further course of the war, these Soviet Russian agreements and declarations have been shown to be intentionally misleading and deceptive. Nor did the advantages accruing from Germany’s friendly attitude cause the Soviet government to adopt a loyal attitude toward Germany. On the contrary, the Reich government has been forced to realize that the conclusion of the pacts in 1939 was yet another instance of the application of Lenin’s thesis, as expressly reaffirmed in the October 1939 “Guidelines for the Communist Party in Slovakia,” stating that “pacts may be concluded with certain other countries if they further the interests of the Soviet government and help render the opponent innocuous.” The signing of these treaties of friendship was, accordingly, for the Soviet government only a tactical maneuver. The real goal was to reach agreements that were advantageous to the Soviet Union and, at the same time, enable preparation for powerful future action by the Soviet Union. The guiding idea remained the weakening of non-Bolshevist states in order to be in a position to subvert them more easily and, when the time came, to smash them. In a Russian document discovered after the capture of Belgrade in the Soviet legation there, this purpose was expressed with stark brutality in the following words: “The USSR will respond only at the opportune moment. The Axis powers have further dissipated their forces, and the USSR will consequently strike a sudden blow against Germany.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Malla
  83. @Big Daddy

    Hitler also was studying his astrological readings which told him to wait –the stars were not in alignment and top brass military older veteran military Prussians walked out and took retirement—-

  84. What this shows is to never trust history’s story.

    Historians are the long term propagandists for empire.

  85. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Gaius Gracchus

    After the lecture, I talked with him for about an hour. He mentioned that he had researched in top secret archives and found that Stalin planned to attack Hitler and that Soviet troops only had maps for advancing into German held territory and not for defending Soviet territory.

    I was surprised, as I had never heard of anything like this.

    This wasn’t a defector, just a retired Soviet colonel on the lecture circuit talking to a young kid interested in talking with him.

    Even if true, keep in mind that big power nations kick around all sorts of hypotheticals without necessarily going thru with therm.

    As I previously said –

    Numerous particulars to the contrary. The Soviet military was at the time too weak as evidenced by the war with Finland and the purge of much of the Soviet officer corps.

    It has been said that Stalin was reluctant to attack into Germany in a not so well prepared and strong manner, given Russia’s WW I experience.

    If partitioning Poland was Stalin’s idea why did he let Germany take Warsaw which had been with the Russian Empire and not with Germany and Prussia? The answer has tom do with Stalin not bring in such a strong position.

  86. Smith says:

    It seems WW2 has never ended, right now the germans, americans and russians are still fighting it on the internet.

    It’s pathetic, sins of the fathers and all that.

  87. CMC says:
    @Alfred

    the Germans effectively lost the war by failing to capture Moscow before the rainy season.

    You totally fail to understand the Russian mentality. Russia is not France.

    What if the USSR was not Russia? Is it possible for a country to go through a time period where its political elite or power is, in a sense, fragile? Isolated? Or ‘isolatable’? At least that’s my understanding of the Moscow theory; that while mother Russia may have been as unconquerable as ever, it was significantly less so for its political leadership at the time, and that taking Moscow might have been a tipping point.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  88. Marckus says:

    WAR and all the reasons for and against always seem so clear AFTERWARDS. Who was defensive and who was offensive is something that will be debated for thousands of years. I am sure Hannibal’s motives and strategy in his fight against Rome is still being analysed ad nauseum.

    Every historian will drag out some piece of paper and come up with a new theory, write a 700 page book only to discover some other fellow has done the same refuting the previous conclusions. And so it goes.

    Yet at the time things became eventful, reasons and defensive and offensive motivations seem to become muddled in emotion. The only people who know for sure who did what are Hitler and Stalin and they aren’t talking. Even of they could they would blame each other. In any case international power politics is akin to throwing a barrel of monkeys into a barrel of venomous snakes.

    The delicious irony we must face today is that yesterday’s mortal enemies are now today’s friends and visa versa. WW2 had barely ended when the whole “Alliance” fell apart. Good Ole Stalin, having got what he wanted discarded his allies. Germany, the reviled and hated enemy was suddenly our new friend. Senior German officers of both the Wehrmacht and the SS were put to writing long papers on combat in Russia covering everything from ointments for frostbite to logistics, battle tactics and even the personal habits and quirks of each member of the Russian general staff. US military academies and archives especially are full of these papers. The US and what remained of the alliance had become so concerned about Stalin that some of these German teams were given extremely tight timelines for completion of their studies. Many were tasked with condensing years of experience in a month.

    Such is the human condition. I think each and every reader here on UR can look back on his life at particular events and ask “Why the hell did I do (or not do ) that?”. All too often we do not know or we can put it down to stupidity and or emotion. All too often the variables are so numerous and so complex that we made, or thought we made, the right decision at the time given what we knew.

    Looking back things seem so clear but at the moment of decision our thought processes were completely different. Where Adolph and Joseph were concerned I think who did what is going to be the subject of debate for a very long time.

    Looking at contemporary events has anything changed ?

  89. Relying on such as Souvorov and Solzhenizin to form opinions on the Soviet Union is a sign of the West total mental degeneracy.
    It does not matter lefties, righties, liberals, conservatives or whatever the West was, is and always will be Russia mortal enemy.
    Locals that are supposed to be different from mainstream is proof enough.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  90. anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Verso

    The fact that Harrison Salisbury won a “Pulitzer prize” merely says that he was a state propagandist. He also spoon fed the public the “domino effect” in order to promote the Viet Nam war. Are you sure you are not just parroting the party line?

  91. I do not believe it. Stalin’s reaction after the German attack was shock and despair. He was convinced that USSR could not defeat Germany. And Stalin was not a gambler, he was slow, measured, cautious.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  92. Akkadians says:

    While you think it’s beyond the pale for McMeekin to not mention Suvorov in a more comprehensive manner, I consider it inconceivable you didn’t even mention Meltyukhov’s “Stalin’s Missed Chance” which served as a both a rebuttal and a partial confirmation of some of Suvorov’s claims using similar Soviet Archive sources. According to Meltyukov Stalin did have nebulous offensive plans altough htey were hardly as pressing or imminent as Suvorov claims.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Missed_Chance

  93. WHAT says:

    Those willing to read actual material and not in your face anglo-suvorovite fudging are welcome to the works of Alexey Isaev. Man made it his mission to dismantle suvorovite lies, and succeeded.
    Not sure if these are translated though.

    • Replies: @glib
  94. Fascinating and compelling article. Hopefully it leads on to the Ultimate Unthinkable: Would it have been better for the world had Germany won the war? I know what I think.

  95. Anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Big Daddy

    “Massively supplied Stalin” which didn’t begin until 1942-43 as they waited to see who would win, the game was to have Germany and Russia beat themselves to death, so we could walk in and gut them.

    What ever supplies we gave Russia was cheap at half the price as those supplies took the place of American lives and blood, do you even have the capability of thought as to what would have happened if those 200+ German divisions had been in France when we finally got off our ass to open a second front, I rather doubt it..

  96. MLK says:

    There’s ominous similarities to the present day. CCP China is on the rise much as Germany was pre-WWII. You’d be forgiven for mistaking “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” for fascism. Then as now, tired and decadent Western ruling, governing, and business elites, fall all over each other to adopt the secret sauce.

    Interestingly, Russia is much in the same position vis-à-vis China as it was the previous rising Eurasian power, Germany.

    The USG, having pissed away much of its good will in a post-Cold War hurly burly, is perceived as both Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union were, not to be trusted.

  97. Anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Lol you can find most anything if you want or dig far enough, and just what was this man position for he must have been as you put it “in the inner circle” that he would know such a thing for you seem to have left that part out, which makes it “highly doubtful”..

  98. LJ says:
    @Tom Verso

    “Also, how could a Soviet army that was so much on a war footing get so thoroughly destroyed by the Germans?”

    Same as in sports, fighting an offensive battle/war is entirely different than fighting a defensive battle/war. As well, the adage that “the best defense is a good offense” also comes to mind as such.

    I’ve read all but categorically that Stalin’s armies (hardware and oganizationally speaking) were in no way developed, organized, and positioned for defensive purposes.

    Furthermore, let’s fast-forward just a few years later to the end of the War, clearly the Soviets’ attitude was entirely different than that of the other allies. Clearly they were looking to gain ground in Europe, and indeed had, and indeed continued to threaten as such. Clear-minded people such as Patton saw straight thru this.

    He also saw who was behind it all, at least more-or-less.

    If the Germans were truly intent on “conquering the world,” a belief which is required given the “official narrative” on this, then their Luftwaffe and Navy were not built for any such thing. Rather, they were built for the defense of the continent only. Pat Buchanon does a fantastic job of explaining this in his book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: …”

    Hitler’s on record in several instances of opining, yea, even lamenting, that he absolutely did not want war with the US or England and admired and respected them.

    Meanwhile, Stalin’s post-war, hell, and pre-war records, indicate clearly his sheer and utter disdain for civilized humanity. Regular readers here know why.

    Moreover, understanding “why” the War began, largely well before military activities began, and involving “Judea [officially] Declares War on Germany” in 1933, with that same contingent behind Stalin, it’s hardly a reach to piece things together on merely circumstantial evidence otherwise.

    Either way, given Stalin’s pre and post War history, it’s almost impossible to believe that he was purely a “defensive minded” person.

    Again, fast-forward to today. The US today is what the Jewish/Zio establishment TRIED to turn Germany into. A global behemoth of a power that served Zionist goals and intentions, entirely. Germany stood up to it. We have not, we have embraced it.

    So consider, if the same … let’s just say “forces,” are behind both, Stalinist Russia and the modern US, namely forces whose goals represent Zionist interests, again, it becomes impossible to suggest that Stalin’s ultimate goal was not global expansion and global control, essentially just as the Zios now have, USING the U.S., as their executive arm with the HQ being in Tel Aviv. The de facto capitol of our country is in fact Tel Aviv.

    For people that cannot see that the U.S. today is what they tried to turn Germany into in the ‘late ’20s and ’30s, and in fact that on steroids, then obviously they will be unable to see this clearly. So for the “USA! USA! USA! …” types, they’ll be blind to this because they truly believe that this type of global behavior is actually “defensive” (ala Stalin’s rhetoric) as well as in the interests of national and individual liberty, when the truth is the polar opposite.

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  99. @Gast

    the main weakness of Suvorov’s thesis that Hitler prevented Stalin’s conquest of Europe, is the fact that Stalin knew exactly since December 1940 through messages from British intelligence (they knew it through decoding the “Enigma” code and probably through traitors like Canaris as well) not only that Hitler was planning to attack the SU

    The Soviet Union did not join the Allies until after they were invaded on June 22 1941. The British never shared ULTRA intelligence with the Soviets before that date, because they were unofficial partners with Germany. The MR pact was still in effect until Russia was invaded.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  100. So the Germans invaded Poland, France, Belgium, Norway and other countries because they feared that these countries would invade Germany. So Germany had to do pre-emptive attacks to prevent being invaded. What a joke.
    Now we are to believe that Germany had to attack Russia before Russia attacked Germany! All the while being in control of foreign lands.
    And while we are at it, Japan had to to attack America so that America did not invade Japan.
    The BS runs thick.

  101. GMC says:
    @Alfred

    There will always be a few different variations with regard to the actions before an all out war. And I learned about your option, Guyenot, and others years ago. Today, there is more historical info coming out, also. Then I read some of Mein Kamf and noticed that Hitler was definitely ” concerned – lol a little more than – Concerned ” about the Bolshevik Jews who took control of the Russian empire. And ya – It looks like the Soviets were gearing up for – ” Something “. But here’s the deal Alfred – the Germans invaded first, and that – is what takes the CCCP – off the hook . Victory Day is 100% legitimate and the West is under the biggest One World Order Crime syndicate , ever created. “I think” what President Putin is saying , with the Victory Day celebrating the Great War – that all wars should be a reminder of the sacrifices made by their/all people in the event of an attack against their country by an invading army. He backs this up by adhering to the Law of Sovereignty for any country.
    History is the key to the future – only if there are enough people left to realise it – with the current western news – the honest historic events will Die. Garr

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @Alfred
  102. DaveE says:

    So for the “USA! USA! USA! …” types, they’ll be blind to this because they truly believe that this type of global behavior is actually “defensive”

    Great comment, but I must say that Russians seem to be equally brainwashed by their own egos (in general) to admit to themselves what a (((scumbag))) Stalin was. Most Russians I’ve met still seem to be fighting against Big-Bad-Hitler to this day and would never admit that Uncle Joe “The Little Jew” Stalin was the true monster in that era of history.

    Witness the parades and picnics and over-consumption on V-Day, in celebration of Mother Russia’s expulsion of THE ONE GOOD MAN who stood against Judeo-Bolshevism and paid the ultimate price.

    It took three Jews named Churchill, Stalin and Rosenfeld and the combined might of Organized Worldwide Jewry, Inc. to defeat the One Good Guy that could have saved us all from the living Hell the Serpents have inflicted on humanity for the last, well, 2,700+ years.

    • Replies: @siberiancat
    , @GMC
  103. Revisionists of this type are backwards. Any ordinary person reading their work can see that they begin with an aim, mostly to lionise Hitler, and then proceed to work toward that aim in everything they do.

    A fact about Hitler that this motivated speculation always glosses over: his biggest alliance was with the “Judeo-Bolshevik regime” that he claimed was just the worst. The initial action of that alliance was to cut up and abolish conservative, nationalist Poland.

    Some hero of anti-Communism and the European nations, he!

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Alden
  104. Anonymous[923] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Also, the Non-Aggression Pact only provided that Finland, the Baltics, etc. could be used as staging areas by the Soviets in the event of war, not that they could attack or occupy/annex them outright. Pretty much as soon as Poland was vanquished the Soviets began pressuring the Germans for revisions (eg demanding that strategically important Lithuania be assigned to the Soviet sphere, etc). Soviet policy towards the Germans prior to Barbarossa was hardly peaceful.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  105. The free world survived, and it could not coexist with the Soviet Union. Therefore, the crumbling of the Soviet Union became inevitable.

    I think you mean the Western half of Europe. Most of the Eastern half was free up until Hitler made a deal with the devil.

    … The Soviet Union won World War II, but for some reason disappeared from the globe after this distinguishing victory.

    For some reason? Yea it’s called economics. Not a mystery to economists as they predicted its failure early on while Western leaders ignored them and expected that only a military solution would kill the beast.

    Marxism was a failure before 1939. Stalin had backed away from all kinds of communal ownership plans and the USSR eventually just became a gangster monopoly state. Even immediately after WW2 they were dependent on Germany for trade.

  106. Baron says:

    From Anthony Beevor:

    “This is one of the great paradoxes of history: that Stalin, one of the most suspicious of all people, was fooled by Hitler. It has led to a whole raft of different theories including one that Stalin was actually planning to invade Germany first. That theory, though, is a load of nonsense.

    It is based on a Soviet contingency planning document from 11 May 1941 where General Zhukov and others, who were well aware of the Nazis’ invasion plans, were examining possible responses to this. One that they looked at was the idea of a pre-emptive strike. However the Red Army at the time was totally incapable of carrying out such an action. For one thing, the prime movers for their artillery were actually tractors, which were then being used for the harvest!”

  107. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Exactly, it also brings us to Molotov’s four demands to Hitler which played a big a part in Hitler suspecting a Soviet invasion of Western & Central Europe. From speech given by the Fuhrer of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler in Berlin, October 3rd, 1941.

    [MORE]

    “Always in an effort to limit the scope of the war, I decided in 1939 to do something that you, my dear party comrades, know first hand how difficult it was for me to do.
    I then sent my Minister to Moscow. That meant the most bitter triumph over my feelings. I tried to reach an understanding. You know best of all how honest and frankly I’ve kept our obligations and commitments. Neither in our press nor at our meetings was a single word about Russia was mentioned. Unfortunately the other side did not observe their obligations from the beginning.
    [MALLA: Hitler is saying that there was no anti-Soviet propaganda in Germany till then after the Pact. He is speaking to the people, if he would have lied against the obious, he would have looked like a fool. Which means, there was no anti-Soviet propaganda during this period in the Third Reich]

    This arrangement resulted in a betrayal which at first liquidated the whole northeast of Europe. You know best what it meant for us to look on in silence as the Finnish people were being strangled. And how it felt for me as a soldier, to stand idly by as a powerful state tries to dominate a small one. Yet I remained silent.
    I took a decision only when I saw that Russia had reached the hour to advance against us at a moment when we had only a bare three divisions in East Prussia when twenty-two Soviet divisions were assembled there. We gradually received proof that on our frontiers one airdrome after another was set up and one division after another from the gigantic Soviet Army was being assembled there.
    I was then obliged to become anxious for there is no excuse in history for negligence like claiming afterwords that I didn’t think it was possible, or that I didn’t believe it.
    I now stand at the top of the Reich, and thus I am responsible for the present German people and its future.
    (APPLAUSE)
    I was therefore compelled slowly to take defensive measures. But in August and September of last year one thing was becoming clear. A decision in the West with England which would have contained the whole German Luftwaffe was no longer possible, for in my rear there stood a State which was getting ready to proceed against me at such a moment but it is only now that we realize how far the preparation had advanced.
    I wanted once again to clarify the whole problem and therefore I invited Molotov to Berlin.
    He put to me the four well-known conditions.

    1] Germany should finally agree that, as Russia felt herself again endangered by Finland, Russia should be able to liquidate Finland.
    I could not help but refuse such consent.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)

    The second question concerning Romania…
    2] A question whether German guarantee would protect Romania against Russia.
    Here, too, I stand by my word. I do not regret it,….

    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)
    ….for I have found in General Antonescu a man of honour who at the time blindly stood by his word.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)

    The third question referred to Bulgaria.
    3] Molotov demanded that Russia should retain the right to send garrisons to Bulgaria and thus to give a Russian guarantee to Bulgaria. What this means we know from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

    The fourth question referred to the Dardenelles.
    4] Russia demanded bases on the Dardenelles. If Molotov is now trying to deny this, that is not surprising. If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow he will be no longer in Moscow, he will deny that he is no longer in Moscow.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE AND LAUGHTER FROM CROWD)
    He made this demand and I rejected it. I had to reject it. This made things clear to me and further talks were without result. My precautions were called for.”

    Someone shouts from the crowd: “We thank our Fuhrer!”
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)

    After that I carefully watched Russia. Each division we could observe was carefully noted and counter-measures were taken.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)
    My position in May had so far advanced that I could no longer dismiss the thought of a life and death conflict. At that time I had always remained silent, and that was doubly difficult for me perhaps not so difficult with regard to the German people for they had to realize there are moments when one cannot talk if one does not wish to endanger the whole nation. More difficult….
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)
    …was silence for me with regard to my soldiers, who, division by division stood on the eastern front of the Reich and yet did not know what was actually going on. And it is just on account of them I could not speak. Had I dropped one single word I would not have changed Stalin’s decision. But the possibility of surprise, which remained for me as a last weapon, would then not have existed. Any such indication, any such hint, would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of our comrades.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)
    I was therefore silent until the moment when I finally decided to take the first step myself. When I see the enemy levering his rifle at me I am not going to wait till he presses the trigger. I would rather be the first to press the trigger.

  108. Levtraro says:
    @Ron Unz

    Interesting. So one thing is not mentioned, and this lends credence to another thing not mentioned? Is that your logic?

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  109. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Hitler talks about these demands by Motolov (regarding Finland), as well his fears of Soviet invasion of Western Europe in his private conversation with Finnish Military leader Emil Mannheim.

    This is the English translation of the private conversion in between the Fuhrer of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler and the Finnish military leader and statesman, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim . This was secretly recorded.

    [MORE]

    Adolf Hitler:…a very serious danger, perhaps the most serious one – its whole extent we can only now judge. We did not ourselves understand-just how strong this state [the USSR] was armed.
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim:No, we hadn’t thought of this.
    …snip….
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: During the Winter War -during the Winter War we had not even thought of this. Of course….
    …snip…
    Adolf Hitler: Absolutely. this is – they (Soviets) had the most immense armaments that, uh, people could imagine. Well – if someone had told me that a country – with…..
    If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I’d have said:”You are crazy!”

    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: Thirty-five?
    …snip….
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: Well, if you keep in mind they had almost 20 years, almost 25 years of – freedom to arm themselves….
    …snip….
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: And everything -everything spent on armament.
    Adolf Hitler: Only on armament.
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: Only on armament!
    …snip..
    Adolf Hitler: Our whole armament – you know, was – is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the West, and we all thought, and this was true’till that time, uh, it was the opinion from the earliest times; you cannot wage war in winter.
    And we too, have, the German tanks, they weren’t tested, for example, to prepare them for winter war. Instead we conducted trials to prove it was impossible to wage war in winter.
    …snip….
    First the occupation of – then we had the task in Norway – at the same time we faced – I can frankly say it today – a grave misfortune, namely the weakness of, Italy. Because of – first, the situation in North Africa, then second, because of the situation in Albania and Greece – a very big misfortune. We had to help. This meant for us, with one small stoke, first – the splitting of our air force, splitting of our tank force, while at the same time we were preparing, the, tank arm in the east.
    We had to hand over – with one stroke, two divisions, two whole divisions and a third was added – and we had to replace continuous, very severe, losses there. It was – bloody fighting in the desert.
    This all was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Motolov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Motolov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to have a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to – impossible, to forestall him. There was – this was the only – because the demands that man brought up was clearly aimed to rule Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him – not publicly… (fades out).
    Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter – because I always feared – that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall – and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, then Germany would have been lost. It would have required – just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.
    In Romania we had of course- at that time – no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently – and what we did there was laughable. They had only to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn’t that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west.
    First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had – yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack – before the spring of 1941. And if the Russians at that time – in the fall of 1940 – had occupied Romania – taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.
    Another Voice in background: Without petroleum…
    Adolf Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions – that are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war – and would have had to let it be – and that was my big worry.
    Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations’till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because – those demands were simply naked extortion’s. They were extortion’s. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west.
    They could really extort everything from us.
    Only when Molotov visited – then I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren’t acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.
    There were four topics. The one topic that, involved Finland was, the freedom to protect themselves from the Finnish threat, he said.[I said] You do not want to tell me Finland threatens you! But he said: “In Finland it is – they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us – they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country.”
    I said:”Your, existence isn’t threatened by Finland! That is, you don’t mean to tell me….”
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: (Interrupting) Laughable!
    Adolf Hitler: “…that your existence is threatened by Finland?” Well [he said] there was a moral – threat being made against a great power, and what Finland was doing, that was a moral – a threat to their moral existence.
    Then I told him we would not accept a further war in the Baltic area as passive spectators. In reply he asked me how we viewed our position, in Romania.
    You know, we had given them a guarantee. [He wanted to know] if that guarantee was directed against Russia as well? And that time I told him: “I don’t think it is directed at you, because I don’t think you have the intention of attacking Romania. You have already stated that Bessarabia is yours, but that you have – never stated that you want to attack Romania!”

    • Replies: @Malla
  110. Levtraro says:

    Interesting discussion for the theory that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack instead of a long-planned offensive.

    It has one small problem though: Hitler wrote in 1925.1926 that his plan to conquest Russia for Lebensraum. The guy presented his plan for all the world to see it in Mein Kampf.

    So much for the theory of the pre-emptive strike.

    • Agree: europeasant
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  111. Malla says:
    @Malla

    One can check out the conversation in between Hitler and Mannerheim here

  112. @TheJamesRocket

    The Soviet Union did not join the Allies until after they were invaded on June 22 1941. The British never shared ULTRA intelligence with the Soviets before that date, because they were unofficial partners with Germany.

    This is incorrect.

    The British not only shared Ultra with the Soviets but they warned about the exact invasion date. This is because they expected the Soviets to lose and wanted to give them a chance. Stalin wouldn’t believe it and bought Hitler’s lie that the Allies were trying to goad them into a war. German soldiers actually went across the line and warned villages on the day before the attack and Stalin still refused to put his troops into a defensive position.

    @Gast already beat me to it. None of this makes any sense because of Ultra. The British knew every single move that the Germans made and none of this theory has any supporting evidence. The Brits were decoding all kinds of internal messages and there was no fear of a Soviet invasion. Everything was coming from Hitler.

    Stalin had troops along the border because he had invaded Eastern Europe. That is also where the bulk of the population exists. It doesn’t make sense to put your military in Siberia.

    I have no doubt that Stalin would have invaded had the Allies beaten themselves into ruins. But he did not want to take on Germany in 1941 and for good reason. He expected Germany to eventually invade but told his staff it would be a few more years and that they needed to prepare. On some level Hitler was correct to attack in 1941 vs 1944 but he had a bit of bad luck with the Greece delay and the weather. His obsession with Stalingrad was also a mistake as was Kursk. It never made sense to take Stalingrad instead of destroying it and moving on to the oil fields. Kursk never made military sense and the Germans knew that the Soviets were prepared and fully expecting the attack. Hitler’s ego got him into power but later became a liability. He ignored the strategic advice of his generals and expected the Germans to somehow win on will and destiny.

    The USSR would have certainly collapsed without Stalin. Any other leader would have been too nice. Stalin had no problem with sending waves of men at machine guns. The brutality of the combat in Stalingrad was insane.

    In any case the US would still have had the nuke in 1945. The US most likely would have demanded a return to borders in order to reduce the risk of a future US/German empire war.

    What Hitler should have done is expanded his empire into India or Africa. No one would have cared. Either that or attack the USSR first.

  113. Thanks to those who have posted relevant material on this topic.
    Here is another original.

    Adolf Hitler explains the reason for Unternehmen Barbarossa to the German people. He begins and emphasises the deceitful and historically antagonistic role played by Perfidious Albion, with whom he had attempted multiple peace offers …
    the Four Questions posed by Molotov are covered etc.

    This is the text of the speech, with a short introduction.

    When on September 3, 1939, the German Reich received the British declaration of war there was repeated anew the British attempt to thwart every beginning of a consolidation of Europe and thereby its rise, by fighting against whatever power on the Continent was strongest at any given time. That is how, in times past, Britain ruined Spain in many wars. That is how she conducted her wars against Holland. That is how later she fought France with the aid of all Europe, and that is how, at the turn of the century, she began the encirclement of the then German Reich and, in 1914, the [First] World War. It was only on account of its internal lack of unity that Germany was defeated in 1918. The consequences were terrible.

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p50_Hitler.html

    • Replies: @Alden
  114. WW2 is one of those subjects where almost everyone considers themselves an expert. Mix that political and national loyalties, overturning the central myth of the war – that of the sole culpability of the Nazis – is asking too much of even the self-styled iconoclasts of Unz.com.

  115. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Thanks for noting the obvious that very few notice. Had the Axis forces won the war, I wonder how many wars of choice the Germans or the Japanese would have engaged in compared to the those of the Western Democracies.

    It is saddening that so many commentators dispute the facts of history without making an effort to learn its lessons.

  116. @Erikassimo

    I do not believe it. Stalin’s reaction after the German attack was shock and despair. He was convinced that USSR could not defeat Germany. And Stalin was not a gambler, he was slow, measured, cautious.

    After the invasion Stalin expected to be shot in the head for being wrong.

    In fact when they went to pick him up for his meeting he thought it was the NKVD.

    He assumed they would shoot him as he would do the same to anyone who made such a grave mistake.

    The early Nazi gains were so successful because Stalin left so many planes sitting on runways. Early on the Nazis thought there were clerical errors because so many enemy planes had been destroyed.

    The Nazis captured so many troops that they didn’t know what to do with them. They decided to starve them because they were certain the war was theirs and no one would even care. Hitler was right that the victors can commit all the atrocities they want.

    None of this points to a looming Soviet invasion. Stalin would have been worried about Hitler finding out and would have at least kept his planes out of bombing range. It was a completely successful surprise attack and Stalin was ready to give Hitler most of Eastern Europe as part of a peace offering.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Erikassimo
  117. gotmituns says:

    It was never “Stalin’s War” or anyone else’s. It was only the jew bankers vs Germany.

  118. @Priss Factor

    “ Imagine if we can have national communism in the US. We would round up all the ‘woke’ CEO’s and send them to gulags. We could confiscate the property of all the deep state yuppie duppies and the urban elite class. Many of them would be sent to the gulag or lined up and shot.”

    Such a sweet dream. How about rounding up the traitors in the plethora of three letter agencies who are worse than the woke CEO’s.

  119. @Hans Vogel

    The problem with all preventive moves is that they justify themselves with the opponent’s option that may or may not have been exercised. However, an attack that happens is a bona fide aggression.

    If you look at the evidence of contingency plans of the USSR and USA during the Cold War, either of them could have launched a preventative attack with the same level of justification.

    • Agree: europeasant
  120. @Baron

    (also to @Rahan)

    Both of you would do yourself and others a service by informing yourselves by reading Bernd Schwipper’s book first.

    The same goes for everyone else here dismissing Suvorov. But don’t just take my word for it and read Schwipper yourself.

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  121. Kouroi says:

    So, what is the timeline here? Because looking at the timeline we can really determine whether USSR started the second world war.

    After Austrian Anschluss and the Munich treaty that gave Germany Czechoslovakia. Then in 1939 Germany staged the border attack that gave them the excuse to invade Poland. Two weeks after September 1, 1939, Russians invaded Poland and occupied its eastern half, as per the non-aggression pact.

    At that time, Germany was at war with France and Great Britain. Then Germany invaded France and occupied 2/3 of it and kicked the British out and started bombing London.

    There was no secret that Hitler wanted Lebensraum and saw Jewish Communism as the greatest threat. The non aggression pact with the soviets could not offer any guarantees to the Russians that Germany will not attack, especially since Germany had eliminated all the credible forces in Europe. Didn’t Napoleon do the same and then, with a 600,000 army invaded Russia and attacked Moscow?

    It was and it is still obvious that one cannot control Europe as long as Russia is not subdued and its force destroyed. Look at the present times. The US cannot claim full control of Europe as long as the Russians are there.

    So, June 22, 1941. Let us assume that Russia was amassing troops and planned to invade Germany (and Europe). Europe was under German boot and the world was at war. The counterfactual of Russia attacking first Germany does not mean that Russia had started WWII. We are already almost 2 years in WWII. The escalation of forces at the border was done by both. But Germany drew the sword first. Pre-emptive strikes are not sound and valid justifications for starting a war and in a philosophical debate about the issue, the one that strikes first will lose.

  122. @DaveE

    Your One Good Guy wrote two very ugly books that clearly outlined his plans for the subhuman Slavs.

    He feared Jews, but it was the Slavs that he viewed as subhuman and future slaves. Why does it surprise you that the Russians don’t view Mr. Hitler as Good?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  123. Miville says:
    @Cohen

    Black and Irish entrepreneurs (including the first Kennedys) sipped iced tea while selling or renting their own people as slaves for purely extractive capitalists while Yankee entrepreneurs built while making their own lesser brethren into more qualified and better paid workers. The Jews were among the first while seducing the second.

  124. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @Levtraro

    Hitler’s writings about Lebensraum in the 20’s (shared by many German thinkers) took place in the context of the civil war in Russia and the Jewish-dominated early Soviet government, which he anticipated would collapse and lead to opportunities for expansion by Germany. None of these conditions were at all relevant in 1941 and Stalin’s government was in no risk of collapse. Whatever opportunistic viewpoints the Germans had, Lebensraum played little role in the decision to attack.

    • Agree: Mulegino1, fnn
    • Replies: @Levtraro
  125. @europeasant

    And Denmark was amassing massive troop formation on the border to invade Germany. LOL.

    • Replies: @HdC
  126. GMC says:
    @DaveE

    I’ve run into people here in Russia that think Stalin was great andor Stalin was – Ok – and then there are some that say – Nothin. about him. All “Russians” aren’t just orthodox christians , in fact many Soviets were atheists but open minded towards everything. They have gone back to Orthodoxy – now. Stalin won the War – so he, is given his dues. I’ve been here for 12 Victory Day celebrations and hardly see drunken men or women all over the place – in fact the US has 100Xs more bars than Russia has. In the old days I saw many German folks vacationing here in Crimea – they were more than welcomed – No hatred at all. In fact , when I first came here , some of the men talked to me in German, as they thought I was from Germany. If I recall , when I was a SE Asia war participant – we killed 3 million people in Nan, Cambuchia and Laos, not to mention the 100,000 of my brothers. You can take your 56.000 number and stick it – I was a representative of a state that attended the Dedication in 82 – it was a humbling experience, but we lost as many to suicide and after Nam diseases – never counted. oo dah chee.

  127. @Nigel Winters

    Thanks. Very good comment. Except that we don’t need Karl Krause to prove that top military commanders ‘ignored’ Hitler’s orders when they wanted to. Krause is second-hand anyway. The known facts speak for themselves, and so does Hitler himself. Read Chapt. 7, pp 119-122 in The Artist Within the Warlord, the most honest work about Adolf Hitler you’ll find.

  128. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:

    It may well be true that Stalin planned his attack for 1942 and not 1941. But by that point the German situation (even if Britain was out of the war) would have been completely untenable. Their only real option was to strike first in 1941.

  129. @Carlton Meyer

    Thanks for a great post, as usual.

    I just would like to add that for so many years the Shah was the darling of successive American administrations along with the American press. Then when Khomeini’s revolution sent the Shah seeking refuge, he was ultimately banned from living in the USA and the Time magazine blew the lid on the sorry state of affairs within Iranian society when it claimed that out of sixty four thousand villages in Iran, more than sixty thousand villages lacked electricity and running water. It was only a few years earlier in 1971 that the Shah had an extremely sumptuous celebration of the 2500 years of the Persian Empire where gold thread decorated huge tents were set up for invited world leaders with great festivities marking the event.

  130. Resartus says:

    Some Context in the Hitler/Stalin relationship….

    Adolf didn’t start the NAZI Party, he was a government mole to keep an
    eye on them and basically took them over, as he was the only one who
    was capable of building it’s base….
    Afterwards, the Party wasn’t against the Weimar Government,
    their effort was to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power….

    So you have Stalin, who hated Hitler for stymying the Communist push into
    Western Europe….
    Hitler’s hate for the leaders of the Communist party trying to take over….

    The conflict was there, just the timing was open….

  131. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anonymous

    I agree.

    After the last meeting between Molotov, Ribbentrop and Hitler in November 1940, it was obvious that the Soviets were going to continue to annex more Romanian territory . Thus the USSR would have control over Germany’s only European source of crude oil.

    • Replies: @Засецкова
  132. Malla says:
    @John Johnson

    Unlike the Third Reich, the USSR was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Thus the war in the East was bound to be different compared to the war in the West.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  133. Cking says:

    I repeated this comment in several UNZ articles. That WWI and WWII could not have been possible without the Federal Reserve Bank system’s ‘mobilization of credit’, designed and operated by Paul Warburg. (Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins) That Churchill, mentored by ‘the Royal Demiurge’ Prince Edward, later King Edward the VII, warred on Germany because she had the superior economic system, and therefore was a rival to the British Imperial system; that in the official narrative, both WWI and WWII had the British plan to destroy Germany into pieces and annihilate the German people. 15 million Germans were killed/murdered before, during and after, WWII. U.S. Sec. of State Morgenthau may be responsible for the deaths of 9 million German POW’s and civilians of all descriptions and circumstances. Not many will reveal/admit that German populations were subject to all kinds of abuse, including murder, robbery, and rape, in Poland and other countries before WWII commenced, such was the West’s, MSM driven anti-German hysteria of that era. How could the existential 1920 Bolshevik Invasion of Poland be forgotten and or given the short shrift in terms of historical importance indicating the modus operandi of the anti-Catholic founded, Western Civilization, Bolshevik revolutionary doctrine of liberation toward it’s neighbors and Europe in general? How could anyone not recognize the massing of Red Army troops and war materiel on Poland’s border, no matter how far away one was?

    It’s reported that over 60 million Christians were exterminated by the Bolshevik Cheka and Red Army, I’m sure this monstrous genocide was well underway during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as well as the absorption of other nations. How do we all of a sudden become so trusting in the intensions of a bank robber and 4 time jail breaker that Stalin was? The Hammer and Sickle Emblem across the Globe should inform us all as to the Red Army’s intentions, means, and direction.

    Hitler saw that he was duped, reacted quickly, as the invasion of Russia became necessary, however, no matter how lightly he went on the Allies, he could do nothing to appease the US/Anglo/French forces of destruction, thus Germany was fated to fight the dual front WWII. The official history aside, I’ve read that France may have had a superior military leading up to WWII. If so, the historical ‘Blitzkrieg,’ ‘lightening’ invasion into France by the German Army, is just hooey. Did not France want the German Army to protect France from the impending doom the crazy Red Army portended? As stated above commentary how much did the ‘conquered’ states contribute to the German war machine? Dirty, dirty, dirty intentions and deeds by all; our fathers witnessed the PsyOp of the Century.

    I’m sure American aid to Russia started earlier than 1939. In 1941 Roosevelt sent W. Averell Harriman to England and Russia, and became the unofficial viceroy, director of Russian Industry, for the duration of the war. The FDR Administration was infiltrated and surrounded by Communists, both Americans and Russians, British spies and provocateurs, Wall St. centered financiers and agents, OSS agents, employing writers, lobbyists, and Congressmen and women to further their aims; to wage war and destroy Germany. 15 people died in and around, during and after, the Roosevelt Administration; this predicament attracted no suspicion or notice in the MSM, because it would be difficult to explain and extricate oneself from. General Patton, a famous, vociferous enemy of the Bolshevik Menace, died mysteriously in an military automobile/truck accident in post war Germany. Joe McCarthy, the Commie hunter, was vilified by the controlled MSM and shunted off to shameful obscurity and lonely, broken-man, death.

    Suvorov’s ‘Operation Icebreaker’ is totally believable with photos, documents, news reports, and more than abounding circumstantial evidence impeding our ability to comprehend it all. Sean McMeekin’s book is excellent validation and follow up to Suvorov’s work, that deserves recognition as well.

    Russia today, after a painful transformation, is a Christian nation and therefore I don’t understand the United States’ penchant for war with her. Only that, as President Wilson testified, ‘war’s are fought for economic advantage’. We have our own Uncle Joe who, with the Democratic Party, organizes a Hemispheric, Stalinist, Soviet style, forced relocation of the population pogrom. It demands our full attention and political assessment.

    • Agree: Hans Vogel
    • Replies: @europeasant
  134. Sparkon says:

    I‘ve merely skimmed the article and comments.

    I didn’t see any mention of the T-26, which was by far the most numerous tank in the Red Army by 1941, although the Soviet forces had been taking delivery of both the T-34 and the KV, named for Klement Voroshilov, one of Stalin’s inner circle, who survived both WWII and Stalin to enjoy a Pepsi in Moscow in 1955 with Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev.

    The T-34 and KV gave the Red Army a qualitative advantage over the tanks of the invading Germans. The Red Army had altogether about 1,500 of these newer, much more powerful types at the time of Barbarossa, and these were grouped into several very strong armored corps not noted in action until at least the 2nd day of the attack.

    Many of the Red Army’s VVS aircraft destroyed during the initial attack were I-15s and I-16s, both obsolete or nearly obsolete aircraft, but the Soviets had much better aircraft already in production, leading to aircraft like the Yak-9, and Yak-3, this latter plane capable of 400 mph by war’s end, and probably on par with the more famous Mustangs, Spitfires, and Messerschmitts.

    The long and short of it is most of the Red Army’s military hardware destroyed by the Wehrmacht in the opening days of Barbarossa was obsolete junk. It looked like a bigger rout than it really was, but surely many Red Army soldiers and airmen lost their lives. Stalin had already demonstrated his lack of concern about Soviet citizens when he took their money, their property, their land, and tried to liquidate the Kulaks and NEPmen.

    My view is that the apparent offensive positions of the Red Army in 1941 were set up as bait and intimidation to lure and provoke Hitler into making his foolish attack.

    The USSR had been preparing for “a big new war” from the time the Bolsheviks seized power, if not before. Much of Russia’s wealth was appropriated – stolen – by the Reds, and used to finance enormous industrial projects during the 1920s that would provide the industrial muscle for the Red Army’s frenzied build-up during the 1930s, and for the Red Army’s defeat of the German Wehrmacht. The long and short of it is Germany never had a chance. Even without Lend Lease, the Soviet Union would have prevailed over Germany in WWII, although the war would have gone on longer.

    The Battle of Moscow in late 1941 determined the outcome of the war.

    From the Allied point of view, having the moral high ground was of paramount importance during the entire war, and especially in its aftermath.

    There was a bond between American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Soviet premier Iosef Vissarionovich Stalin, born Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili. They were fellow travelers, and FDR’s administration was full of Red agents.

    FDR had made it official U.S. policy in early 1941 that Japan would strike the first blow. Roosevelt knew the power of worldwide public opinion, and he was determined to have that public opinion on his side. There is no doubt FDR was completely aware of the approach toward Pearl Harbor of the IJA’s carrier strike force, Kido Butai, and its intentions.

    Roosevelt knew it was worth the blood of his sailors to be the victim of a sneak attack. The effect of the Pearl Harbor attack on public opinion in the United States can hardly be overstated.

    Stalin had enjoyed the same benefit earlier by following Roosevelt’s strategy of letting the enemy strike the first blow. Even at that, so great was their hatred of Stalin and the Bolsheviks that some Russians welcomed the invading Germans. You can’t steal a country’s wealth and kill many of its citizens, like Stalin and the Bolsheviks did, without incurring some, you know, ill feelings from the victims and their families.

    Hitler remains an enigma. Was he a tool or a fool? Maybe he was both, but as military leader, he made mistake after mistake after mistake. It’s worth noting that his primary intelligence asset Adm. Canaris had turned against Hitler, and had advised Franco to stay out of the war because Germany would lose. The damage done by spies and traitors like Canaris was incalculable, but again, the Soviet Union had been preparing for war for almost 20 years, much longer than Germany, and in addition had abundant vital natural resources and industrial complexes deep in its interior, trump cards the Germans never held.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  135. @siberiancat

    He feared Jews, but it was the Slavs that he viewed as subhuman and future slaves. Why does it surprise you that the Russians don’t view Mr. Hitler as Good?

    Yea I guess they didn’t think he was Mr. Good after he decided to starve Leningrad instead of taking it.

    All Hitler had to do was make a deal with the Slavs and let them have client states. There still would have been plenty of empty land to use for Germany. Hitler could have taken half of Russia and the Ukrainians would have lined up to support him.

    But this is Unz where Jews and Britain/USA/Lend-lease are to blame for everything.

    You see Hitler was really just a nice guy who wanted the best for everyone.

    Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?

    – Adolf Hitler

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  136. Mulegino1 says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    It wasn’t a defensive war. It was a preemptive invasion against an enemy who had massed enormous amounts of men and war material on its western frontiers staging for an invasion of its own. Its objective was only partly defensive, but mainly to remove an imminent existential threat to the existence of Germany and-perhaps less appreciated in historical terms- the whole of Western and Central Europe.

    Barbarossa was not inevitable. Germany and the USSR could have reached a modus vivendi based upon Molotov-Ribbentrop. But it was clear to Hitler by late 1940 that the Soviets had no intention of abiding by the spirit of agreement. The Soviets were clearly set on annexing the rest of Bukovina and thereby gaining control over the one remaining German source of crude oil on the continent, not to mention re-invading Finland and making a move on the Dardanelles.

    The point has already been made here that once the Germans were committed to an offensive, they had no choice other than to drive towards Moscow, Leningrad and into Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus, as this alone would permanently remove the threat represented by the USSR. What were they supposed to do- destroy the immense cauldrons and take the upwards of a million prisoners of war and then just stop there and withdraw, leaving the Soviet state and the bulk of its military capability intact?

    • Replies: @Malla
  137. @John Johnson

    The British not only shared Ultra with the Soviets but they warned about the exact invasion date. This is because they expected the Soviets to lose and wanted to give them a chance.

    That’s interesting, JJ.
    Do you have a (reliable) source for that sharing of Ultra with the Soviets ?

    Not to mention the sporting nature of the Brits.
    Maybe they wanted a game of cricket with them …

    But if the Brits sacrificed Convoy PQ17, also Op Tiger, to maintain secrecy, how likely is it that they would transmit data of any sort to the Soviets ?

    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/times-allies-didnt-use-enigma.html

    The task of getting invaluable intelligence information out to the field where it could be of direct help was, of course, immensely difficult, especially given fears that if the Germans found out that their codes were being compromised on a daily basis, Ultra intelligence would dry up.

    In 1940 during the Battle of Britain, this need for concealment was not great, but as the war spread throughout Europe and the Mediterranean, it became an increasing problem. Accordingly, the British and their American allies evolved a carefully segregated intelligence system that limited the flow of Ultra to a select number of senior officers.

    https://www.historynet.com/ultra-the-misunderstood-allied-secret-weapon.htm

  138. Arguably, Hitler might have prevailed and conquered the Lebensraum of his dream, had Stalin not been saved by Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Aid: more than ten billions—equivalent to trillions today— worth of airplanes and tanks, locomotives and rails, construction materials, entire military production assembly lines, food and clothing, aviation fuel, and much else.

    It would be interesting to see articles in Unz on this subject which is obviously of great importance, but is continually downplayed by Russian Nationalists like Anatoly Karlin and others. Also, the large part played by American industrialists in the 1920s and 1930s in the industrialisation of the USSR and the creation of its military-industrial complex. Armand Hammer obviously springs to mind first, but Fred Koch, father of the Brothers, was probably more important.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @LeoB
  139. Alfred says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I agree with much of your comment.

    In reality, the Soviets occupied the north of Iran – and starved the population by stealing their grain and animals.

    The British occupied the south of Iran including its oil (which the Soviets did not need) – and starved the population by prohibiting the transport of grain on the railways.

    I have no idea how many Iranians starved to death – many millions it is certain.

    The Americans only got control after they installed the last Shah in 1953 – after a putsch against the democratically-elected leader Mossadegh. The previous shah, the father of this Shah, had been exiled by the British to Mauritius. The British had wanted to install the pretender from the previous dynasty but he spoke no Persian.

    For a bit of background – minus the genocide which only happens to Jews – see this Wikipedia article.

    Reza Shah

    • Replies: @Malla
  140. @Malla

    Unlike the Third Reich, the USSR was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Thus the war in the East was bound to be different compared to the war in the West.

    It was Hitler’s plan to starve millions of Slavs and take their land. Those plans had nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. Hitler could have fought an honorable war if he wanted.

    His cruelty towards the Slavs was a military blunder. If you believe that German troops will most likely turn your city into another Leningrad you might as well join the Red Army. It also created resistance behind the lines that the Germans had to constantly deal with. This was incredibly foolish since the occupied states were resentful of the USSR and there were long standing anti-Russian sentiments that he could have tapped into.

    But Hitler thought he would win the war and believed he had the right to kill all the Jews and Slavs that he wanted. He imagined Germany coming out as the ultimate victor and it wouldn’t matter as to what happened behind the lines. The Allies would be begging for peace and what happened to the Slavs or Jews would be at most a footnote in history. He talked about how this happened to the Armenians and no one spoke of them.

    • Agree: europeasant
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @James Forrestal
  141. Malla says:
    @Right_On

    When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they were following the cunning plan devised by the Imperial Japanese Navy

    What rubbish, FDR goaded Japan for the attack. Why so?
    FDR had being trying to provoke Germany and illegally ordering the US navy to attack German U-boats. This is before war was declared or approval from Congress. Most Americans were against the war and FDR had promised not to lead the USA to war. But like a typical slimeball he had other plans.
    The Germans knew what happened ip WW1 with the whole Lusitania false flag fiasco which was used to rile up the American masses to declare war on Kaiser Germany. Berlin was not going to take the bait again and Berlin ordered its U-boats to be prudent and control themselves in the face of obvious American provocation. Frustrated FDR now looked towards Japan and wanted to goad Japan into attacking the USA to rile up the Murican masses.
    There was one more reason why FDR the Communist loving slimeball wanted a war with Japan. Remember the FDR administration was teeming with Soviet agents like Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. Japan was standing in the way of a Communist Far East. And just like Stalin, FDR was afraid of a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Far East. Thus the USA could be clashed into a war with the Japanese Empire to protect the USSR.
    FDR was even planning to attack Japan using American mercenaries using Chinese roundells much before Pearl Harbor. So this FDR was “shocked” by the sudden attack of Japan or Stalin was “shocked” with the sudden attack on the USSR is all bullshit. LOL

    JB-355 American plans to attack Japan before Pearl Harbour

    the Army’s preferred option had been to invade the USSR from Manchuria

    Stalin was afraid of this and did not want to fight a two front war. So he used his cunning tricks. Both the CCP and the Soviets wanted the Japanese Empire to clash with Nationalist Chinese KMT forces. Nearly all the major battles in between Japanese forces and China were with the KMT. The CCP hardly took part.
    This would attain many objectives: Weakening of both Japan and Chinese Nationalists to the benefit of the Chinese Communists.
    With Japan mired in China, the chances of Japan invading the Soviet Far East was very less.

    [MORE]

    Remember Stalin discontinued the Soviet Japanese non aggression pact after the defeat of Germany and coolly attacked the Japanese Empire, to the agreement of the USA.

    The Seventh World Congress of the Comintern held at Moscow in 1935 decided upon a reorganization of its methods. Propaganda in favor of direct revolution was abandoned and in its place the more indirect method of rallying the radicals and socialists in various countries into a People’s Front, which would seize control of their respective governments and thus eventually consummate the revolution. Moreover, Poland and Japan were singled out as the two countries against which special efforts should be made. The Chinese Communists carried out thoroughly the instructions received, and began to win the people of China to their side by means of the slogan, “Fight Japan!” As is evident from his long campaign against Chinese Red Armies, Chiang Kai-shek was at one time intent upon suppression of Communism in China—a force which used to be antagonistic to China’s wellbeing. But after he was taken prisoner by the communist elements during the Xian/Sian incident, he was forced to accept to co-operate with them. The pact suddenly signed with Soviet Russia on August 21st is but one example. During Chiang’s captivity, Zhou Enlai let him know that his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (Jiang Qingguo), who went to the Soviet Union in 1925 to study but had been kept as a hostage in the Soviet Union, would soon be allowed to return to China. Once this was mentioned to Chiang, he would have seen it as confirmation of the correctness of his analysis that he really was dealing, albeit in a shadowy way, with Stalin. However Zhou might have articulated it Chiang could not have failed to see that only Stalin, not the CCP, could promise the release of Ching-kuo. The issue of Ching-kuo’s release had in fact been used as a bargaining chip earlier in the decade.
    From Chiang’s perspective what Stalin wanted would have to be something in the strategic interest of the Soviet Union. He could reasonably have concluded that Stalin wanted him to live and lead China to fight Japan so that Japan could not turn its attention to the Soviet Union or, at least, get pinned down in China by the Chinese Nationalist Army supported by the USSR. What he was willing to concede was to open or, rather, re-open negotiations with the CCP to form a united front, something about which he had had parallel negotiations with the CCP for a year. In return he wanted an implicit Soviet promise to provide support in their war against Japan in the event of war.

    • Replies: @Right_On
  142. @Pheasant

    Tom Verso: ‘Also, how could a Soviet army that was so much on a war footing get so thoroughly destroyed by the Germans?’

    Pheasant: “Have you tried reading icebreaker? It is freely available on the internet.

    You should before you post such inanities.”

    So could you provide us with a brief answer to Tom Verso’s question based on your reading of Icebreaker?

  143. Alfred says:
    @Franz

    He’d ordered building projects all over and just about ran out of labor to build roads and factories. You don’t do that if your whole goal is a war.

    I read somewhere that Hitler did not allow compulsory overtime and weekend work for those building submarines – until war with England broke out. Hardly the attitude of someone intent on taking over the rest of Europe. 🙂

    My German racial comrades, we are not asleep. Our builders are not asleep either, and let me point out only one thing to you. During the winter of 1939-1940 a certain Mr. Churchill stated: “The submarine danger is eliminated. Hitler is finished.” He has destroyed two, three, five submarines daily. At that time, he destroyed more than we even had then. He was exhausted. He had destroyed nothing, for then I again committed a very great error. The error was: I had only a very small number of our submarines fighting and held back the greater part of the submarines in order to train the crews for the new submarines being launched.

    At that time the number of submarines operating against the enemy was so small that I am today still ashamed even to speak of it. Most of them, more than nine-tenths, remained at that time in our home waters and trained the new crews, for we started mass production at a certain moment. They just can’t comprehend anything but American mass production. They always act as if they are the only ones who understand it. We understand it just as well. When they say they build so-and-so many warships per year-well, when they count all their corvettes and all their uh-uh-herring boats and the rest of them and stick a cannon on them, they act as if this . . . If we figure in everything, then I guarantee that we are not building fewer ships, only I think we are building more useful ships than they.

    Adolf Hitler: Speech on the 19th Anniversary of the “Beer Hall Putsch” (November 8, 1942)

    • Thanks: Franz
    • Replies: @Right_On
  144. Malla says:
    @Alfred

    Iran had National Socialists who were pro-Axis, especially pro-Hitler after WW2.
    The National Socialist Workers Party of Iran ( حزب سوسیالیست ملی کارگران ایران‎), better known by its abbreviation SUMKA ( سومکا‎), was a National Socialist party in Iran.
    The party was formed in 1952 by Davud Monshizadeh. The SUMKA attracted the support of young nationalists in Iran, including Dariush Homayoon, an early member who would later rise to prominence in the country. Monshizadeh was a Hitler worshiper, and was inspired by German National Socialist ideology for being the best for Iran’s progress.

    [MORE]

    Davud Monshizadeh was also a scholar in Iranian Studies who later became a Professor of Iranian Languages at Uppsala University, Sweden and is highly recognized for his contributions to Iranian linguistics, particularly to the study of Modern and Middle Iranian languages. He had lived in the German Third Reich since 1937, and was a former SS member, who fought and was wounded in the Battle of Berlin. He was also a professor at Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich and was deeply influenced by Jose Ortega y Gasset’s philosophy, even translating many of his books (which he hoped would serve as founding principles for the party), from Spanish to Persian. He returned to Iran in 1950. Monshizadeh would later serve as a Professor of Persian Studies at Alexandria University and Uppsala University. Monshizadeh even attempted to approximate Hitler’s physical appearance, including his moustache. SUMKA Iranian youth would fight pitched street battles with Iranian Tudeh Communists in Iran just like in Germany.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiYrNKVXcAMsyte.jpg

    • Thanks: Alfred
  145. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:

    read the whole article but three points in the first paragraph i “object” to.

    1. the soviet death toll has been exaggerated for political purposes. immediately after the war it was only 5m for the red army.

    2. the german leadership may have had domestic political/economic reasons for making war against the soviets.

    3. by the time of operation barbarossa there was only one high ranking jew in the soviet government, kaganovich, and he was illiterate. so hitler’s intelligence was off. but maybe it couldn’t’ve been better. the great purge had whacked almost all the jewish old bolsheviks. and that’s not jewish propaganda. it’s true.

  146. Malla says:
    @John Johnson

    I am not so sure about that.
    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html
    Stalin’s War Against His Own Troops
    The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity
    By Yuri Teplyakov

    By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year — June 1941-June 1942 — when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot].”

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:
    Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
    , @John Johnson
  147. @Hans Vogel

    Deutschland im Visier Stalins is readily available at amzn etc.

    Perhaps an English translation would be useful ?

    Germany in Stalin’s Gunsight …

    There would be a big market for this book from an expert like D. Schwipper.

    Further (on sheepskin coats/engine oil etc)–

    Soviet intelligence knew about the massive concentration of German troops on Soviet borders, the locations of all German divisions, the huge ammunition supplies, the movements of the German air force, and many other things. Soviet GRU agents knew many important secrets, including the name of Operation Barbarossa and the time of its inception. Yet on the eve of the German invasion, Soviet intelligence reported that preparations for invasion had not yet begun, and without these preparations it was impossible for Germany to begin the war.[4]

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/germanys-incredible-courage-to-defend-europe-how-hitlers-invasion-of-the-soviet-union-surprised-stalin/

  148. @Mulegino1

    Could you check the balance sheet for oil supplies to Germany? Why are you so obsessed with Romania? Nazi Germany was properly provided with oil and fuel by Standard Oil of the US until the very final days of its (Nazi Germany’s) existence. And the Allies were smart enough to never bomb any of its power stations or power grids. The Allies needed Germany to keep fighting Russians as long as possible. How I wish I could ram it home – Hitler was a club in the hands of the Allies to bleed Russia and Germany dry so as to smash both the competitors off the global chess board.

    • LOL: James Forrestal
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  149. @Anonymous

    BTW post-war statements by the German generals here should be viewed with a big grain of salt, as they were primarily self-serving and directed at absolving themselves of individual blame (collective blame having been decreed as beyond doubt by the victors at Nuremberg).

    Nothing is closer to the truth than that about the commentary of German generals about how they accounted for what happened.

    In that regard, it should be noted that the US put General Halder in charge of the historical project of writing up the German narrative of the war.

  150. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:

    the yuge lesson of barbarossa is one that those who hold the commanding heights today don’t want known.

    namely, the germans expected it would be a cake walk, and so did everyone else, the “upper volta with nukes because communism” meme.

    in reality…hitler and the whole world were like “wtf? these niggers can fight, and they have great shit they made themselves.”

  151. @Sparkon

    Very interesting and sound perspective.

  152. Levtraro says:
    @Anonymous

    Sounds reasonable but facing a choice between (a) direct statements from the Supreme Leader himself, in words written in his Magnus Opus, the guy that actually decided to launch Barbarossa (not to mention well researched books by several historians), versus (b) interpretations from some random guy today about the historical context at that time, well, I tend to give more credit to the written words of the Supreme Leader, the guy that made the decision, and has to blow his brains off as a consequence.

    Now, even conceding for the sake of argument, that Barnarossa was a pre-emptive strike (an operation involving 152 German divisions, including 19 panzer and 15 motorized divisions, 15 Finnish divisions, 15 Rumanian divisions, in 4 Army groups, plus 4 air fleets, some pre-emptive strike right there!, not at all long planned), was it not a better idea to wait for the allegedly inminent Soviet attack? I mean, we know what happened because of Barbarossa. Yesterday the Russians were celebrating the outcome. So since you believe in the theory of the pre-emptive strike, don’t you think it was better to wait for the Soviet agression and wage a defensive war?

  153. Alfred says:
    @GMC

    Yes. The same group of people won WW2 – without making the sacrifices.

    It would be ridiculous of Putin to accept Soviet guilt. Russia is not the USSR for starters. He is democratically-elected and it does him no good at all to criticise those who made sacrifices and their descendants. His job is to try to promote patriotism and pride.

    In Kiev, an extraordinary number of police of all stripes was to be found in the centre on May 9th. They were there to suppress any celebration of victory over Nazism. Millions of Ukrainians fought in the Soviet Red Army. 🙂

    In 2019, in an interview, when asked about the corpse of Lenin near the Kremlin. He said that some Russians have good memories of those days and that it serves no purpose to upset them in any way. Other, younger, Russians could not give a fig about this matter.

    • Thanks: GMC
  154. Malla says:
    @europeasant

    So the Germans invaded Poland, France, Belgium, Norway and other countries because they feared that these countries would invade Germany.

    Don’t be an idiot. Germany’s invasion of Poland had to do with ethnic Germans living in Poland being ill-treated as well as the Danzig issue. France declared war on Germany. Hello!!!
    The same France and Britain who so looooved the Polish people, so much as to start WW3, did not give a damn when Poland was later under Soviet control. The same Churchill (in pocket of Jews) screeched and screamed about Germany, gave guarantees to Poland, destroyed his own Empire which he loved, rejected Hitler’s peace proposals which he hid from the British public, later on coolly lost interest in Poles and made a deal with Stalin for Soviet interest in Poland with British interests in Greece.

    Also I am sure the Soviets invaded Iran because Iranian forces were amassed at their border, looting Iranian grain and let Iranians die in masses like untermensch. Great liberators of the working classes, liberate them from life itself.
    I am sure Iceland was amasing forces due to which Britain invaded Iceland in WW2. The Government of Iceland issued a protest, charging that its neutrality had been “flagrantly violated” and “its independence infringed”. At the start of the war, the UK imposed strict export controls on Icelandic goods, preventing profitable shipments to Germany, as part of its naval blockade. The UK offered assistance to Iceland, seeking co-operation “as a belligerent and an ally”, but the Icelandic government refused and reaffirmed its neutrality. The German diplomatic presence in Iceland, along with the island’s strategic importance, alarmed the UK government.
    So the British Government can be alarmed but the German Government or the Japanese Government cannot be alarmed. The glorious allies had a monopoly on alarms, it seems.
    This is what reeks of BS. Super thick BS.

    • Replies: @ricpic
    , @europeasant
    , @Adûnâi
  155. RT says:

    Interesting analysis in the article.
    It resonates in highly suspicious manner with today accusations of current/possible/almost suspicous future Russian aggressive plans.
    Are we preparing for a pre-emptive attack on Russia? Isn’t it going to end as before?

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  156. The author says: “During the summer of 1920, the Soviet cavalry attempted to invade Poland with cries of “to Berlin!” But the Poles pushed back the Russians and inflicted them losses of territory (Peace of Riga).”

    Stop right there! Don’t ever again read anything else by anybody who says what Laurent Guyénot mindlessly repeats.

    I have already tried to point out several times on this blog that it was not Russia that attacked Poland in the Polish-Russian War of 1919-1920. It was Poland under the mad Polish-Lithuanian russophobe Józef Piłsudski, who dreamed of reconstructing a Polish empire in what are now the independent countries of Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine.

    The Russians would have annihilated the Poles had Russia not been severely weakened by the civil war in addition to the losses it sustained in the First World War. The Polish imperialists struck when the first opportunity arose early in 1919, although some historians claim that the actual war began in 1920 when Piłsudski went like a fool all the way to Kiev, since the Russians sensibly refused to engage him in battle. Then the Russians attacked and went all the way to Warsaw. (Warsaw, by the way, was saved as much by the undoubted bravery of ordinary Polish soldiers as it was by the invaluable military advice offered by the French military.)

    • Disagree: RUR
  157. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    dude!

    you’re stealing my 307.

  158. MarkinPNW says:
    @Anonymous

    There is a Soviet Era TV miniseries that purports to explain how the NKVD managed to interrupt and sabotage the Western Allied plans to use the remaining German forces combined with their own Armies to attack and invade the USSR. It is called “Seventeen Moments of Spring” or “Seventeen Instances of Spring”. It appeared to make quite am impression on a young teenage member of the Soviet viewing audience, such that when he achieved enough education to qualify he joined the KGB, a certain Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

    • Replies: @LeoB
  159. ricpic says:
    @Rahan

    In short the theory that Hitler invaded preemptively to forestall a Stalin invasion is neither provable nor disprovable, says Professor Me.

  160. Marcali says:
    @Tom Verso

    Not only about the memoirs but about the medals:
    “In 1991, some 3.2 million medals and awards that had been intended for the lower ranks were found in a warehouse in Moscow. Marshal Zhukov, who was minister of defense after the war, never found the time to award those medals, although he often awarded himself a new one.” (Daniel W. Michaels)

  161. @Anonymous

    dude!

    you’re stealing my 307.

    dude! try harder!

    [Reprimanding the other Nazi captives for cooperating with the Allies during the Nuremberg Trials:]
    Goering: “I just wish we could all have the courage to confine our [legal] defense to three simple words: ‘Lick my ass!’”

  162. ricpic says:
    @Malla

    Never underestimate the Icelandic threat!……said no one ever.

    • LOL: Malla
  163. Resartus says:

    Well, it was the Brits that invaded Russia after the Czar was killed….
    Sending forces to keep the Eastern Front active…..
    Leading to the US having to send forces to pull their bacon out of the fire….
    U.S. forces killed plenty of REDS during the action before they
    were able to withdraw their forces….

    The 1914-1918 war never needed to be a “World War”,
    if the Brits had stayed on their island,
    it would have been limited to SE Europe without
    Western Europeans getting involved in something that was none
    of their business…..

  164. Marcali says:

    And then there is the humanitarian aspect:
    The genocide and mass murder of the Soviet Communists (rolled):

    The Civil War period till 1922: 3,284,000
    The NEP period till 1928: 5,484,000
    The collectivization period till 1935: 16,924,000
    The Great Terror period till 1938: 21,269,000
    Pre-World War II period till June 1941:26,373,000
    World War II period till 1945: 39,426,000
    Postwar and Stalin’s twilight till 1953: 55,039,000
    Post-Stalin period till 1987: 61,911,000
    (R. J. Rummel: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917, Transaction Publisher, 1990.)
    It can be seen for instance, that before Hitler got into power at all, the Bolsheviks had murdered or otherwise eliminated about 12,000,000 human beings.

  165. Ed Case says:
    @John Johnson

    Wilhelm Reich wrote about the differences between Hitler and Stalin.
    Boiled down, Hitler was a brilliant politician, and not short on guts, Stalin was a cowardly backstabber.
    Would Stalin have ever ordered the attack on Germany to proceed?
    I’d say no.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  166. @Засецкова

    This commenter is aware, however dimly, that some kind of business arrangement existed between “Standard Oil of the US” (broken up by order of the US Supreme Court in 1911 into 34 independent companies) and Nazi Germany. He’s further aware that some Western leaders considered the German-Soviet conflict desirable from a realpolitik standpoint (then Senator Harry Truman for instance), and from this believes the fantastical idea that the US was directly supplying Germany with oil throughout the war.

    The easily verifiable facts are that IG Farben (a period combination of previously independent German chemicals companies such as BASF, Bayer, Agfa etc.) had agreements with certain US oil companies in the late 1930s concerning exchange of various technologies such as synthetic rubber, synthetic fuel, high octane gasoline additives, and so forth. Germany supplied its wartime needs for oil from prewar reserves (imported from all over the world, but especially from Mexico and Venezuela), Romanian production, limited domestic and Hungarian (Lake Baloton) fields, imports from the USSR (1939-1941), and increasingly as the war dragged on from its own synthetic production (i.e. from coal).

    It is true that the Allies did not target the German electric power network (though the dams of the Ruhr area were famously bombed), but this was largely because the Allies incorrectly assumed the German power grid was well positioned to adapt to local disruptions. However the Allies did attack, with great success, German oil supplies as well as its transportation network (which increasingly made it impossible to ship coal). Thus by the end of 1944 the German war economy began to collapse.

    The ignorance and poor quality of this comment, informed by the merest glimmer of true historical knowledge warped by the author’s own desires, are about par for the course for this entire thread.

    • Replies: @PhucqEwe
  167. Malla says:
    @Mulegino1

    WW2 was basically the filthy whores of Judeo power, the USA, Britain and the USSR, crushing the one nation which had the courage to set itself free from them bloodsuckers, Germany. As well as Japan. And what did the filthy whores get for their services to jew? Britain lost its empire and is now full of feral black and Pakistani gangs brought in by jews. Its girls getting raped by barbaric bottom of the barrel Pakistani men. The USSR collapsed and jew oligarchs looted it out nice and easy. Sold ex-Soviet women in meat markets of the Middle East. The USA is being used as a psycho battering ram by its jew lords, a nation full of drugs and a broken shit society thanks to jew media. USA is about to collapse and maybe turn Commie, Murica will enjoy the Bolshevism/Communism it clandestinely pushed on others.
    Karma? Hitler’s curse?

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @europeasant
  168. @RT

    If nothing else, this piece is a good way of smoking out the Russia-bots who dwell among us. Of course the more sophisticated ones won’t be triggered.

  169. Marcali says:
    @Rahan

    Slavs saved?
    „But we have a series of estimates, most of them working independently from one another. The figure of 27 million Soviet war death must therefore be taken as the minimum figure for military deaths, as opposed to the German figure of 2,416,784 killed and missing, this latter category including all prisoners of war, some of whom eventually returned alive from the Gulag.”
    (John Mosier: Deathride, Hitler vs. Stalin: the Eastern Front, 1941-1945, Simon & Schuster, 2010, p. 338.)

  170. Commoner says:

    Hitler had been fighting Jews and Commies since the beginning, back in the early 1920s. He knew who his real enemies were. He invaded France as Schlieffen Plan Version Two. Take them out first, get revenge for what happened to him personally in WW1, then turn East and get started on the real thing.

    Just like Napoleon, he was confronted by the English Channel and the Russian Steppe.

    This time around it was Mussolini who was the ball and chain attached to Germany’s ankle, rather than the Austro-Hungarians in WW1.

    As usual all Perfidious Albion did was protect its own interests (Channel Ports (fail), Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atlantic, French Fleet, India, Suez), but not much else except for the occasional act of Churchillian hubris (Norway, Greece). Nothing wrong with protecting your own interests but stop with the “saving the world” crap already.

    Meanwhile Frank’s in his wheelchair shitting himself that he’s going to lose Cousin Ted’s Philippines to the Japs so he provokes them into Pearl Harbour and (((certain people))) in New York make even more money.

    Stalin gets the fright of his life – probably the only moment of self-doubt he ever had, he offers his resignation to the Politburo but they’re all too shit-scared to accept it – and then he realises with Stalingrad that he can just bleed them to death: for “them” read “everyone except me”.

    Hitler turns into a drug-fucked mess: I hope I’m never under that level of pressure.

    Frank gets into Europe because if Stalin wins it all (((certain people))) in New York won’t get their money back.

    In the end the Jews get a lot of money, and Palestine, and an eternal Holocaust stick to wave around.

    Frank dies knowing he’s got the bomb, half of Europe, and the whole Pacific Ocean: suck on that, Ted!

    Stalin’s got more than fucking Lenin ever did. And fuck you too Trotsky.

    Churchill saves the Empire! Never saw a war he didn’t like, and all it took was bankruptcy, a lot of other people dying, and humiliation at Yalta and Potsdam. Paid back his 1930’s debts too.

    Congratulations must go to de Gaulle for playing a very weak hand extremely well.

    And Mao, the biggest son-of-bitch of them all, played the long game better than anyone. Look how that worked out.

    That’s my take on WW2.

  171. andreas says:

    It’s hard to believe the Soviets were about to conquer Europe when they had just barely managed a draw with Finland. But I suppose there’s a type of mind who wants to make excuses for the blunder that destroyed Germany, as if that helps anything.

  172. Begemot says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Good points.

    Indeed, do the German records show that the Germans conceived of Barbarossa as a preemptive action? Are there records that show this term was being used in the planning and initial stages of the attack? Like: Rundstedt to Halder ‘ “Hey, our preemptive strike has put the Russians on their backs. What do you want us to do now? Should we go for Kiev? What do you say?”

    To ask the question is to answer it, of course. Rundstedt never asked this question because Barbarossa was a plan of conquest.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  173. I am fairly familiar with the history that Laurent Guyénot writes of. Though I have not read Suvorov’s landmark work, I do have it in my library and asked a senior Russian history professor at St. Johns University in New York what he thought of the thesis. He replied that it is extremely credible and taught not only at St, Johns but in other universities in the States as well.

    As to McMeekin refusing to credit Suvorov with his groundbreaking study, he may have done this not to snub him but to bring his thesis to light to a much wider audience.

    We have to consider that no matter how accurate Suvorov’s thesis is, it was met with a lot of negative responses, mostly for the reason that it did not fit into the Western promoted myths of WWII.

    By separating himself from Suvorov’s work and doing the research himself, McMeekin brings yet another nail to the Allied myth about WWII and the USSR.

    If we look at McMeekin’s web-page on Amazon.com, it provides quite a bit of praise from mainstream review outlets as well as a number of readers. This can only be a good thing considering the more independent research that can be done in a variety of areas on WWII the greater the chances of such myths being forced into the dustbins of history.

    Finally, it is unlikely that McMeekin’s book would be received very well if all it did was rely on Suvorov’s original work…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  174. Right_On says:
    @Malla

    Stalin was afraid of this and did not want to fight a two-front war. So he used his cunning tricks.
    Yes, Stalin was a cunning old fox, but nothing you say in your reply contradicts my claim, “Stalin was aware of the threat, so maybe his having so many tanks, planes and troops was to anticipate Russia having to face two formidable foes simultaneously.” (And note the ‘maybe’ !)

  175. Anonymous[376] • Disclaimer says:
    @Begemot

    There are no German records that show there was a plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe, which is why we’re told they were destroyed, written in code, etc. If you have no problem believing that particular story, then I really can’t see what your point is.

    • Replies: @HdC
  176. @Levtraro

    Stuff gets overlooked. If one thing does, another can be. It undermines the commenter’s position that “I never came across this anywhere,” as disproving a point.

    What the victors don’t want written gets covered up. Sometimes forever, and that happens in every war.

    • Replies: @Levtraro
  177. @animalogic

    Coordination across the Soviet Union would have been much harder without Moscow, in terms of rail lines and communication lines. An interesting speculation, but that is all. In the end, control of most of the world fell not to Stalin or Hitler but to FDR and Truman.

  178. EugeneGur says:
    @CMC

    while mother Russia may have been as unconquerable as ever, it was significantly less so for its political leadership at the time, and that taking Moscow might have been a tipping point.

    The political leadership at the time was perfectly capable, as it turned out, of leading the country in the time of great trouble. The significance of Moscow comes, of course, from its symbolic significance as the capital and spiritual center of the country.

    But most importantly, it is a huge transportation hub, was then and still is. It Moscow had been captured, it would’ve created a logistical nightmare for the Russians. As all the road in the ancient world lead to Rome, all the roads in Russia lead to Moscow.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  179. Jake says:
    @Anonymous

    Hitler held up the German army going to Dunkirk because he preferred not to war against the Anglo-Saxon empire and he assumed that English leaders would decide not to war against the other Germanic ’empire.’ That way, Germanic empires could share all of Europe and as much of the rest of the world as they cared to take.

    But he failed to realize how deeply the Anglo-Saxon imperialist resents any other Germanic nation daring to be its equal and how badly the Anglo-Saxon wanted to deny the German desire to control all the Slavs – because that would prevent the Anglo-Saxon from later winning the Great Game.

    By the way, the Neocons are playing the Great Game now.

    Hitler knew that Napoleon took Moscow and still lost.

  180. @Anonymous

    Russia is well advised to build its own weapons and keep its army alert. You cannot trust perfidious Albion or its bastard offspring on giving up world conquest.

  181. “Germany lost the war, but we see her, one of the mightiest powers of contemporary Europe, at whose feet we now beg.”

    After the decline of the Anglo-American power due to the perfidious nature of its elite by China, Germany will be a Russian bitch and accordingly will be slapped around by both, its energy daddy Russia and the biggest consumer market daddy China… so much for Mutty Merkel & Co.!

    • Replies: @Will Tyson
  182. LeoB says:
    @NikoKaoJa

    “A testimony by Field Marshal Fridrich Paulus on 11 February 1946 confirmed…”

    you can’t be serious. by that time Paulus was in Soviet captivity for over 3 years and was saying exactly what he was supposed to say according to carefully crafted scripts.

    • Agree: SOL
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  183. The above thesis is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy.

    They were both ready to invade. They both started the war. They were both defending their homelands.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Alfred Muscaria
  184. Jake says:
    @Verymuchalive

    So you mean Jewish Capitalists acted to beef up the Soviet economy and its military?

    Now why would Jewish Capitalists do that?

  185. EugeneGur says:
    @Malla

    much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    Oh really? Stalin made the Germans kill the Russian POWs or starve them to death? No matter how inflexible Stalin was, or wasn’t, nothing prevented the Germans from treating their Russian prisoners decently, nothing at all. This is the most idiotic excuse imaginable.

    As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh.

    Well, it wasn’t particularly gentle, but it was nowhere even close to the treatment the Soviet POWs received. And considering what the German soldiers brought to the population of the Soviet Union and how they treated the people they occupied, that treatment was quite generous on the part of the Russians.

    Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    True, the death rate among the German POWs at Stalingrad was high. That was mostly because when they finally surrendered, many had severe frostbites and were starving. By the way, the Russian POWs the 6th Army held were almost all dead by the time of surrender because at some point the Germans stopped feeding them altogether. The city itself was completely destroyed with many civilian victims. Forgive me if I can’t master too much compassion for the German soldiers – nobody invited them there.

  186. @obwandiyag

    They were both ready to invade. They both started the war. They were both defending their homelands.

    The Germans were defending their homeland. The Russians were slave mercenaries for Satanic Pedophiles in the Kremlin and Wall Street.

  187. If Stalin Had been stupid enough to do what is claimed here then (at the latest) by January 1, 1942, the US and UK would have declared war on the USA. By August 1945 there would have mushroom clouds over Moscow and Leningrad, and by January 1, 1946, the USSR would have ceased to exist 46 years earlier than it actually did. It’s already documented that Churchill had advocated Operation Unthinkable, aimed at war against the USSR in the summer of 1945. In light of the victory just won against Hitler, Churchill had to be cooperative with his staff when they nixed the idea of going off on another war just then. But if Churchill’s great victory had been stolen from him by a Stalinist conquest of Europe in mid-1941 then all of Churchill’s great hopes would have come to rest on rallying the West for a war against Stalin.

    In such a case it is likely that Japan would have forgotten about Pearl Harbor and launched an attack on the USSR in July 1941. If it became clear that Stalin was about to conquer Europe then Churchill would have aligned himself very rapidly with Hirohito. Roosevelt would likewise have quickly realized that a wat against Stalin was now his only way of becoming hailed as “a great war leader” (in Reagan’s own words). Meanwhile, figures such as Stephen Wise and Chaim Weizmann would have quietly celebrated Hitler’s downfall and the thrown their full support behind the war against Stalin in order to confirm how unfair Hitler’s charges of “Judeo-Bolshevism” really were.

    The whole scenario is ridiculous. By the way, Taylor never implied that Hitler was tricked into WWII. Taylor made the point that was an arrogant gambler who unleashed WWII without having a clearly thought out for what he was doing. But Stalin was not so reckless as Hitler (despite his obvious paranoia). Stalin would discarded the Suvorov plan in 5 minutes after just running through the scenario which I outlined above. Taylor was correct that Hitler (like Wilhelm II in 1914) was not following a coherent plan aimed at unleashing a general war. Rather, they were arrogant clowns whose proclivities made the outbreak of war very likely. That can not be honestly said of Stalin.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  188. Levtraro says:
    @TomSchmidt

    Stuff gets overlooked. If one thing does, another can be. It undermines the commenter’s position that “I never came across this anywhere,” as disproving a point.

    Thanks, I did not see the logic, it is kind of tangential. Many aspects of WWII are not mentioned by historians and having one that is true and not discussed only tangentially serve as support for the veracity of other aspects that have not been discussed.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  189. LeoB says:
    @Pheasant

    Icebreaker is a great book – but by now in many aspects outdated. Which is normal as Suvorov simply didn’t have the access to the Soviet archives that historians have now.

    Much more accurate – and astonishing – books on the subjects were written by Mark Solonin in early 2000s. Solonin is a big supporter of Suvorov and they’re close friends. Suvorov called Solonin’s books “an historic act of bravery” (исторический подвиг).

    Unfortunately, Solonin’s books are not translated into English (as far as I know).

    • Replies: @Marcali
  190. @Steve Naidamast

    The overall positive amazon-reviews are a big surprise in my eyes. I could not think of a plausible reason for that outcome. – The only mainstream figure that is going in that direction is Jordan B. Peterson, who said repeatedly that the West is talking about Lenin and Stalin etc. way too positive. He even understands that as a sign of the overall corruption of the western education system.
    So – Laurent Guyenot’s main thesis, that revisionism is going mainstream has indeed proven right at least with regard to amazon. That McMeekin’s book appeared in the well-respected Hachette publishing house is another hint.

  191. Anon[320] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkU

    An army poised on the border in preparation for imminent deep-battle style invasion of a neighbor is exponentially more vulnerable to being encircled then one set up for defense. The massive casualties the Soviets took in the first weeks of the invasion heavily credits Suvorov’s thesis in this way, as pointed out well in Stolfi’s “Hitler’s Panzers East”.

    A successful invasion requires maximum concentration of force and no dissemination of effort over non active areas. This is exactly why the imminent Soviet invasion was turned into such a disaster for the USSR by Barbarossa suddenly jumping the gun and making their offensive staging areas almost the worst imaginable defensive arrangement.

  192. LeoB says:
    @MarkinPNW

    umm no that’s not exactly what “Seventeen Moments of Spring” is about.

    it’s about how a Soviet spy sabotaged a separate peace agreement between Western Allies and Germany behind Stalin’s back. there’s nothing about a joint invasion of the Soviet Union.

    the whole story is of course exaggerated in the movie. there was no such a Soviet super-spy among the Nazi elite, and while the idea of such peace agreement indeed existed it was well known to Stalin and discussed openly with the allies. it was just a minor episode close to the war end.

    otherwise the movie is great.

  193. Incitatus says:

    Chicken vs. egg revisionism.

    Here’s what Hitler told his trusted propaganda chief:

    • 15 Jun 1941 – Adolf Hitler tells Joseph Göbbels (at the Berlin Reich Chancellery) the attack on the Soviet Union, postponed from late May, will be launched in a week; the “action” will take approximately four months, “Bolshevism will collapse like a house of cards; the “preventative action” is necessary to eliminate “Russia as its [England’s] hope for the future” and “free up manpower…needed for our war economy, for our weapons, U-Boat, and airplane programs…so that the USA can no longer threaten us” [Göbbels Tagebücher 16 Jun 1941; Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p. 478];

    • 21 Jun 1941 – Joseph Göbbels hosts an Italian delegation in Berlin, screens ‘Gone with the Wind’; is called to the Reich Chancellery and told invasion of the USSR is scheduled for the morning, works on the proclamation after returning to his ministry [Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p. 480];

    [MORE]

    • 22 Jun 1941 – Hitler addresses the German People: posing (again) as a ravished virgin, first justifies Barbarossa as a preemptive attack to deprive Britain of a potential continental partner, piles on the USSR for policy differences, then parses:

    “it is necessary to respond to his [not clear who he referrs to: so many enemies] plot by Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers and the Jewish rulers of Moscow’s Bolshevist headquarters…[and finishes with] At this moment, an attack [my grand invasion] unprecedented in the history of the world in its extent and size has begun…I have therefore decided today once again to put the fate of Germany and the future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers. May God help us in this battle.”
    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/hitler4.htm

    The Austrian gambler goes all-in (it’s German blood he wagers).

    [Russia faithfully supplied Germany up to the attack; output never equaled by German ‘experts’ post invasion, despite Hermann Göring and Herbert Backe’s blissfully optimistic projections involving starving 25 million untermenschen].

    • 23 Jun 1941 – Göbbels gives his staff three reasons for invading the USSR:

    1) “the possibility of mounting a major attack on England…did not exist so long as Russia remained a potential enemy [requiring troops defending the border]”;
    2) the attack will provide an enormous “increase in gasoline, petroleum and grain supplies”;
    3) “conflict with Russia [is basically unavoidable]…For Europe to remain at peace for several decades Bolshevism and National Socialism could not exist side by side…It’s better for the conflict to happen now than when Russia has got its act together internally and has rearmed.”
    -Göbbels MK 23 Jun 1941, Tagebücher 24 Jun 1941; Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p. 480-481;

    In other words, ‘attacking the USSR would hobble England, bring tremendous plunder; and (“inevitable”) is best launched before Russia “is rearmed”.Note the absence of any mention of Soviet mobilization or massing of troops.

    • 8 July 1941 – Hitler orders Göbbels to start a new press campaign insisting the Barbarossa was pre-emptive defense against an imminent Soviet attack [Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p. 482].

    Riddle. Why did Hitler/Göbbels change their tune on the reason for Barbarossa in 15 days? That’s the real question.

    “The US government ignored the German justification [for Barbarossa], and claimed that Germany’s attack was part of Hitler’s evil plan “for the cruel and brutal enslavement of all peoples and for the ultimate destruction of the remaining free democracies.

    Was it true? Neutral USA had no dog in the fight at the time. Why should anyone care what they thought?

    Tell us what Pétain and deputies Chautemps, Laval, Flandin, Darlin thought about Barbarossa. Were they all in?

  194. Well, “Suvorov” is in fact Rezun. The very fact that a person with the last name Rezun appropriated the name of one of the most successful military leaders of the Russian Empire tells us more about him than he was willing to reveal.

    Every sensible person knows well who pushes LGBT into mainstream. So, it is hardly surprising that the same forces push this Rezun character and his “theories” into mainstream. Both serve the same agenda. Both have the same credibility.

    • Replies: @LeoB
  195. @Malla

    What exactly are you disputing?

    The Nazis had millions of Soviet prisoners and let them die of exposure and starvation
    https://www.historynet.com/soviet-prisoners-of-war-forgotten-nazi-victims-of-world-war-ii.htm

    They just put them in giant pens and let them die.

    Why would that be a surprise? Hitler planned on killing off millions of Slavs. Leningrad was only the beginning. They were going to cut off the food supplies of Russia and let the whole country starve. They didn’t want to rule over Russians. What they wanted was the land and didn’t give a damn about the people there. In fact Hitler viewed the Slavs as racial enemies that he had the right by nature to kill.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

    The Soviets were just as cruel to German prisoners but Hitler set the precedent early in the war. That doesn’t justify the Soviets but Hitler expected a quick war and never imagined that Germans would be captured in great numbers.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Marcali
  196. @Patrick McNally

    If Stalin Had been stupid enough to do what is claimed here then (at the latest) by January 1, 1942, the US and UK would have declared war on the USSR. By August 1945 there would have mushroom clouds over Moscow and Leningrad, and by January 1, 1946, the USSR would have ceased to exist 46 years earlier than it actually did.

    Stalin foretold the atomic bomb?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  197. @Ed Case

    Wilhelm Reich wrote about the differences between Hitler and Stalin.
    Boiled down, Hitler was a brilliant politician, and not short on guts, Stalin was a cowardly backstabber.
    Would Stalin have ever ordered the attack on Germany to proceed?
    I’d say no.

    Stalin had no problem invading when the odds were overwhelmingly in his favor. He had no problem carving up Eastern Europe with Hitler and had wanted revenge against Poland over the Polish-Soviet war.

    Everyone forgets about disastrous Soviet invasion of Finland which in part inspired Hitler to invade the USSR. If the Finns could outmaneuver the Soviets then the Germans would crush them. This is what Hitler and the rest of the world believed.

    If the Germans had been stuck in a war of attrition with the British then the Soviets most likely would have attacked. It would make more sense to attack Hitler at his weakest than wait 4 or 5 years to see if he rebuilds and goes East. Stalin fully expected the Germans to eventually attack with Hitler in power. He wisely played the long game and lured Hitler into a two front war where he could roll his tanks into Europe as the savior and then take Hitler’s conquests. Unfortunately the Allies were weak and allowed him to take Eastern Europe and half of Germany.

    A war between Nazi Germany and the Soviets was inevitable. The Nazis were ruining the Soviet plans to topple Western democracies from within. The anti-Communists were causing major headaches for the Soviets as they had expected more countries to fall by that time. The victory of Franco was a complete shock to them. This coupled with the economic failure of Marxism which demotivated left-wing democratic movements led them to believe that they needed to expand by force. So while the motive was there the evidence suggests that Stalin did not want war in 1941 or 42 and was caught completely off guard.

    • Replies: @The_seventh_shape
  198. @Anon

    No, this is the error of reading history backwards. In retrospect historians know that the development of motor vehicles meant that an advancing army in WWII moved much faster than in WWI. But a lot of military plans before the war were made without taking this into account. Soviet strategy was based on the assumption that hard stiff fighting at the beginning of the war would lead to a halt of the German advance close to the frontier. Instead, German forces moved so rapidly that huge numbers of Soviet troops were closed off and forced to surrender without much of a fight. That simply shows that Soviet military strategy had not properly incorporated the implications of motorized warfare. It says nothing at all about whether or not Stalin intended to strike first.

    But again, even if Stalin had managed to strike first the notion of him using this as a chance to conquer Europe is absurd. If Stalin had accomplished a fast surgical strike against Hitler then Churchill and Roosevelt would have immediately begun demanding that he retreat back to the 1939 border of Poland. As is often pointed out by apologists for German imperialism, both Churchill and Roosevelt were looking for a Good War that they could use for their reputations. If Stalin had cheated them out of a Good War against Hitler and then tried to annex Europe into the Soviet orbit then they would quickly have come to settle on the Good War against Stalin as a logical substitute. In this they would gleefully have been supported by world Jewry. Stalin was not the kind of idiot which Hitler was and he would have avoided such a scenario. If Stalin had decided to preempt Hitler’s war for living space then you can be sure he would be offering Churchill and Roosevelt a welcome mat and encouraging them to land their own forces in Europe.

  199. Hitler’s armies saved at least half of Europe from communism. The other half clearly fell because of the allied forces. This view will be common knowledge in the future, when all of the propaganda materials of war are finally seen for what they have been. This can only be done by future scholars, it being almost impossible for human beings invested in the events of their own times to see the whole picture clearly, if it’s possible for them to even have the stomach to do so. General George Patton and a few other militarists, American and European writers and artists in the U.S. and elsewhere being about the only people able to see the post war events for what they truly meant, or at least had the bigger picture right.. They were vindicated by the old rule, Time will tell.

    • Agree: HT
    • Disagree: Patrick McNally
  200. HT says:

    After being taught nothing but propaganda all your life, how strange it is to realize that a victory over Hitler saved communism and meant the future demise of the United States which is now coming to fruition. Leftist Jews control every institution in America now and the US government is becoming a weapon against white America. Our country and our culture was taken away from us by these devils in every way possible.

  201. Anonymous[142] • Disclaimer says:

    The fate of Soviet POWs was indeed terrible, but the Germans twice tried to come to an agreement with the Soviet government about the treatment of prisoners and was rebuffed both times. The reality is, the Germans simply lacked the resources to properly provide for these men, and while it’s doubtful their hearts bled for them, this was hardly a systematic plan of extermination.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  202. @Anon

    An army poised on the border in preparation for imminent deep-battle style invasion of a neighbor is exponentially more vulnerable to being encircled then one set up for defense. The massive casualties the Soviets took in the first weeks of the invasion heavily credits Suvorov’s thesis in this way, as pointed out well in Stolfi’s “Hitler’s Panzers East”.

    The military was poised on the border because Stalin had invaded Eastern Europe and that is where the population was. Most of Russia is empty and that was true in 1941.

    Stalin had actually asked Hitler about an increase in recon planes and Hitler lied and said it was all training. Hitler also told Stalin that he needed to put troops on the Eastern border to hide them from allied bombing.

    Stalin was completely duped. That is why the Luftwaffe was able to take out so many planes on the ground.

    If Stalin had been preparing for war he would not have left so many easy targets. He really believed that war was years away. He is on record stating that to his generals.

  203. @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    P..S. I should have said that the other half of Europe fell,”because of the MISUSE of the allied forces.

  204. timrwebb says:
    @Tom Verso

    The answer to your question is that Hitler’s rapid victory in Europe caught Stalin off-guard; as the article states, he was expecting Germany and the British – French alliance to spend far more time bleeding each other dry than actually occurred.
    As a result, his offensive posture against Germany and Europe had to be built up more rapidly than he had expected to have to do, and perhaps because of his spies telling him that Germany had neither suitable clothing nor specialized fuels for her vehicles, then he made the judgement that he had a little more time available to ready his forces than he actually had, as it turned out.
    Nobody would doubt the professionalism and dedication of the Wehrmacht either, especially as they had already developed a measure of the practical skill set that any army needs in order to prevail against an opponent, and so the attack when it came was both sudden and devastating, and the Soviet command structure was very exposed and immature and went down like ninepins in the face of it.
    Great matters are often decided by small beginnings, and I think here we see a situation in which Stalin blinked first, and thus lost the initiative.

  205. iffen says:

    What did Hitler think, and when did he think it?

    What did Stalin think, and when did he think it?

  206. I really don’t get the common Unz assumption here that WW2 was the only chance the West had to right itself against the left.

    It was the British and US Anglo conservative establishment that declared race to not exist after the war despite evidence to the contrary.

    To this day conservative websites will ban you for talking about race even though they mock liberals for shying away from harsh truths.

    The Republicans had numerous chances to face the reality of race but instead joined the “minimal government” race denial bandwagon that was fraught with logical fallacies. You can see this here on Unz where conservatives *want to believe* that everything is economic and it’s merely by chance that Haiti and Detroit have so many problems.

    A certain talk show host led millions down this line of deception and he is still celebrated by many today.

    Our conservatives knowingly lied about reality and even with the internet they still try to pretend that it’s merely Bad Whites that think race exists. Their arguments center around race being “UnChristian” or “UnAmerican” or distasteful while they allow the left to blame Whites for everything. They sing the praises of the “free market” and let the left lie to no end about race.

    So while these discussions on WW2 are interesting there seems to be a complete lack of accountability with modern conservatives. Everything is blamed on the British or Jews of the past while modern Republicans and Tories actively support lying to the masses. I’ve had conservatives lie to my face and yet I’m supposed to direct my anger towards some WW2 figure or group. I can probably go turn on Fox right now and have some lying conservative tell me about how tax cuts or minimal government will fix racial differences that accrued over 70k years.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Adûnâi
  207. Seraphim says:

    The fate of Operation Barbarossa was dictated by the ominous choice of its name.
    Friedrich Barbarossa, the Holy ‘Roman’ Emperor, took the Crusader vows in 1188, and despite the fact that he had a ‘treaty of friendship’ with Saladin, took the lead of the larger Crusader Army ever assembled for the ”most meticulously planned and organized” Crusade up to that time. He violated the Byzantine territory in order to pass in Anatolia by land. He had some initial successes against the Seldjuk Sultanate of Rum. But then attempting against everyone’s advise of his to take a short cut crossing a treacherous river, he fell from his horse in the river and weighed down by his armor he could not be rescued and drowned. His army disbanded immediately and only 5,000 soldiers (out of 100,000) reached Acre. The Emperor’s son tried to preserve the body of the Emperor in vinegar so that he could bury him in Jerusalem, but failed and parts of the decomposed body had to be buried in different places (Antioch, Tyre and Tarsus).
    The failure of the Third Crusade presaged the failure of the Crusading effort altogether which went steadily downhill from that point.

    • Thanks: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  208. @Henry's Cat

    According to David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb, Soviet agents were reporting to Stalin about the pursuit of the bomb in the USA from the very beginning. He didn’t have to foretell anything. His own spies told him about it.

    Of course, the matter of the bomb is just the tip of the iceberg. Stalin was a very cagey politician. If he had found himself compelled to preempt Hitler’s strike with an invasion of Germany he would have realized the need to placate Churchill’s ego, or else be very quickly faced with a Western world aligned with Japan against the USSR. No, Stalin was never so arrogant as to think that he could get away with nonsense like that. Hitler on the other hand, was exactly the kind of brazen fool who made it easy for enemies to come together against him.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  209. @MarkU

    Not a very strong set of reasons.

    1) I have read huge amounts of WW2 material, none of the historians even mentioned that possibility.

    As Ron pointed out, that’s a very weak argument.

    2) The Soviet Union had been outclassed by the Germans during the Spanish civil war only two years earlier.

    The SU was technically neutral and couldn’t provide enough help to Spain thousands of miles away from its borders. Germany and Italy were much closer and lent even airpower – see the bombing of Guernica.

    3) Similarly the Soviet army was humiliated by the Finns during the Winter war and although they eventually prevailed that was only because of a massive superiority in numbers, the idea that they would willingly go to war against the Wehrmacht seems fanciful.

    The myth that the Finns lost the Winter war due to anything else but the superior military of their enemy is propaganda.

    That’s true that the Red Army had superior numbers and that the Finns defended themselves bravely, but the final success was due to the novel military tactics – mainly, focusing enormous artillery firepower on a very small territory for prolonged period of time. In the Second Battle of Summa, “so many breaches had occurred in the Mannerheim Line that the reports concerning them were virtually disregarded.” (Wikipedia).

    Actually, Suvorov himself, teaching at a British military academy, tried to model the Winter war with the latest NATO software and found that according to conventional military knowledge the SU victory was impossible. He wrote about it in one of the Icebreaker’s follow-up books, proudly calling the Red Army “my army” (He changed quite a lot after Icebreaker. After 2014 he seems to have changed back again).

    4) German accounts of the start of Barbarossa tell of huge amounts of materiel but also say that it was mostly obsolete and lacking vital parts.

    That’s true that the Red Army equipment was technically inferior, but it was mostly brand new and did not lack “vital parts” (How do you imagine that – no engine in a tank?..).

    For certain tasks in invasion you don’t need superior and thus expensive equipment; cheap and cheerful will do just fine. Quantity is often more than adequate substitute for quality.

    In quantitative terms, the tank superiority of SU was brutal. Suvorov can’t stop describing this superiority, especially in heavy tanks, of which the Red Army had hundreds and Wehrmacht had none.

    5) The Red army had still not recovered from the great purges of its generals.

    Suvorov himself became doubtful that this was a weakness and wrote a separate book on the subject. His argument was that most purged generals (as opposed to lower-rank officers) were political appointees who would do more harm than good in a war. To counter another argument frequently used to “demonstrate” that Stalin decimated the army before the war, Suvorov explains that, in general mobilisation, most cadre officers receive promotion, which accounts for them serving in their new roles for a short period of time by the war outbreak.

    But it is true that the German army, having just fought in France, Poland and Yugoslavia, had much more military experience of modern warfare.

    6) The Russian airforce, although large, was mostly obsolete and even their latest aircraft were mostly markedly inferior to Luftwaffe aircraft.

    That’s correct, even to a grotesque degree, but for a different reason. Suvorov explains that the SU produced by 1941 hundreds of thousands (!) of very simple and cheap airplanes that could only lift up, fly and bomb the target, and then just barely return back. That was their mission – the first awesome strike. The pilots received only basic training and were, uniquely, only sergeants, while in the rest of the world all pilots were officers.

    7) A nation about to go on the offensive will usually have a very good idea of where the enemy’s forces are situated, this does not seem to be the case.

    How do you quantify “a good idea”? The main objective of the Red Army was not to eliminate the specific enemy’s army units (which were mobile and could easily relocate), but to destroy the “real estate”, such as airfields, weapon and fuel depots, capture bridges and other important infrastructure. It was assumed that the army units, wherever they are, will be unable to fight for long without weapon and fuel stocks.

    It is also doubtful that the Germans had a good idea where the Red Army units were before the war, as many of these units were moved next to the border within a few days.

    8) Where were the counter-offensives? An army already preparing for an offensive would surely be capable of more effective counter-offensives than actually occurred.

    How did you arrive at this conclusion? Could you name a few counter-offensives you know? For instance, what do you say about the initial success of the Red Army attacking on the Southern front and threatening to cut the Romanian oil supply? Suvorov names this episode as a solid proof of Stalin’s plans for an offensive war.

    • Replies: @Malla
  210. @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Nonsense. If Hitler had simply adopted a Cold War stance towards the USSR while seeking alliance with Poland then after 2 decades of Cold War we would have seen Stalin dying in 1953 and Khrushchev’s later denunciation would have ruined his reputation permanently. It was because Hitler aimed at conquering eastern Europe for Aryan living space at the expense of subhuman Slavs that the general war occurred instead of just a cold war. Hitler’s attempted conquest of eastern Europe sustained Stalin’s personality-cult long past its expiration date.

  211. @Robert Konrad

    The French had almost nothing to do with the winning plan of the 1920 Battle of Warsaw. Weygand admitted as much as did De Gaulle in his memoirs. “Weygand travelled to Warsaw to take command of the Polish army, but when he met with Piłsudski the Polish leader asked “How many divisions do you bring?” Weygand had no troops, of course, and he was resented by the Polish brass. He was made an adviser to the Polish Chief of Staff, but most of his suggestions were rejected. The officers only spoke Polish around him, which he did not understand.” This is a myth that dies hard akin to the Polish cavalry charging German tanks.

    • Agree: RUR
    • Replies: @Robert Konrad
  212. @iffen

    To answer the questions in sequence.

    Hitler thought that the USSR would fall quickly like a house of cards with German victory achieved within anywhere from 3 weeks to 3 months. Hitler had always regarded the territory of Russia as the perfect place for German living space to expand. He ordered his generals to begin preparing an attack on the USSR in July 1940, when there was no Soviet military build-up on the frontier. The immediate rationale which he gave for this move was that he wanted to ruin Churchill’s hopes of eventually recovering from the defeat in the west in 1940. But as soon as he gave the order for the invasion Hitler began going to his idea of living space and planned that tens of millions of Russians would be allowed to starve in order to clear the space for German settlement. October 1941 is the first time when one notices from Hitler’s speeches that he has suddenly become aware that the USSR is going to be a tough nut to crack.

    Stalin himself was a very cagey, patient person. At the onset in 1939 he likely seems to have hoped that the West and Germany would become bogged down ala Verdun, 1916. By the fall of 1940 it was obvious that things had gone awry and Stalin was then trying to squirm for time. Hitler told Stalin that he was preparing an invasion of Britain and all of the really massive build-up of German forces on the Soviet frontier was just a way of organizing forces that would eventually be transferred to the west for an attack on Britain. Although Soviet intelligence reported that Hitler was getting ready to attack the USSR, Stalin seems to have found it hard to believe that Hitler would be so brazen. Instead he held on hoping that Hitler would seek to avoid a 2-front war and was got caught flat-footed when Hitler began Barbarossa.

    • Thanks: iffen
  213. qun says:
    @Juri

    Exactly.

    And this marxist bent is true of most published “historians” as well. Only the marxist perspective is pushed and accepted and taught. FDR was a communist dictator himself. Most of the US gov’t at this time was “collectivist” and “socialist”. FDR’s administration was shot-thru with ardent and hardened communists and marxists–as was truman’s. The massive lies told about this time period in American history–as well as the Red Thread laid down decades before under wilson–rivals the lies of pravda and the soviet revolutionaries who took over Russia.

  214. Anonymous[142] • Disclaimer says:

    Soviet struggles in the Winter War have been greatly overstated. The Finns were the second-best soldiers of the war and were defending their homeland in terrain that was quite difficult for an attacker. Still, the Soviets essentially acquired 10% of Finnish economic output and, far from being chastened or humbled by their performance, were preparing to go another round, as Molotov made clear in his trip to Berlin in late 1940.

  215. @John Johnson

    Your view fails to explain why the Soviet military was in an offensive posture on the Soviet border, which seems to be one of the main pieces of evidence for the Suvorov-McMeekin thesis. If they were planning to wait it out another year or more why didn’t they dig in defensively?

  216. Anonymous[142] • Disclaimer says:
    @The_seventh_shape

    Yes. It is very expensive to move around, supply, etc. large numbers of troops in a country the size of Russia. (Something I’m sure they’re quite aware of recently, I’m guessing this is part of the American plan of economic warfare against Russia.) The assembly of these forces was clearly not some maneuver or training.

  217. Malla says:
    @Malla

    If the Soviet Union’s subversive propaganda carried out in Germany and the rest of Europe left no room for doubt with regard to its attitude toward Germany, then the policy of the Soviet government toward Germany in the military sphere and in the field of foreign policy, even since the conclusion of pacts between Germany and Russia, makes matters even clearer. On the occasion of the delineation of spheres of interest, the Soviet government declared in Moscow to the Reich Foreign Minister that it did not intend to occupy, bolshevize or annex any of the states situated within its sphere of interest, other than territories of the former Polish State, which were at that time in a state of disintegration. In truth, however, and as the course of events has shown, the policy of the Soviet Union during this period was exclusively directed toward one goal – namely, to extend Moscow’s military power wherever the possibility presented itself in the area between the Arctic Ocean and the Black Sea, and to further spread Bolshevism throughout Europe.

    The development of this policy was carried out in the following stages:

    1. It was initiated by the conclusion of so-called assistance pacts with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in October and November 1939, and by the establishment of military bases in those countries.

    2. The next Soviet Russian move was against Finland. When the Finnish government rejected the Soviet Russian demands, acceptance of which would have meant the end of the sovereignty of an independent Finnish state, the Soviet government then set up the Kusinin Communist pseudo- government. When the Finnish people rejected any association with that government, an ultimatum was presented to Finland, and then, in late November 1939, the Red Army attacked. The Finnish-Russian peace concluded in March [1940] obliged Finland to surrender part of her southeastern provinces, which were immediately brought under Bolshevist rule.

    [MORE]

    3. A few months later – that is, in July 1940 – the Soviet Union took action against the Baltic states. Under the terms of the first Moscow treaty, Lithuania was in the German sphere of interest. In the second treaty, and at the desire of the Soviet Union, the German government relinquished its interests in the greater part of that country for the sake of peace, although it did so with a heavy heart. A strip of this territory still remained within the German sphere of interest. Following up on an ultimatum delivered on June 15, the whole of Lithuania, including the part that had remained within the German sphere of interest, was occupied by the Soviet Union without notification to the German government, so that the USSR now extended right up to the entire eastern frontier of East Prussia [Germany]. When subsequently Germany was approached on this matter, the German government, after difficult negotiations and in order to make a further effort toward reaching a friendly settlement, ceded that part of Lithuania as well to the Soviet Union.

    A short time later Latvia and Estonia were likewise occupied by military force, an action that constituted a violation of the pacts of assistance concluded with those states. Contrary to the express assurances given by Moscow, all the Baltic states were then bolshevized, and a few weeks after occupation were summarily annexed by the Soviet government. Simultaneously with the annexation, the Red Army was for the first time strongly massed against Europe throughout the entire northern sector of the Soviet Russian territory.

    Incidentally, the Soviet government thereby unilaterally cancelled the economic agreements that had been concluded between Germany and those [Baltic] states, which, according to the Moscow agreements were not to be affected.

    4. In the treaties of Moscow it had been expressly agreed in connection with the delineation of interests in the territory of the former Polish state that no kind of political agitation was to take place beyond the frontiers marking those zones of interests. Instead, the activities of the occupation authorities on both sides were to be restricted exclusively to the peaceful development of those territories. The German government possesses irrefutable proof that in spite of those agreements the Soviet Union very soon after the occupation of the territory not only permitted anti-German propaganda for consumption in the [German controlled] General Government of Poland but, in fact, supported it along with Bolshevist propaganda in the same region. Strong Russian garrisons were also transferred to these territories immediately after the occupation.

    5. While the German army was still fighting in the west against France and Britain, the Soviet Union advanced against the Balkans. Although the Soviet government had declared during the Moscow negotiations that it would never make the first move toward settling the Bessarabia question, the German government was informed on June 24, 1940, by the Soviet government that it was now resolved to settle the Bessarabia question by force. At the same time it was stated that Soviet claims also extended to Bukovina, that is, to a territory that had been an ancient Austrian crown land, had never belonged to Russia, and, moreover, had never been mentioned at the time of the Moscow negotiations.

    The German ambassador to Moscow declared to the Soviet government that its decision had come as a complete surprise to the German government, and that it would have a seriously adverse impact on German economic interests in Romania, and would also lead to disruption in the life of the large [ethnic] German settlement there, as well as for the [ethnic] German presence in Bukovina. Molotov replied that the matter was one of extreme urgency, and that the Soviet Union expected to be apprised of the German government’s attitude with regard to this question within 24 hours. In spite of this brusque action against Romania, the German government once again intervened in favor of the Soviet Union in order to preserve peace and maintain its friendship with that country. It advised the Romanian government, which had appealed to Germany for help, to yield, and recommended that it surrender Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to Soviet Russia. The affirmative answer of the Romanian government was communicated to the Soviet government by Germany, together with the Romanian government’s request to be granted sufficient time for evacuation of these large areas and the safeguarding of lives and property of the inhabitants there.
    Once again, however, the Soviet government presented an ultimatum to Romania, and, before its expiration, began on June 28 to occupy parts of Bukovina, and immediately afterward the whole of Bessarabia as far as the Danube. These territories were also immediately annexed by the Soviet Union, bolshevized, and thus literally reduced to ruin.

    By occupying and bolshevizing the entire sphere of interests in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans accorded to the USSR by the Reich government during the Moscow negotiations, the Soviet government clearly and plainly acted contrary to the Moscow agreements. In spite of this, the Reich government continued to maintain an absolutely loyal attitude toward the USSR. It refrained entirely from intervention in the Finnish war and in the Baltic question. It supported the stance of the Soviet government against the Romanian government in the Bessarabia question, and reconciled itself, albeit with a heavy heart, to the state of affairs created by the Soviet government.

    Furthermore, in order to eliminate as far as possible from the outset any divergences between the two states, it [Germany] undertook a large-scale resettlement action, whereby all [ethnic] Germans in areas occupied by the USSR were brought back to Germany. The Reich government maintained that more convincing proof of its desire to come to a lasting peace with the USSR could scarcely be given.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Zarathustra
  218. @Levtraro

    To give one example: if you watched American movies you might think that the USA defeated Nazi Germany. Certainly that’s what I grew up thinking. But the truth was that the Soviets broke the Wehrmacht, not the arsonists of the West, and that truth was only really utterable after the end of the Cold War (I recall enemy at the gates as an example of a movie from the USA describing Russian grace under pressure.). We have only recently come to appreciate the heroism of the Soviet defense of their homeland.

    It’s going to take quite a while for us to see Barbarossa as saving all of Europe from being overrun by Soviets,if that change ever comes about. When it does, it won’t be seen as a heroic action of self-sacrifice of the Germans.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  219. Malla says:
    @Malla

    As a result of Russia’s advance toward the Balkans, territorial problems in that region came up for discussion. In the Summer of 1940, Romania and Hungary appealed to Germany for help in arranging a settlement of their territorial disputes, after these divergences, stirred up by British agents, had resulted in a serious crisis at the end of August. War was imminent between Romania and Hungary. Germany, which had repeatedly been requested by Hungary and Romania to mediate in their dispute, desired to maintain peace in the Balkans and, together with Italy, invited the two states to confer at Vienna, where, at their request, it proclaimed the Vienna Arbitration Award of August 30, 1940. This established the new frontier between Hungary and Romania. In order to help enable the Romanian government to justify before its people the territorial sacrifice they were making and to eliminate any dispute in this area for the future, Germany and Italy undertook to guarantee the remaining Romanian state. Given that Russian aspirations in this area had already been satisfied, this guarantee could not in any way be taken as directed against Russia. Nevertheless the Soviet Union lodged a complaint and stated that, contrary to earlier declarations according to which its aspirations in the Balkans had been satisfied by the taking of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, it had further interests in Balkan questions, though for the time being those were not further defined.

    From that time Soviet Russia’s anti-German policy became steadily more apparent. The Reich government continued to receive ever more concrete reports, according to which negotiations that had been carried on for some time in Moscow by British ambassador [Sir Stafford] Cripps were developing favorably. At the same time the Reich government came into possession of evidence of the Soviet Union’s intensive military preparations in every sphere.

    [MORE]
    This evidence was confirmed by, among other things, a report of Dec. 17, 1940, recently found in Belgrade, by the Yugoslav military attaché in Moscow, which reads: “According to information received from Soviet sources, the arming of the air force, tank corps and artillery in accordance with experiences of the present war are in full progress and will, substantially, have been completed by August 1941. This probably also constitutes the [time] limit before which no appreciable changes in Soviet foreign policy can be expected.”

    Despite the unfriendly attitude of the Soviet Union with regard to the Balkan question, Germany made a fresh effort to come to an understanding with the USSR: the Reich Foreign Minister, in a letter to Stalin, gave a comprehensive survey of the policy of the Reich government since the negotiations in Moscow. The letter referred in particular to the following points:

    When Germany, Italy and Japan concluded the Tripartite Pact [Sept. 27, 1940] it was unanimously agreed that this pact in no sense is directed against the Soviet Union, but rather that the friendly relations of the three powers and their treaties with the USSR should remain completely unaffected by this agreement. This was also placed on record in the Tripartite Pact of Berlin. At the same time the letter expressed the desire and hope that it might prove possible jointly to clarify still further friendly relations with the USSR, as desired by the signatories to the Tripartite Pact, and to give such relations concrete form. In order to discuss these questions more fully, the Reich Foreign Minister invited Mr. Molotov to visit Berlin.

    During Molotov’s visit to Berlin [Nov. 12-13, 1940] the Reich government was forced to the conclusion that the USSR was only inclined toward genuinely friendly cooperation with the Tripartite Pact powers, and with Germany in particular, provided they were prepared to pay the price demanded by the Soviet Union. This price consisted of further penetration of the Soviet Union into North and Southeast Europe. The following demands were made by Molotov in Berlin and in subsequent diplomatic conversations with the German ambassador in Moscow:

    1. The Soviet Union desired to give a guarantee to Bulgaria and, beyond that, to conclude with her a pact of assistance on the same lines as those concluded with the Baltic states – that is, providing for [Soviet] military bases. At the same time Molotov declared that he did not wish to interfere with the internal regime of Bulgaria. A visit of Russian commissar [Arkady] Sobolev to Sofia at that time was likewise undertaken with the object of realizing this intention.

    2. The Soviet Union demanded an agreement in the form of a treaty with Turkey for the purpose of providing, on the basis of a long-time lease, a base for Soviet land and naval forces on the Bosporus and in the Dardanelles. In case Turkey did not agree to this proposal, Germany and Italy were to cooperate with Russia in diplomatic measures to be undertaken to enforce compliance with this demand. These demands were aimed at the domination of the Balkans by the USSR.

    3. The Soviet Union declared that once again that it felt itself threatened by Finland, and therefore demanded complete abandonment of Finland by Germany, which practically would have meant the occupation of that state and the extermination of the Finnish people.

    Germany naturally was unable to accept these Russian demands, which the Soviet government characterized as a pre-condition for cooperation with the Tripartite Pact powers. Thus the efforts of the Tripartite Pact powers to come to an understanding with the Soviet Union failed. The result of this German attitude was that the Soviet Union now intensified its already steadily more obvious anti-German policy, and that its increasingly closer cooperation with Britain became more clear. In January 1941 this disapproving attitude on the part of the USSR first manifested itself in the diplomatic sphere. When in that month Germany adopted certain measures in Bulgaria against the landing of British troops in Greece, the Soviet ambassador in Berlin pointed out in an official démarche that the Soviet Union regarded Bulgarian territory and the two straits as a security zone of the USSR, and that it could not remain a passive spectator of events taking place in these areas, which threatened those security interests. For that reason the Soviet government warned against the appearance of German troops on Bulgarian territory or on either of the two straits.

    In response the Reich government furnished the Soviet government with exhaustive information about the causes and aims of its military measures in the Balkans. This made it clear that Germany would prevent, with every means of her power, any attempt on the part of Britain to gain a foothold in Greece, but that it had no intention of occupying the straits, and would respect Turkish sovereignty and territory. The passage of German troops through Bulgaria could not be regarded as an encroachment on the Soviet Union’s security interests; on the contrary, the Reich government believed that those operations served Soviet interests. After carrying through its operations in the Balkans, Germany withdrew her troops from there.

    Despite this Reich government declaration, the Soviet government for its part published a declaration addressed to Bulgaria directly after the entry of German troops into that country that manifested a character clearly hostile to the German Reich, and said in effect that the presence of German troops in Bulgaria was not conducive to peace in the Balkans, but rather to war. An explanation for this attitude was found by the Reich government in incoming information, steadily increasing in scale, about ever closer collaboration between Soviet Union and Britain. Even in the face of these facts, Germany remained silent.

    Along the same lines was the assurance given by the Soviet government in March 1941 that Soviet Union would not attack Turkey in event of the latter’s joining in the war in the Balkans. According to information in possession of the Reich government, this was the result of Anglo-Russian negotiations during the visit of the British Foreign Secretary [Anthony Eden] in Ankara, whose efforts were aimed at drawing Russia closer to the British camp.

    • Replies: @Malla
  220. @The_seventh_shape

    There was clear evidence that Hitler was preparing an attack in the near-future. Before the introduction of motor vehicles in WWII it used to be common in warfare that one side would begin with its own offensive and the other side would simply attack relentlessly in order to seize the offensive. The French followed this WWI and suffered horrendous losses because defensive military technology was stronger in that war than offensive technology. By WWII the balance had shifted so that offensive technology was great enough to enable rapid advances to an unprecedented degree. But this was only vaguely grasped at the time. Soviet preparations on the eve of Barbarossa are consistent with a strategy where Stalin intended to wait and see if Hitler struck first, but then move swiftly to a counter-offensive if he did. As it happened, Hitler striking first enabled him to capture large Soviet forces without much of a fight. But we only see that retroactively.

  221. Right_On says:
    @Alfred

    They just can’t comprehend anything but American mass production – Hitler
    Unfortunately for Adolf, it was indeed American mass production that did for his U-boats. When the Allies were eventually able to use anti-submarine aircraft over a wide area, the U-boat anti-aircraft crews were surprisingly effective: almost as many planes were shot down as subs were sunk. But it’s far cheaper to replace a plane than a submarine (and fewer crew members are lost when a plane goes down) so it was a war of attrition the Germans were bound to lose.

    The final nail in the coffin was when Allied airmen realized they could circle a surfaced U-boat at a safe distance and call in a destroyer to finish the job. If the sub tried to dive, the plane would drop its bombs/depth charges.

    The Type XXI U-boat could have turned things around, but it was introduced too late.

    • Replies: @Gaspar DeLaFunk
  222. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The anti-German policy of the Soviet government was accompanied in the military sphere with a steadily increasing concentration of all available Soviet armed forces along a broad front extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Already at a time when Germany was deeply engaged in the west in the French campaign, and when only a very few German detachments were stationed in the east, the Soviet High Command began systematically to transfer large contingents of troops to the eastern Reich frontiers, with especially large deployments being identified on the borders with East Prussia and the Government General [Poland], as well as in Bukovina and Bessarabia, opposite Romania.

    Soviet garrisons facing Finland were also steadily being strengthened. Transfers of ever more new Soviet divisions from the Far East and the Caucasus to western Russia were additional measures in that regard. After the Soviet government had declared that the Baltic area, for instance, would only be occupied by very small numbers of troops, it proceeded to concentrate in that area, after the occupation had been completed, steadily increasing masses of troops, their number today being estimated at 22 divisions. It became clear that Soviet troops were being moved ever closer to the German frontier, even though the German side had adopted no military measures that might have justified such Soviet action. It is this Russian behavior that first compelled the German armed forces to adopt counter-measures. Moreover, various units of the Soviet army and air force moved up, and strong air force detachments were posted on air fields along the German border. Since early April ever more frontier violations and a steadily increasing number of incursions over German Reich territory by Russian aircraft have also been observed. The Romanian government has reported similar developments on the Romanian frontier areas of Bukovina, Moldavia and the Danube.

    Since the beginning of that year the German Armed Forces High Command has repeatedly notified the [German] foreign policy leadership of the steadily increasing menace posed against Reich territory by the Soviet army, emphasizing in that regard that only aggressive intentions could account for these deployments. These Armed Forces High Command reports were made public, with all the details.

    If there was even the slightest doubt about the aggressive nature of this Soviet deployment, they have been completely dispelled by the news that reached the German High Command in a few days. Now that the Soviet general mobilization was complete, no less than 160 divisions are deployed against Germany. The results of reconnaissance carried out in a few days had shown that the deployment of Soviet troops, and especially of motorized and armored units, has been carried out in such a way that the Soviet High Command was ready at any moment to take aggressive action at various points against the German frontier. Reports of increased reconnaissance and patrol activity as well as reports coming in daily of incidents on the frontier and outpost skirmishes between the two armies completed the picture of an extremely strained military situation, which could erupt at any moment.

    [MORE]
    News received from England about negotiations by British ambassador Cripps to establish even closer collaboration between the political and military leaders of Britain and Soviet Russia, together with the appeal by [Britain’s] Lord Beaverbrook, who at one time was anti-Soviet, to support Soviet Russia in the coming conflict by every available means, and his call for the United States to do the same, showed unambiguously what kind of a fate is being prepared for the German nation.

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  223. @TomSchmidt

    While one may hypothesize over Stalin preparing a preemptive strike to ward off Hitler’s invasion (the evidence suggests that he just planned to sit tight and only go on a counter-offensive if Hitler struck first) it is completely ridiculous to claim that Stalin ever contemplated a conquest of the whole of Europe. Doing this would only have set Stalin up for a war against the US, UK and Japan at a time when intelligence had already reported that the USA was developing an atomic bomb. No, if Stalin had decided to invade Germany then he would have done in a way that urged Churchill to land in western Europe as soon as possible so that Soviet and Allied forces could meet. Then Churchill would told Stalin to get out of Poland or else become the focus of a renewed Allied war effort, and Stalin would have had to go along.

  224. Seraphim says:
    @Ron Unz

    It is worth reminding that in 1940 British intelligence agents attempted to sabotage the delivery of oil to Germany by blowing up key installations and refineries in the Ploiești oil fields and by disrupting the main routes of oil transportation to Germany, namely the railroads, the Danube, and the ports. The connection with the planned ‘Operation Pike’ cannot be dismissed.
    Also that Soviet oil deliveries to Germany reached their highest point after the conclusion of the ‘German-Soviet Commercial Agreement’ of February 11, 1940. Between 1940 and the date of invasion Soviet Union delivered to Germany 900,000 tons of oil, 200,000 tons of cotton, 140,000 tons of manganese, 200,000 tons of phosphates, 20,000 tons of chrome ore, 18,000 tons of rubber, 100,000 tons of soybeans, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, 2,000 kilograms of platinum. Without Soviet imports, German stocks would have run out in several key products by October 1941, only three and a half months into the invasion. Germany would have already run through their stocks of rubber and grain before the first day of the invasion were it not for Soviet imports.

  225. One country invading one country (Germany invading Poland) does not a world war make.

    2 days afterward England and France with their empires declared war on Germany. There’s the start of WWII. Apparently England, maybe France too, had a treaty that said if Germany or as someone else here pointed out any European country attacked Poland, England would come to Poland’s aid by attacking within 2 weeks. Of course, it actually took England about 5 years to get around to attacking Germany, and they never did attack the USSR which also invaded Poland 3 weeks after Germany.

    I think WWII should be blamed squarely on the British, and apparently on the USSR also as I learned here.

  226. @Johnny Johnny

    Or I should say, whoever was behind the British….

  227. fnn says:
    @John Johnson

    Yes, it was very strange indeed that after 1945 the political spectrum was reduced to “free market” nonsense vs. Marxism nonsense. How do you think that happened?

  228. @Johnny Johnny

    Regarding the British attacking the USSR over Poland, in the summer of 1945 Churchill did in fact urge his officers to prepare plans for an imminent attack on the USSR over Poland. This was what Operation Unthinkable was about. Churchill’s officers rejected the idea of starting a new war in Europe months after the old one had ended and Churchill was forced to accept this. But he would not have accepted it if Stalin had been so foolhardy as to attempt the conquest of Europe which Rezun claims was afoot. In the case Churchill would have devoted his entire life towards rallying the world for a war against Stalin. It would be the only that he could preserve his image in the history books.

    Even in 1940 Churchill was already a supporter of Operation Pike which envisioned an attack on the USSR. It was only because Hitler struck in France that Pike was cancelled. Stalin’s ability to avoid a British war against himself over Poland or anything else was always dependent on a Soviet strategy which allowed Hitler to make all of the big first moves. Violating this rule would quickly have brought an Allied war down on the USSR, and that is why Stalin never contemplated doing such.

    • Replies: @Johnny Johnny
  229. @Juri

    More important than Zhukov’s memoirs is the fact that he is on record as having recommended to Stalin in late May, about 1 month before Barbarossa, that the USSR should make a preemptive attack against Hitler. This recommendation would be necessary if Stalin was following a long-term plan with a prearranged decision to invade Germany the way Rezun claims. Zhukov’s recommendation of a Soviet first strike only makes sense under the assumption Stalin was still playing a wait-and-see game one month before Hitler struck.

  230. Malla says:
    @iffen

    What Hitler thought is well covered in his private conversations with Finnish Leader Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.
    POST 113 on this page

    I had a conversation with Motolov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Motolov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to have a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to – impossible, to forestall him. There was – this was the only – because the demands that man brought up was clearly aimed to rule Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him – not publicly… (fades out).
    Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter – because I always feared – that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall – and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, then Germany would have been lost. It would have required – just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.
    In Romania we had of course- at that time – no major units.
    ……snip….
    Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations’till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because – those demands were simply naked extortion’s. They were extortion’s. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west. They could really extort everything from us.

    • Thanks: iffen
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  231. Malla says:
    @iffen

    Also from Hitler’s speech in Berlin,

    I took a decision only when I saw that Russia had reached the hour to advance against us at a moment when we had only a bare three divisions in East Prussia when twenty-two Soviet divisions were assembled there. We gradually received proof that on our frontiers one airdrome after another was set up and one division after another from the gigantic Soviet Army was being assembled there.
    …snip….
    After that I carefully watched Russia. Each division we could observe was carefully noted and counter-measures were taken. My position in May had so far advanced that I could no longer dismiss the thought of a life and death conflict. At that time I had always remained silent, and that was doubly difficult for me perhaps not so difficult with regard to the German people for they had to realize there are moments when one cannot talk if one does not wish to endanger the whole nation. More difficult….…was silence for me with regard to my soldiers, who, division by division stood on the eastern front of the Reich and yet did not know what was actually going on. And it is just on account of them I could not speak. Had I dropped one single word I would not have changed Stalin’s decision. But the possibility of surprise, which remained for me as a last weapon, would then not have existed. Any such indication, any such hint, would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of our comrades.
    I was therefore silent until the moment when I finally decided to take the first step myself. When I see the enemy levering his rifle at me I am not going to wait till he presses the trigger. I would rather be the first to press the trigger.

  232. gatobart says:

    All this debate is very interesting from a purely academic, educational, perspective but in the great scheme of things it doesn’t really matter, it doesn’t matter if Suvorov is right or not because this here is the big picture, what was really going on:

    Both Great Britain and France, along with the other European powers of the last centuries, had developed as simple predatory colonial powers. They had gotten accustomed to plunder the global South (and East) and exploit the local populations without giving anything back to them, just taking their riches, natural or man made, by force and bringing them back to their metropolis so their elites could enjoy them while leaving the crumbs to the lower classes. That is how their colonial system worked for centuries until the end of the XIX, when a new power emerged in Central Europe, a country of a people far more apt at sciences and technology than them and which threatened to not only rock but also sink their plundering boat. And that is because the Germans could became a world empire not only by simply plundering and exploiting the rest of the world but also by giving back the fruits of their technological ingenuity. In other words, Germany was threatening to become a world exporting power by selling their manufactured products to the world and that was intolerable for both France and Great Britain. The roots of both world wars were seeded right there, in the realization in London and Paris that they had to stop Germany from becoming the spoiler in their little game of plunder, thievery and slave trading. As logical, Germany had to turn her eyes to the Global South to get the raw materials it needed for her industry, so the First World war was all about closing shut this door for them. After they successfully did it in ww1, Germany tried to use the other, and only, source of raw materials, accessible to her, and that was of course Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. That constitutes, in a single paragraph, the History of both world wars, it was all about suffocating and eliminating German scientific/industrial capacity, i.e. Germany itself as a world power. At the end they allowed them be that, after defeating them in ww2, but of course, under heavy “Allied” control.

    Now, if the U.S. had kept rather distant from the first anti-German war of the West (which should be the real name of WW1) it had a much bigger role in the second, as there was a lot more at stake, even if it cost Washington a lot to decide on which side it was, because to a great extent “America” was developing in a very similar way to Germany, so we may say that the U.S. was some kind of a hybrid between the two forms of world power. The colonial, predatory side was there, as it was shown to the world during the war against Spain of 1898, which gave her as war spoils, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and on the other side, industrial development and the exporting of her manufactured products was a priority in her agenda, specially towards what “America” considered her turf, Latin America. It is well known that many in the U.S, elite were all for Germany and Nazism, most likely because they saw far more similarities between both regimes, or system than they have with the old and stale European way of just plundering of the world for all its worth. According to the book The Myth of the Good War, what finally decided FDR to take the side of Great Britain in the war was the fact that German exports were elbowing out U.S. exports in Latin American and if left alone, in a few years Germany would have become their main trade partner. So FDR decided to take Great Britain’s side, but to a price excruciatingly high for them: that of the Empire itself. That is why Churchill should be considered as a traitor rather than a hero by the Brits: because when Hitler offered GB to be a second fiddle in his European Empire he preferred to hand it all to “America’ practically for free.

    Now, to realize to what extent the scientific and technological ingenuity of the Germans would have made of them the undisputed world superpower one only has to check on titles like:

    One of the greatest heists of all time: The theft of German patents after World War II
    The Great Patents Heist
    Robbery of German patents by Western Allies in WW2

    To put it summarily, the Allies stole tens of thousands of patents from a defeated Germany after ww2. Practically the entire scientific and technological revolution of the post war period, the 40s, the 50s and the 60s, is not an “American Revolution” as many believe, but the German Revolution of the 20s and 30s.

    Where all this leaves Stalin and the USSR…? I don’t know but one thing is certain, and that is that Hitler committed the biggest mistake of his life and probably the greatest error in Human History by invading the USSR. Had he given assurances to Stalin that he didn’t have any intention of doing harm to his country, as the peaceful combination of Soviet natural riches with German industrial know how would have greatly benefited both countries, and the world. That is why it doesn’t matter if Suvorov is right or not. Hitler was the one to err, and big time.

    P.D. all those growing up in South America in the 50s and 60s greatly admired German manufactured products, specially electronics and heavy machinery, considering them far superior than anything “American” or European.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  233. Malla says:
    @romanempire

    One thing to remember is that Stalin broke the Soviet Finnish non-aggression pact as well as the Soviet Polish non-aggression act.
    The Soviet–Finnish Non-Aggression Pact was a non-aggression treaty signed in 1932 by representatives of Finland and the Soviet Union. The pact was unilaterally renounced by the Soviet Union in 1939 after having committed a deception operation in Mainila in which it shelled its own village and blamed Finland.
    The Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact was a non-aggression pact signed in 1932 by representatives of Poland and the Soviet Union. The pact was unilaterally broken by the Soviet Union on September 17, 1939, during the Soviet invasion of Poland. The act was extended to 1945 before the Soviet invasion.
    So it was stupid for Hitler to trust Stalin with the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in the beginning. Immediately after the act the USSR acted menacing to Germany while Germany followed the pact in letter and spirit till the pre-emptive strike.
    Stalin also discontinued the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, and coolly invaded the Japanese Empire once Germany & Italy were defeated. However Stalin got a lot of encouragement from the Americans to invade the weakened Japanese Empire. On April 5, 1945, the Soviet Union denounced the pact with Japan and the wording of the denunciation suggested that the Soviet Union wished to see the treaty go out of effect immediately, and Time magazine reported that the Soviet Foreign Commissar’s tone indicated that the Soviet Union might soon go to war against Japan. When Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato pressed him, Molotov assured him that the treaty would remain in force until April 1946. On May 8 or 9, 1945, the date depending on the time zone, Nazi Germany surrendered, which ended the war in Europe and started the secret three-month countdown for the Soviets to start hostilities against Japan. During the Soviet invasion, Japanese forces on the Asian mainland were unprepared to resist such a sudden change of events and were defeated.
    The Pact with Japan was signed in 1941 by Stalin while Soviet troops were amassing at the Western border, Stalin wanted to make sure that in his conquest of Central and Western Europe, the Japanese would be kept at bay from the Eastern Border. Later he back stabbed the Japanese once Germany was defeated and attacked. Stalin’s track record is no good.

  234. @Rahan

    Mostly agree. However, although Leopold II’s exploitation of the Congo was certainly ruthless, it is a politically correct myth that it was genocidal in intent. That would not even have made sense, as Leopold could not possibly have hoped to attract enough Europeans to his private colony in equatorial Africa if it became depopulated.

  235. Seraphim says:
    @iffen

    What did Hitler think?
    Well, I return to the choice of the name of Operation Barbarossa.
    Friedrich Barbarossa was the hero of a myth according to which he did not die, but sleeps in a hidden chamber underneath the Kyffhäuser hills in the Harz Mountains. He sits motionless at a stone table and his beard has supposedly grown so long over the centuries that it grew through the table. As in the similar legends of the ‘sleeping hero’, the ‘sleeping monarch’, Barbarossa supposedly awaits Germany’s hour of greatest need, when he will emerge from his hiding once again from under the hill to revive the ‘Reich’. The presence of ravens circling the Kyffhäuser summit is said to be a sign of Barbarossa’s continuing presence.
    The myth knew a boost in popularity in the years leading to the unification of Germany and Barbarossa became a symbol of German unity and of German greatness, a messianic leader of a Crusade fighting the ‘Evil’ and annihilating its enemies.
    Hitler personally changed the name of the initial plan (Operation Otto) indication of what he really thought. The Soviets who knew in detail these plans thanks to their spies in the German High Command couldn’t fail to decipher the hidden message.

    • Replies: @iffen
  236. @EugeneGur

    Your ilk conveniently forgets the fate that awaited “liberated” Russian prisoners of war.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  237. LeoB says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Well, “Suvorov” is in fact Rezun. The very fact that a person with the last name Rezun… Every sensible person knows well who pushes LGBT into mainstream…

    what is so special about the last name “Rezun” and how does it relate to LGBT? or do you imply that Ukrainians are the ones pushing the gay agenda?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  238. @Right_On

    It was not commonly known at the time that Hitler loved the kazoo and played it to calm himself whenever there were tense moments. His favorite song was purported to be “I Enjoy Being A Girl.”

  239. LeoB says:
    @Verymuchalive

    there’s extensive info on the huge role that Lend-Lease played in the Soviet victory in Mark Solonin’s books (which I mentioned in another post) – but they’re not translated into English.

    • Thanks: Verymuchalive
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  240. Thank you Laurent Guyénot for yet another great book review concerning a topic which our post WW II generations so desperately needs to study up on after almost 80 years of constant brainwashing since 1945 and even before. Yet still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.

    It is to be anticipated that ((they)) will in due course be sending out their Agent Smiths to mess with you. A growing number of those who have broken their conditioning are sick and tired of all the current the propaganda, mind control, war mongering, and white genocide based in substantial part on ((their)) historical lies about WW II. Good thing that more and more are starting to wake up and gaining confidence to stand up and speak out thanks to dedicated public education efforts such as yours.

    In any event, I found another article about the the Suvorov Thesis which both you and Ron Unz have written about; this one by John Wear:

    Stalin’s Preparations For An Offensive War In The Summer of 1941 To Make Europe A Soviet-Communist Continent
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/stalins-preparations-offensive-war-summer-1941-make-europe-soviet-communist-continent/

    Our western nations should never have taken part in that stinking war which effectively shut down Lindberg’s anti-war America First Movement. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were turned to the Dark Side and took the Western World along with them. Am looking forward to more of your articles which are helping to wake up the Sheeple and encouraging, by example, the growing resistance against our ancient foe.

    Thanks again Lauren and thanks also to Ron Unz for making this discussion possible.

  241. @Anonymous

    the Germans twice tried to come to an agreement with the Soviet government about the treatment of prisoners and was rebuffed both times

    The answer was probably: “get out of my country and you can have your prisoners back”

  242. JM says:
    @glib

    “Russia was way behind in its development, but wanted to hurry up and invade Germany…”

    In fact Bolshevik theory held that Russian development (still highly retarded in terms of living standards of the masses, even after 60 years of Communism, let alone in the 20’s & 30’s) could only proceed by generalized revolution, including and particularly, in Europe and of that, particularly in the most advanced nation, Germany. It isn’t at all fanciful to imagine that, notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, that was always part of the agenda. It was just a matter of picking the right time for it…the sharpest divisions between the nations of the West since WW I made it possible.

    Communist tactics of internal revolution in Germany (etc) had failed in the 20’s and 30’s; now it was time for military means.

  243. Wally says:
    @John Johnson

    said:
    “The Nazis had millions of Soviet prisoners and let them die of exposure and starvation.
    They just put them in giant pens and let them die.
    Why would that be a surprise? Hitler planned on killing off millions of Slavs. Leningrad was only the beginning. They were going to cut off the food supplies of Russia and let the whole country starve. They didn’t want to rule over Russians. What they wanted was the land and didn’t give a damn about the people there. In fact Hitler viewed the Slavs as racial enemies that he had the right by nature to kill.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan”

    Oh yawn. You have no proof for any of that silly nonsense & propaganda..
    There was no Hunger Plan, period. I challenge you to show us this “Hunger Plan” in authentic German documents. You cannot.
    Instead you give us a laughable Zionist dominated Wikipedia link.
    You have no proof that Hitler “planned to kill millions of Slavs”. That’s laughable. In fact had he wanted to he certainly could have.
    recommended:
    Revisionism and the ‘Hunger Plan’: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13508
    Did Hitler consider Slavs / Eastern Europeans to be “Subhuman” or racially inferior?:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12690
    VIDEO: Eisenhower Murdered Over One Million German Soldiers AFTER the War Thomas Goodrich Enhanced Video (9:37 Min) : https://codoh.com/library/document/eisenhower-murdered-over-one-million-german-soldie/en/
    Eisenhower’s POW death camps:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12370&p=91796&hilit=eisenhower#p91796
    and even more:https://www.unz.com/?s=eisenhower&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Thanks: Schuetze, HeebHunter
    • Replies: @Schuetze
  244. glib says:
    @WHAT

    Since however this theory never passes the motive test, nor simple military strategy, why read Isaev? Cui bono is a much more compact argument (the Germans were after resources which the British and US had), plus waging a defensive war closer to home is strategically infinitely sounder. My conclusion is that this was not a defensive war.

    There is also the fact that Hitler never won an election, but the president appointed him anyway, a trick used so many times in recent decades in nations dominated by the West (the last 5 Italian PM, just to cite a few, but of course also the last German one). And these guys always come in with a mission. Why not Hitler? And he was allowed to develop a benign economy for a while, to build up the nation. Seeing similar facts today does help me sort past facts, for which I can not see eventual ramifications.

    Then there is the simple fact that England, at that point, had bombed Germany, but Russia had not. Who in his right mind starts a giant war before taking care of those who are bombing the country right now?

    Finally, for someone who was playing the role of Western puppet, Stalin has some things not quite right. For one he is demonized far more than Lenin, even though Stalin sought development at home primarily. And he did preside over much demographic and economic expansion, with both growing before and after the war (difficult to grow either with millions of invaders within the country), and growing faster than any leader achieved in the prior 50 years, or after. They don’t do this (demonization) to those who did them favors, say a Berlusconi or a Sarkozy or a Roncalli.

  245. @John Johnson

    Well, it just seems very un-Russian and very un-Stalin. And Stalin had nothing to gain from pressing an attack. Time was on his side, Germany not having oil and being in long term conflict with British Empire.

    Imho, this story is wishful thinking. My own opinion is that Europe needs a strong Germany. And that Germany has to come make peace with its own history. And has to learn to withstand the American malicious story telling about Germany’s history. However, this is not the way to do it.

    I believe that Stalin’s plan A was for Germany and Britian+France to fight one another to pulp. To make their own societies ripe for communist revolution. After Germany defeated B+F easy, it would have been crazy for Stalin to try to attack Germany. While on the other hand, Germany saw itself in a war of attrition against the British Empire, without good access to the world markets. And most critically oil. Hence, decided to take it from USSR. Russia had been a walk in the park in WW1 and there was several indications it would be even weaker this time around.

  246. @LeoB

    Mr Solonin seems a very interesting historian, but unfortunately, apart from a few chapters in his website, none of his work is available in English.
    His works have been translated into Polish, German, Czech, Estonian, Lithuanian and Romanian languages.

    He is a supporter of Suvarov and by definition a critic of the Great Patriotic War hagiography still being promoted in Russia. What is even more striking is how, apart from Suvarov’s 2 books themselves, virtually no books by Suvarov’s defenders have been translated into English. This does seem to be a deliberate policy.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  247. @John Johnson

    This is incorrect.

    The British not only shared Ultra with the Soviets but they warned about the exact invasion date. This is because they expected the Soviets to lose and wanted to give them a chance. Stalin wouldn’t believe it and bought Hitler’s lie that the Allies were trying to goad them into a war. German soldiers actually went across the line and warned villages on the day before the attack and Stalin still refused to put his troops into a defensive position.

    No. Gast was giving the false impression that the British were in full co-operation with the Soviets back in 1940, and that they were sharing all their intelligence with them on a basis of full disclosure. Thats nonsense. What actually happened was that Churchill sent a letter to Stalin warning about the possibility of a German invasion in 1941. And even here they got the date wrong, saying it would happen on May 15, instead of June 22.

    Most of their information was based on decrypts of the Enigma cipher via ULTRA. But the British never disclosed the source of their info. (It was called ULTRA because it was just that secret) This kindof full disclosure didn’t happen until long after the Soviets joined the Allies.

    In any case the US would still have had the nuke in 1945. The US most likely would have demanded a return to borders in order to reduce the risk of a future US/German empire war.

    Hitler already tried that. Germany attempted to make peace with Britain in 1939, 1940, and in 1941. On the last occasion, the Germans even offered to pull out of France and the Low countries in exchange for British neutrality. All of these offers were unambigously rejected.

    https://www.realhistorychan.com/hitlers-peace-proposals.html

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433733/How-Nazis-offered-peace-treaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html

  248. @Malla

    Absolutely accurate account of the usual treachery and duplicity of the British towards Germany. Little did they know that their empire would dissolve all according to American planning and the new world order, even then, would be the project of and led by, the U.S. It’s still under way now. The citizens of the U.S. are as expendable as can be to the interests of the globalists as almost every recent event should convincingly demonstrate to those who are paying attention..

    • Agree: HdC, Malla
  249. @Malla

    To gauge what Hitler actually thought at the time he launched the attack on the USSR one must ignore all statements made after October 1941 and focus only on those private statements made in the run-up to and early months of Barbarossa. It is perfectly clear that when Hitler launched the attack he was expecting an easy victory that would be finished by September at the latest. Despite making a public formal charge that Stalin was about to invade Germany, nothing in any of Hitler’s memos supports this as a motive. Instead Hitler talks about how the war fully prove the Aryan racial superiority over the subhuman Slavs and Germany will acquire a vast new living space for its people.

    The later statements which Hitler made to Mannerheim only came about when it was obvious that the war in the east was going to be a challenge. The record of Hitler’s comments with Mannerheim shows him blatantly lying and claiming that the Germans had captured 30,000 Soviet tanks within just a few months. The Soviets had a large force for sure, but nothing remotely close to a size that would allow Hitler to quickly capture 30,000 tanks. 3,000 would have been quite plausible, 30,o00 is BS. Hitler was simply trying to cover his rear-end by retroactively presenting himself as someone who had been moved to strike by Stalin’s aggressiveness. But the record of all of Hitler’s statements prior to the launching of the campaign shows that this was not his motive.

    Incidentally, anyone who reads through Hitler’s recorded statements will know that he has a long record of inflating figures. At the time of the Battle of the Bulge he tried telling his officers that the USA had suffered on the order of 800,000 casualties, an absolutely preposterous claim. Also in the early days of the war in September 1939 the German invasion was invoked among Poles to incite a massacre which killed what estimates say were anywhere from 2,000 to 5,800 Germans in Poland. Hitler’s later statements publicized the false claim that the Poles had killed 58,000 Germans, aa gross inflation which resulted from taking the higher estimate (5,800) and adding a zero. These examples are why one can’t afford to uncritically cite Hitler’s later conversations with Mannerheim. It would be like uncritically citing statements made George Bush II after the USA was bogged down in Iraq. A retroactive cover-up is all you get.

    • Replies: @Malla
  250. @gatobart

    While there was a general sense of economic rivalry among the powers in the early 20th century, this was mostly pushed by Germany. When Bismarck was in office the German economy expanded the way that China has penetrated around the world since 1978. Yet there were no alliances against Germany during Bismarck’s tenure in office. In 1890 Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck and began vocally talking about building a German navy that would surpass Britain while demanding that Germany be given colonies. He challenged France to a saber-rattling duel over Morocco, claiming that Germany needed more African colonies despite the fact that German exports had done very well under Bismarck without any formal colonies.

    It was from this reckless behavior by Kaiser Wilhelm II that alliances against Germany began to form. Apologists for the Kaiser have simply played up the point that no evidence exists to show that he had a coherent plan for starting a general war in 1914. That’s true enough. The plan in 1914 was to support an Austro-Hungarian war on Russia’s ally Serbia and thereby humiliate Russia. But when the confrontation led to a general war that was probably more Wilhelm II had intended. None of this changes the fact that all of the initiatives which led to the network of alliances that existed in 1914 began with German initiatives after Bismarck had been given the boot.

    Likewise there would have been no WWII if Hitler had simply been concerned about recovering German-inhabited regions like Danzig and the Sudetenland. Hitler tore apart the Munich agreement and marched across Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939, because he did not want to merely acquire the Sudetenland or Danzig. His avowed aim was the conquest of living space in eastern Europe and for this he needed to go well beyond Munich. The British guarantee to Poland came about because of Hitler’s violation of Munich. If Hitler had simply adhered to the Munich Pact while claiming that Germany needed a route to Danzig then Chamberlain would have supported his claims and there would have been no declaration of war over Poland. The Poles would have been forced to cede Danzig just as Benes was forced cede the Sudetenland at Munich.

    Then Hitler could have spent the next 2 decades maintaining an armed peace with Stalin just as the West maintained an armed peace of 4 decades during the Cold War. By 1956 Stalin would have been dead and replaced with someone like Khrushchev who would have shredded Stalin in public. But this was not Hitler’s goal. The conquest of a giant territory in the east, with tens of millions of Slavs dying of famine in order to clear the way for German settlers, was his goal. It was that goal which not only motivated Barbarossa but which shaped the subsequent character of the war in the east, making it possible for Stalin to rally Russians around himself.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @gatobart
    , @RUR
  251. Souza says:

    I am Brazilian, live in South America and pretty much like to read articles at UNZ.COM.

    But this one is completely crazy. There are three assassins here: Hitler in the first place; Stalin in second; and the Author in third.

    How can UNZ.Com published such a trash writing? Nazi Germany is fine? What free world?

    Did the U.S. decisively help the U.S.S.R. to destroy the Nazi Germany? I don’t think so.

    I am sorry that you published this article in the eve of 76th celebration of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War. It is disrepectful to the 50 million people who perished in the WWII.

    • Thanks: Robert Konrad
    • Replies: @MarkNiet
  252. @Patrick McNally

    I feel like one should organize all the different points and aspects people make here and see what pattern or result comes out…

    The only thing about Operation Pike is in 1940 the British and French militaries were a joke, as evidenced by being defeated by Germany in weeks….how were they going to invade and defeat the USSR? Even after the war? Only if Churchill pulled America into it, which is what happened. But then all the big brains in the Allies should have known not to be providing gobs of supplies to the USSR throughout the war….all the threads should be figured out in some sort of graph to find out where they start and end and how they intertwine.

    What about the idea that Germany had developed it’s own independent banking system prior to the war, and that was the reason it had to be wiped out?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  253. anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @Serge Krieger

    And what fool would think that you are an objective critical thinker?

  254. @Malla

    Bukovina?
    What does it means?
    Buk means oak.
    Bukovina means Oak land
    It means that land was inhabited by Slavs.

    • Replies: @Marcali
  255. RUR says:
    @Rahan

    “take back lost Russian Empire territory (Finland, Poland, the Baltics), ”

    Poland has never been a legitimate part of Russian Empire, initially, before 1860, Russian Empire and Poland – under Russian pressure and as a result of Polish Revolution (proclamation of 3 may costitution) – created an Unia that is a dual state… after Polish 1860 uprising parts of Poland were incorporated into Russian Emire as a province… on the same grounds or even more legitimately Poland also could claim some parts of Russian territory, Ukraine and Belarus with Lithuania amd Latvia…

  256. RomanGreg says:

    Hitler did in fact want Germany to become a world empire through attainment of living space and creating some kind of German-dominated version of a European Union. Even Nigel Farage mentioned that EU creation used to be one of the goals of the German Nazis. By the way, already during the First World War Germany had expansionist goals of living space. So this McMeekin idea of Germany being so innocent and bad Stalin does not take notice of this fact.

    • Agree: RUR
  257. RomanGreg says:

    Actually because of the Second World War, United States of America left the great depression and became a superpower by making the Dollar into the world reserve currency. The results of the Second World War were even more beneficial for America than they were for the Soviet Union. America even attained huge bases in Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea at the end of the Second World War. America emerged by 1945 more powerful than it was in 1939. Roosevelt did not take America down, he made America more powerful than it ever was before.

  258. JackOH says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Likewise there would have been no WWII if Hitler had simply been concerned about recovering German-inhabited regions like Danzig and the Sudetenland.

    Hitler tore apart the Munich agreement and marched across [the non-German-speaking parts of] Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939 . . . .

    Patrick, I pretty much agree 100%.

    British Ambassador to Berlin Sir Nevile Henderson (the one “l” Nevile of the time) more or less says that the explicit British policy of appeasing Nazi Germany’s reasonable demands for the rectification of the Versailles Treaty’s denial of “self-determination” to Germans cracked when Hitler went to Prague.

    Hitler’s blunder is worth telling and re-telling. At a stroke, Hitler embarrassed and humiliated the very elements in the British foreign policy establishment that were most sympathetic to his demands. He emboldened the Germanophobes, such as Vansittart, and squandered the surprising goodwill enjoyed by Germany among a broad range of Britons, among them former Prime Minister David Lloyd-George, Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists, British industrialists, and the ordinary Englishmen who thought “Jerry” had got too much of a bad deal at Versailles. The thuggish browbeating of Czech leader Hacha into accepting German terms was a red flag to the British, who advised the Poles to not send a plenipotentiary to Berlin in August 1939 to settle the Danzig issues,

    Sir Nevile even eye-gouged Hitler in late August 1939 by telling the Fuehrer that, given the treacherous nature of the Soviets, perhaps the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement would leave Germany worse off than if Britain and France had inked a treaty with Moscow.

    Hitler did much good within Germany, and his politics of “national solidarity” offer a good counter to some of the more odious aspects of the world we live in today.

    But, I don’t know what to think about a man who can’t distinguish the tactics that worked against his domestic adversaries, who commanded no armies and navies, from his foreign antagonists, who did command armies and navies.

    .

    • Replies: @RUR
    , @bronek
  259. RomanGreg says:

    By the way, this McMeekin is accused of blaming Russia wrongly for the First World War and taking an excessively pro-Ottoman and pro-Austrian position on First World War.

  260. Ron Unz says:

    I just began reading the new McMeekin book yesterday, and it really seems excellent.

    He obviously had to tread very carefully, but it’s very nice to see that after more than thirty years, he’s now managed to bring the Suvorov Hypothesis in from the cold, while providing a great quantity of additional documentary material that fully confirms its essential correctness. McMeekin’s book received glowing praise from numerous leading mainstream historians, so by implication Suvorov is now being incorporated into our accepted history.

    I was very pleased that Laurent said he’d discovered the issue from my own 2018 article, and it looks like my own judgment has now been entirely validated. Here’s the link for those who want to read it:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    I was also very pleased to see that McMeekin gives a great deal of attention to the planned 1940 Allied attack against Soviet Russia, which was only halted by Hitler’s conquest of France. As far as I can tell, he’s provided the only account of that decisive turning point published in any Western history book in the last 70-odd years. Indeed, he plausibly argues that Stalin’s closely-related effort to seek peace with Finland was probably the most important decision he made during the entire war:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

    I think this also tends to greatly increase the likelihood that the rest of my long analysis of World War II is also probably correct:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

  261. RUR says:
    @Alfred

    “Napoleon’s army started its retreat from Moscow long before Winter – on October 19, 1812. His army was not defeated by the Russian winter.”

    Russian commander-in-chief Kutuzov after the Borodino battle played hide and seek as a hare with Napoleon .. the main cause of the retreat was hunger. The Russians then conducted rather partisan warfare

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Seraphim
  262. Preempt war are most of the time absolute necessity.
    Germany preemptively attacked Soviet union.
    It did not work out precisely as Germans intended.
    US did learn of preemptive strategy from Hitler.
    Than US preemptively did attack Lebanon, Iraq, Libya,and Syria.
    Now US is working out preemptive war strategy on Russia.
    Preemptive wars are the fashion rage of the the Era.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  263. @Cking

    “Hitler saw that he was duped, reacted quickly, as the invasion of Russia became necessary.”

    Starting a war on two fronts. What could possibly go wrong!

    Then again Hitler thought that German soldiers were the equal of eight Russian soldiers.

    This is what happens when idiots control a country.

    Unfortunately the German people/country paid a terrible price for the bad decisions of a megalomaniac.

  264. Well?
    It is all B.S. here.
    It is true that Stalin was upset by loss of Russian Czarist territories after WW1
    So he was arming Russia to the teeth because he wanted all those territories back.
    That Stalin wanted to attack Germany is total stupidity of idiots.

  265. All through all history Russia was never open aggressor. Russia was always rather opportunist waiting behind the bushes. And so is Putin if you follow his policies.

    • Replies: @Marcali
  266. RUR says:
    @JackOH

    “Likewise there would have been no WWII if Hitler had simply been concerned about recovering German-inhabited regions like Danzig and the Sudetenland.”

    Hitler and Germany recovered German-inhabited regions of Silesia after ww1, as for Danzig, the German population of the city was artficially increased by the numerous German refugees fleeing from communist Russia and by connecting the city with the rest of Prussia and the other German states (BTW then Prussia was mainly Slavic speaking state) by the railway, which led to Germanization of the city in the 19th century… Historically and legitimately Grmany had no right to these territories they seized, including Czech Sudetenland…

    And it should be remebered that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk

    “Danzig was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793,[55] in the Second Partition of Poland. Both the Polish and the German-speaking population largely opposed the Prussian annexation and wished the city to remain part of Poland.[56] The mayor of the city stepped down from his office due to the annexation,[57] and also notable city councilor Jan (Johann) Uphagen, historian and art collector, whose Baroque house is now a museum, resigned as a sign of protest against the annexation.[58] An attempted student uprising against Prussia led by Gottfried Benjamin Bartholdi [de] was crushed quickly by the authorities in 1797.[59][60][61] ”

    So such claims mean that Germany is evrywhere, where Germans settle…

  267. @Malla

    “And what did the filthy whores get for their services to jew? Britain lost its empire and is now full of feral black and Pakistani gangs brought in by jews. Its girls getting raped by barbaric bottom of the barrel Pakistani men. The USSR collapsed and jew oligarchs looted it out nice and easy. Sold ex-Soviet women in meat markets of the Middle East. The USA is being used as a psycho battering ram by its jew lords, a nation full of drugs and a broken shit society thanks to jew media. USA is about to collapse and maybe turn Commie, Murica will enjoy the Bolshevism/Communism it clandestinely pushed on others”

    You do make some good points. The USA is a divided country and only itz immense propaganda machine and police/military force is keeping it together.

    • Replies: @Malla
  268. @Ron Unz

    I am indebted to you own articles and again this one for introducing me to Suvarov. It adds to the intriguing might-have-beens. But does it tell us anything important, and, if so, by what criterion? Would you care to summarise why it is important, why it matters?

    I would immediately concede the importance of discovering that Hitler would have avoided starting the war if it was not for the justified fear that the Soviet Union would attack Germany and perhaps overrun Europe. But that seems ruled out by the insouciance, maybe cunning, when he eliminated Poland as a buffer state over one or two petty and not urgent issues and thereby made it possible for Germany and the USSR to invade each other. At best Hitler was a dangerous chancer guilty of starting WW2. He had a vision of Lebensraum giving Germans the sort of living space and resources they did so well with when they emigrated to America. N’est-ce pas?

  269. @Ron Unz

    Of course I believe war between Germany and the USSR was virtually inevitable.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  270. @LeoB

    or do you imply that Ukrainians are the ones pushing the gay agenda?

    Of course not. I am talking about real forces. Ukraine is just a pawn in the game the forces behind the Empire are playing, disposable and not particularly important from their standpoint. Ukrainians who support current Kiev regime are useful idiots, nothing more.

    These forces (often called globohomo, even though homos are also nothing more than useful idiots) aim at world domination, and therefore push any lies they consider useful. Particularly lies that have a chance to discredit those countries (like Russia, China, Iran, or even smaller fish like Venezuela and Nicaragua) and people who resist their push. That’s the only connection between false LGBT and false Rezun narratives: they are pushed by the same scum for the same purpose.

  271. Anonymous[293] • Disclaimer says:

    In a so high gathering of hystorian I would draw your attention to the similarity with the actual moment. I agrre with you:
    Putin (Stalin) is planning to conquer West Europe, He is gathering his troops on the doorstep of Europe “encircling” Nato (Germany, Italy, Romania etcc..) which is trying to break the russian besiege ammassing its troop and “defensive missile base ” at the Russia borders in a purely defensive stance.

    In fact the defense budget of RUSSIA ( USSR ) is one fifth of NATO (Germany UK and USA)

    So for Stalin like Putin it would be suicidial to attack the west. As the deed demonstrated neither Stalin nor Putin are dumb.

    https://www.rt.com/news/523455-australia-joint-military-drills-japan-us-france/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/523004-nato-european-defender-2021/

  272. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    … and then there is the most-famous “pre-emptive” war of 1967, Israel’s attack on its Arab neighbors, planned and unilaterally launched by Israel with extensive US complicity supplied by their man in Washington, Lyndon B. Johnson.
    That “pre-emptive” myth needs thorough debunking.

    • Agree: AnonFromTN
  273. Anonymous[778] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    No one gives a fuck what you think about anything.

    • Replies: @WIzard of Oz
  274. Marcali says:
    @LeoB

    There are some fascinating articles and chapters of books by Mark Solonin available here:

    http://www.solonin.org/en

  275. Alfred says:
    @RUR

    the main cause of the retreat was hunger

    Correct.

    The peasants who farmed around Moscow stopped supplying the city with food. No Russians were waiting to sign surrender documents. That option never entered their heads. The nobles simply retreated to their estates.

    During the retreat, the French chose to go back the same way they had come. But all that route and 20 miles on either side had already been stripped of all food and fodder. That was their choice. They could have retreated a different way and been able to feed better themselves and their horses.

    Most wars are won or lost by how well logistics are managed. When your army uses horses, hay becomes of critical importance.

    • Agree: RUR
  276. Marcali says:
    @John Johnson

    Out of the killed Russians rose a force of more than 800,000 who served against Communism in different formations. One of them was Vlasov’s:

    The Smolensk Declaration (December, 1942) by General Vlasov
    An appeal by the Russian Committee to the men and officers of the Red Army, to the whole Russian nation, and to the other nations of the Soviet Union.
    Friends and Brothers!
    BOLSHEVISM IS THE ENEMY OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE. It has brought countless disasters to our country and finally has involved the Russian people in a bloody war waged in others’ interests. This war has brought unheard-of sufferings to our Motherland. Millions of Russians have already paid with their lives for Stalin’s criminal attempts to seize world-wide power to the profit of Anglo-American capitalists. Millions of Russians have been crippled and have lost their ability to work forever. Women, old people and children are dying of cold, starvation and because the work demanded of them is beyond their strength. Hundreds of Russian cities and thousands of villages have been destroyed, blown up and burned on Stalin’s orders.
    Defeats such as those experienced by the Red Army have never happened before in the history of our country. In spite of the selflessness of the troops and officers and the bravery and self-sacrifice of the Russian people, battle after battle has been lost. The fault lies with the rottenness of the whole of the Bolshevik system, and the incompetence of Stalin and his general staff.
    At this very moment, when Bolshevism has shown itself to be incapable of organising the country’s defenses, Stalin and his clique make use of terror and lying propaganda to continue to drive people to their deaths, for they want to remain in power, at least for a while, regardless of the cost in blood to the Russian people.

    Andreyev, C. (1987) ‘The Smolensk Declaration’, in Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigré Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–209.

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  277. Alfred says:
    @EugeneGur

    all the roads in Russia lead to Moscow

    I think you meant railway lines – which are were far more important for moving goods and soldiers at that time. 🙂

    What you wrote is undoubtedly correct. However, the Soviets were adept and capable of swiftly changing their approach and creating new routes.

    For example, they maintained their industrial capacity by moving it over the Urals.

    Can you imagine the Americans trying to move their industry from east of the Mississippi to west of it at that time? This was an amazing feat all by itself.

    In a similar way, the Soviets quickly build new railway lines to bypass the German advance.

    In recent times, we can see how the Russians reacted to gas transport blackmail by the Ukrainians. North Stream 2 is only a part of it. Pipelines were built to China and through Turkey.

    When Ukraine cut off Crimea, they quickly built a bridge to Crimea. It is the longest bridge in Europe (19 kilometers). It has 4 car lanes and 2 railway lines.

    Underestimating the Russians’ competence seems to be endemic in the West.

    Rail Transport In The Soviet Union During World War II

    Below is a railway map from 1941. There was plenty of redundancy in their railway network.

  278. Anonymous[205] • Disclaimer says:

    Zhukov’s post-war statements, like most of the surviving players, should be considered in the light of self-serving.

    Another interesting Russian book here is Stalin’s Folly by Pleshakov. He agrees an attack was being planned, but probably closer to 1942. Stalin basically froze in the spring/summer of 1941 when it became clear the Germans were going to beat him to the punch. Soviet actions dithered between accelerating the plan and indecision. Stalin’s well-known withdrawal in the days after the invasion are indicative of someone who knew his plans had the real potential to blow up in his face (which is exactly what happened), not someone demoralized by the betrayal of a former ally (as the official account claims).

  279. HdC says:
    @Commentator Mike

    No, of course not. But Britain was getting ready to invade Norway and Denmark. And Germany, with considerable justification, thought that to permit this was a thoroughly bad idea.

  280. haha says:

    What a tangled web of deceit is being woven in this “debate” on who was more evil, Stalin or Hitler, and who was planning to attack whom first. Never mind the historical fact that it was Germany that attacked the USSR. Never mind the inconvenient history that Britain and France declared war on Germany pursuant to an unconditional guarantee they had given Poland. Stalin had his evil ambitions, but Mr. Churchill never had any ulterior motive, bless his booze-addled heart.

    What comes out of this debate is simply this: Britain and the “free world” (a.k.a as “The West”) is inherently pristine and pure – noble beyond comparison. Stalin is long gone but see how the evil Russians continue to “invade” and commit aggression (without firing bullets). And now they have been joined by the yellow peril in “threatening international order”.

    WW3 may well be in the making and WW2-related historical “debates” like this only serve to absolve in advance those who may, wilfully or accidentally, start it.

    • Agree: Robert Konrad
    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  281. And concerning this guy Rezun or rather Rezen (what means in Slavic languages Beef stake)
    Is just another arse licker. When he escaped to west he knew what West like to hear so he obliged.
    Now the idiotic west is taking him as serious historian.
    The question is! Can we get more stupid? I would say absolutely not.

  282. @haha

    British and French were salivating for German colonies of Africa.

  283. Souza says:
    @MarkNiet

    Beautiful view of Dresden before 1945. There always have been rougue elements within the US and the UK.
    Such elements torched millions all over the world.
    Now they want to erase mankind because they do not accept the rise of Asia.
    ¡No pasarán!

  284. EugeneGur says:
    @but an humble craftsman

    What are you talking about exactly? And what is my “ilk”?

  285. Malla says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Not true at all. Hitler’s conversation with Mannerheim completely matches his speech. No mixing words here. It seems alike an honest conversation. Hitler in his speech says that there was no anti-Russian propaganda after the Soviet German pact. If there were anti-Soviet propaganda in Germany and he would have said that in his speech he would have seemed like a fool. But unfortunately it seems the other side did not keep the promise.
    It looks more like Soviet military buildup on its Western border, anti-German activities by Communists even after they had a treaty, Motolov’s demands on liquidating Finland, demands on Romania, Turkey and Bulgaria all of them made it clear that the USSR was aggressive. Secondly Communism is a globalist ideology which wants to spread around the world. While Trotsky preferred to use the Communist cells and revolution method, Stalin (a much better person than Trotsky) preferred the Red Army method. Stalin’s desire to Bolshevise all of Europe is credible. Indeed we would look like a “great liberator of Europe from fascism”. Not only that, FDR’s regime was full of Soviet agents like Alger Hiss. Hitler’s conversations as well as his speech as well as more research done on this matter points beyond any doubt, to a pre-emptive strike against a perceived Soviet threat. Hitler also mentions how his army was “made for the West”, designed for the West. Not the East, which makes no sense if he wanted Lebensraum.
    As far as Hitler believing the USSR would fall apart, that is possible. But he still did not underestimate the USSR to the extent is believed. He talks in his speech of the “gigantic Soviet Army”. It was only when they entered the USSR did they realize what a heavily armed state the USSR was. Very likely armed to invade and defeat all European powers and Bolshevise them.
    However Stalin did lose interest in Bolshevising other nations AFTER WW2 as the USSR was economically weak immediately after WW2 (the USSR, like the West did see enormous economic growth some time later).

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  286. Malla says:
    @europeasant

    The USA today is a disaster. It will fall too, like the USSR.

    • Replies: @europeasant
  287. @Zarathustra

    That’s simply BS. All of the documents from the Third Reich, every memo written at the time, makes it clear that Hitler was not in the least motivated by fears of a Soviet attack. Hitler expected that the Soviet Union was a house of cards which would crash immediately in the face of an invasion. The original summons made by Hitler in July 1940 for his officers to prepare Barbarossa was justified on the grounds that Hitler said it would lead to the downfall of Churchill. In the aftermath of Hitler’s victory over France it was obvious that Churchill’s big hope was simply a German-Soviet war. So Hitler told his officers to gear for a knock-out against Stalin. But he never once gave a hint of being concerned about a Soviet attack.

    Once Hitler had given the order for Barbarossa he then turned back to his original plan of conquering Russia for living space. The details of that are given in Alex Kay, Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder. This book presents perfectly adequate evidence of plans within the German government for the war in Russia to lead to mass-starvation. Unlike the Holodomor hoax, this is an actual case of manmade famine. While the lies put out about an “artificial famine” (rustic plant disease caused a crop failure in the harvest of 1932 that led to famine the next year, killing about 2.6 million Ukrainians, 1,2 million in the Volga, and probably a few hundreds of thousands elsewhere) have been quietly debunked by Mark Tauger, these plans by Hitler were a real manmade famine.

    Every recorded memo by Hitler up to June 22, 1941, reaffirms that he expected an easy victory for Barbarossa. A public statement was made on June 22 where Hitler charged that he was preempting a Soviet attack, but the internal record makes it clear that he never meant this seriously. Read through the 3rd volume published by Max Domarus. It will be perfectly clear from following the speeches and memos in sequence that Hitler’s attitude towards Barbarossa changed greatly after September 1941 when suddenly he had to realize that the USSR was not so fragile as he had thought.

    • Thanks: Vojkan
    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  288. Anonymous[847] • Disclaimer says:

    It was clear from Soviet machinations and troop deployments that they were preparing an attack in the near future, the German government would have been negligent in failing to act. It’s completely irrelevant whether German documents (all of which fell into Allied hands after the war) characterize their decision-making as preemptive or not. The threat was clear enough (and well-noted by the Germans).

    • Replies: @Levtraro
  289. @Malla

    Hitler’s statement to Mannerheim that the Germans had captured 30,000 tanks is blatant BS. The Soviets had about 10,000 workable tanks, not all of them by the European border. Hitler’s forces probably did capture close to one-third of these tanks, so about 3,000. Hitler has a clear record of making up fake statistics such as when he charged that the Poles had massacred 58,000 Germans. There actually is evidence of a Polish massacre which claimed anywhere between 2,000 to 5,800 German victims. That massacre happened after September 1 when Hitler invaded Poland. It was not the motive for the German invasion.

    What is important for comparison is not Hitler’s speech in public on June 22, but all of the internal documents where described his aims. It is perfectly clear that he foresaw an easy victory over the USSR and was not motivated by concerns about a Soviet invasion. By the time Hitler was talking in 1942 all that he had to do was repeat what he said in public statement a year earlier, but now in a private setting. If Mannerheim had talked with him on June 21, 1941, Hitler would have said privately that the USSR was a house of cards ready to fall if someone just kicked the door in.

    No, Stalin would not have been foolish enough to think that he could swallow Europe without a war with the USA happening. This silly claim shows a lot of the inconsistencies by Right-wingers who make these types of apologetics. It’s clearly documented that Stalin had a well-placed network of agents in both the US and UK. Hitler-apologists love to point this out in fact. But the corollary of that is that Stalin was very well aware that both Churchill and Roosevelt were looking around for a nice successful good war to make the world safe for democracy. As long as Hitler remained in the foreground and Stalin in the background, the natural focus of Churchill and Roosevelt was on the former. But if Stalin had been so stupid as to attempt to conquer Europe then that would have changed very quickly.

    Overnight Charles Lindbergh and others like him would have become advocates for US intervention. Roosevelt would be stuck between a rock and a hard place unless he very quickly maneuvered for a war against Stalin. Churchill we know would have advocated exactly such a war, because he actually in real life anyway. It was just that in 1945 Churchill was politically helpless. But if Stalin had tried invading Europe in 1941 then there’s no question that in short order Churchill and Roosevelt would be rallying for a war to make the world safe for democracy, against the USSR. Japan would certainly have attacked the USSR promptly. The only reason Japan did not plan on attacking the USSR in 1941 was because they thought Hitler would take care of it. But if Stalin had struck first, all of that would change. Of course Jewish groups in the US and UK would gleefully have supported such a crusade against Stalin, once Hitler was buried by the Soviet army. Every one of those contingencies would have been carefully weighed by Stalin and that led him to thee conclusion that the smart thing to do was just sit back and wait to see what Hitler did.

    • Replies: @Malla
  290. gatobart says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Wow, you only need to change Germany for China, Kaiser Wilhelm II for Premier Xi and France for “America” in your text to get exactly what we have right now in world affairs, from the perspective of the US NATO family of course (and I am not saying family in the usual friendly, cozy way). And, as China is doing now, Germany was probably arguing at the time that Western powers had no right to decide for Africans what was good for them, as Africans were not being offered any say or vote in the circumstances by their Western colonial masters so they didn’t have any way to express their own opinion, what they preferred. They maybe would have even preferred German masters rather than British or French, who knows. Also, this supposed hostile “saber-rattling” by Germany at that time, in the words of Westerners, sounds extremely similar to those of Russia today (how do they dare to carry on military maneuvers in their own territory even after we have massed troops and done the same just a few meters from of their borders and sent every warship available to the Black Sea…!) and China (how do they dare to build artificial islands in the China Sea!) Sorry, but your post sounds just like a copy & paste of the usual US-NATO propaganda krap which broadcasts the usual message to the rest of the world. “When we do it it is OK, but when others do it, then it is hostile, illegal, destabilizing. because WE are the masters of the world and we say what is right or wrong and those who say or do different will have to suffer the consequences”. Like China today, Germany of the late XIX century dared to try to became also a world power and that was its worst crime. I wonder how the “West” would have reacted if Germany had done something similar to what the US did in 1898, using a false excuse to attack another, weaker, colonial power and then steal from it not only one but three colonies.

    Also, referring to Hitler and what he did or didn’t do, Churchill himself said that ww2 and Hitler were the terrible unwanted consequence of Versailles. Had the Western powers not humiliated the proud German populace there would have been no Hitler and maybe, maybe, no ww2.

    “Then Hitler could have spent the next 2 decades maintaining an armed peace with Stalin just as the West maintained an armed peace of 4 decades during the Cold War”.

    But I agree with this and that is what my main point also. Hitler committed a Jupiter size mistake by attacking the USSR in 1941 as, contrary to Stalin, he still had options and good ones. Not only Stalin was in awe of German military prowess and power but he also greatly admired German industrial capabilities and scientific and technological know how and ingenuity. This was reflected in the talks among Allies to build the post war peace in Europe when he was pushing for helping Germany to get back on her feet as soon as possible so Germany could pay for the damages made to his country and to contribute again to Soviet economic and industrial development. By Hitler just heavily reinforcing the Eastern frontier of the Reich in mid-1941 while profiting to the maximum from the country’s armed peace with the USSR, Germany would have come on top in the end. Anyway, as of today, the Kremlin wanted and needed in 1945 a strong and prosperous Germany.

  291. @Patrick McNally

    The details of that are given in Alex Kay, Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder. This book presents perfectly adequate evidence of plans within the German government for the war in Russia to lead to mass-starvation. Unlike the Holodomor hoax, this is an actual case of manmade famine.

    1) Was the Holodomor a hoax ?
    Was the much-maligned Lazar Moiseevitch Kaganovitch after all an innocent and well-meaning official ? Do we all and Ukrainians owe him an apology ?

    2) What/where was the “actual case of manmade famine” ?

    3) Ref Resettlement, have you read this account of the actual (this word means it happened in real life) largest ever in known history ethnic cleansing ?
    What is your opinion of this event ?

  292. mc23 says:

    To defeat Germany the Russians only needed to seize and hold on to the Romanian oil fields. The Wehrmact had very limited fuel reserves and would have ground to a halt within six months.

    The Russians could have done this easily if they weren’t caught completely by surprise. Given the disposition of Russian forces it seems they were gearing up for an offence.

    Actual Russian intentions are unknowable but in domestic politics Stalin was patient and deadly.

  293. @Roger Picard

    I appreciate your response. But we must agree to disagree about the role General Weygand (and 400+ French officers) played in preparing a plan to defend Warsaw against the Russian armies. I’d like to add that Weygand was an advisor to General Rozwadowski, who, more than Piłsudski, is usually credited with developing a successful defense plan.

    • Replies: @Dube
  294. @gatobart

    By Hitler just heavily reinforcing the Eastern frontier of the Reich in mid-1941 while profiting to the maximum from the country’s armed peace with the USSR, Germany would have come on top in the end. Anyway, as of today, the Kremlin wanted and needed in 1945 a strong and prosperous Germany.

    Stalin for all his faults was keenly of aware of Soviet imports and exports.

    They were always dependent on Germany for trade and he quickly wanted to return to pre-1941 levels.

    Hitler’s main economist was against the eastern war for this reason. He wasn’t convinced that war would bring them more profit than by trade. The train track gauge differences were a major problem and he also expected the heavy Soviet industries to be trashed after the fighting was over. In the end Hitler really didn’t care about his economists as he saw the war as a racial struggle.

    • Replies: @gatobart
  295. @Marcali

    While Vlasov definitely did attempt to fight with the Germans, it was Hitler and Himmler who scorned any opportunity to gain Russian allies. Hitler had always advocated since his earliest days that Russia was to be a source of living space for Aryans and Slavs were to be either expelled or else used as cheap labor. It certainly is true that people like Rosenberg and Ribbentrop favored a policy which sought to recruit Russians as allies. But they did not have the important influence needed.

    It was Himmler who produced that ridiculous pamphlet entitled “The Subhuman” where he spent all of his energy scorning Slavs and even deprecating the Slavic women. Way at the end of that pamphlet after Himmler has made repeated statements which would piss off any Slavic man, there is a sequence of about 6 pages or so with hardly any comments made. I knew what it was about just from reading more conventional historians like Richard Evans, The Third Reich At War. When the NKVD began retreating in the face of the German invasion, they massacred thousands of prisoners up and down the whole line in various jails. Those few photographs which Himmler included at the end of a pamphlet which repeatedly scorned Slavs as subhuman were pictures of the corpses left over in some of these Soviet jails. But if any Russian man started reading Himmler’s pamphlet The Subhuman then you can be sure that he threw it long before he got to those pictures. That’s how arrogantly moronic Hitler and Himmler were. They destroyed the possibility of recruiting more Vlasovs.

  296. @Marcali

    In spite of the selflessness of the troops and officers and the bravery and self-sacrifice of the Russian people, battle after battle has been lost. The fault lies with the rottenness of the whole of the Bolshevik system, and the incompetence of Stalin and his general staff.

    I’m very much an anti-Communist but that doesn’t mean I am going to rationalize the ruthless killing of Soviet POWs by the Nazis.

    A lot of those Soviets would have been more than willing to fight for Hitler had he used the traditional conquest model and gave the Slavs client states in the German empire.

    It was Hitler that chose to kill POWs by exposure as part of his war against Slavs.

    Both Hitler and Stalin were traitors to their own countries.

    Hitler was a traitor for starting unnecessary wars and more importantly drawing the war out with the knowledge that Germans would be killed. He also knew that the Red Army would be raping German women but didn’t seem to care which shows that his “love of country” was total BS. He could have surrendered to West much earlier and saved millions of lives.

    Stalin was a Communist which is a traitor by definition as they are against the nation-state. Not much more needs to be said.

    On Unz it seems that if you criticize one it is assumed you must support the other.

    • Agree: europeasant
    • Replies: @Marcali
  297. Anonymous[847] • Disclaimer says:
    @Per/Norway

    It’s always amusing how the Russians telegraph what triggers them. Like the “Nazis” in the Ukraine. No wonder they’re getting played so hard by the Americans. (Please spare me any crap about hypersonic missiles.)

  298. This is a totally ahistorical discussion led in ignorance of the vast German source material.
    The decision making process that led to the Operation Barbarossa is exquisitely documented and was in no way influenced by any fear of an impending Soviet invasion.
    Hitler’s own thoughts and musings are sufficiently tangible in various indirect sources.
    The decision to attack the CCCP was introduced to the general staff of the Heer (OKH) by the command to work out the “Plan Otto” in the euphorious Summer of 1940, in view of the disastrous combat results of the Red Army in the first Finno-Soviet war the final decision was set in December 1940.
    The overriding ideological motivation is apparent in the asinine dismissal of the fundamental counter arguments brought forward by Herrmann Göring as Generalbeauftragter für den Vier-Jahres-Plan, who saw in unusual clarity that the set war goals would indeed diminish German access to Soviet resources, Generaloberst Heinz Guderian and Großadmiral Raeder, who in private consultations with Hitler advocated for a grand strategy centred around the mediterranean theatre of war, the fundamentally correct assessment of Genralquartiermeister Wagner, who accurately predicted any penetration into the Soviet Union could not be brought forward deeper than 640 km due to logistical constraints and the results of the extensive war games held under the helm of Paulus.
    The war plans Otto and Fritz which culminated in Barbarossa were by no means defensive in nature, but assumed the aggressive invasion of an enemy whose defensive forces were to be decisively beaten west of the river Dvina.
    These are the facts, the trope of a preventive strike was deliberately used as a mean of propaganda to incite the other European nations to join in on the Crusade against Bolshevism. Hitler himself told Mannerheim in a private conversation, had he been correctly informed about the Red Army’s true strength, he wouldn’t even have invaded!

    Of course Stalin’s strategy was the driving force behind the course the Second World War took, nonetheless the decision to invade the Soviet Union was a deliberate act of aggression on the German side, which was strategically fundamentally unsound as it necessarily even in a best case scenario would lead to a diminished access to soviet war materials, which were located to a great extent even behind the wildest phantasies of the final frontier envisaged in the Generalplan Ost. Stalin was caught in a breakdown of his strategy to let the Fascists and Democracies bleed each other to death with the unforeseeably quick defeat of France. The course of events made him inadvertently the next target of the German war machine, which he tried to mitigate by appeasement, hence his bizarre behaviour in the direct aftermath of Barbarossa. Stalin realised his blunder, expressed in his famous words, that his scheming “has put the work of Lenin at loss”.

    And by the way did the Operation Marita, the mopping up of the Balkans by the Wehrmacht in 1941, not lead to any significant delay in launching Barbarossa, as the May Rasputitsa had to be passed on anyway, which is expressis verbis stated in the OKH diaries.

    • Thanks: FB, Begemot
  299. @Robert Konrad

    I have already tried to point out several times on this blog that it was not Russia that attacked Poland in the Polish-Russian War of 1919-1920. It was Poland under the mad Polish-Lithuanian russophobe Józef Piłsudski, who dreamed of reconstructing a Polish empire in what are now the independent countries of Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine

    Not telling the whole story.

    It was the Soviets that were well outside their borders when they attacked Warsaw.

    They did in fact talk of invading a weakened Germany after Poland and even going further West. There was no intention of giving the Poles their own state.

    The Soviets were long insulted by not having Germany in their sphere. It was the home of Marx and they believed that the rest of continental Europe would fall if they had Germany.

    Hitler was a real SOB for pretending that war never happened.

    That was actually the second time that Poland saved Germany.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  300. Levtraro says:
    @Anonymous

    It was clear from Soviet machinations and troop deployments that they were preparing an attack in the near future, the German government would have been negligent in failing to act.

    Look at what happened for not “failing to act”. Hitler has to kill himself for fear of the Russians, the Wehrmacht was destroyed, and Germany became a nation of eunuchs, militarily speaking. And yet you say it would have been negligent not to act? Ffs! look at what happened for not “failing to act”.

  301. gatobart says:
    @John Johnson

    Exactly. The common belief is that Nazi leaders were fanatical zealots who couldn’t wait to have their wars of conquest but the opposite is rather true, they were rather moderates when it comes to starting wars. According to witnesses, already the news that Great Britain and France had declared war as the result of the Polish invasion fell like a bomb in the Chancellery and marked the end of such a valued asset for Hitler as his Minister of Foreign Relations, Von Ribbentrop, was. An indignant Hitler screamed at him: You promised me they wouldn’t declare war…! as Goering stood silent and stunned. In the end, ironically, what brought down Nazi Germany was something that most Germans cared little about (even many Nazis) at that point: Hitler’s obsession with race.

    Also, knowing all we know about the importance it has for Stalin his industrialization plans and the economic development he had planned for the USSR is practically impossible that he could have thought that attacking Germany and thus killing the goose that laid the golden eggs was a good idea. Which is shown also by what i already wrote, that he was the last Allied leader to think about revenge, even less genocide, as the Roosevelt two (father and son) actually did at the end of the war. Quite the opposite, he was the one pushing the most for having Germany back on her feet as soon as possible.

  302. @Johnny Johnny

    To take things one by one, the French and British armies were not actually a joke. They just had a poor understanding of the new technology of motor transport and how that affected war. This was also an error which Stalin made. If the French had planned on attacking Hitler with the forces they had and a clear idea of how to use them, they could have done much more. Instead they were preparing for another war like Verdun. They assumed that it would be a slow-grinding war like the last one, not a fast-paced one such it turned out to be.

    About pulling the USA into the war, that was Churchill’s aim at the latest after summer 1940. Churchill had had a correspondence with Roosevelt that went back before the war, and this even led to some troubles with Tyler Kent who the British detained for the duration of the war. Kent had gotten his hands on some of those Churchill-Roosevelt communications. In 1947 Churchill tried urging Truman to use the atomic bomb on the USSR right then and there before a Soviet bomb could be developed. But Truman declined and Churchill couldn’t do anything about that.

    It would, however, have been a very different story if Stalin had done something so stupid as is suggested in this silly article. If Stalin had invaded Europe not merely with the aim of stopping Hitler preemptively before Hitler could launch his own bid for conquest (which he had openly advocated for since before Mein Kampf was published in the 1920s) but with the intent of Sovietizing the whole continent, then both Churchill and Roosevelt would have gone to war against him. In his own declaration of war on the USA Hitler charges Roosevelt with seeking a war because he desired to gain greater authority over the US economy. There’s a lot of truth to that. Roosevelt knew that people like Robert Taft opposed the New Deal and he could only go so far with it under peacetime conditions. So, yes, Roosevelt was looking for a war.

    But if Stalin had done what is asserted here then Roosevelt’s war would have been against the USSR. Churchill would have provided a great rallying point for this because Churchill would have used his “conservative” credentials from Britain to help rally Republicans around Roosevelt for a war against Stalin. But Stalin would never have been so stupid to allow this to happen. If Stalin had finally decided on preempting Hitler’s attack with a Soviet invasion of Germany then you can be certain that he would have had to leave Poland after the war was done. Attempting anything else would have created a situation where Churchill and Roosevelt, both of them looking for a good war to become popular over, would have turned against Stalin.

    As far as German banking goes, the economic recovery in Germany began before Hitler had taken office. It was Heinrich Bruning who negotiated with the Allies in 1932 and persuaded that Germany could no longer go on with the reparations. There is a myth which says that Hitler freed Germany from the Versailles Treaty. That’s rubbish. It was Bruning who got the Allies to drop Versailles. Once that been agreed to, the German economy began to recover immediately. There is a common pattern that economic recoveries usually start in the financial sector and only later work their way out to the productive sector. That is because before new jobs can emerge people need to raise their confidence in investment prospects. When this happens usually the first where the rise in investor confidence becomes evident is with financial speculations. If that rise in confidence proves justified then those financial deals will eventually translate into more jobs.

    What that meant in the 2nd half of 1932 Hitler was racing against time. The economic recovery had begun, but unemployment was still very high. The vote for the NSDAP reached its peak in July 1932, and then began falling downward in a spiral. When Hitler persuaded Papen to talk Hindenburg into giving the Chancellorship, most observers were already writing the NSDAP off. It was a great stroke of luck for Hitler that he got into office right then as the economic recovery was about to come. Because Kurt von Schleicher was still cautious, he signed a giant economic stimulus bill right before leaving office which was implemented by Schleicher’s colleague, Hjalmar Schacht. Hitler himself didn’t have much to do with any of this. But it was a very convenient for him.

    Now it certainly is true that there many Jewish groups all around the world who wanted to see Hitler overthrown. But none of them were in any position to cause the outbreak of war. After Bruning had persuaded the Allies to drop the reparations, everyone in the West was pretty well on board with the need to redo the old peace treaty all over again. In 1935 the Saar region was returned to Germany as part of an already prearranged agreement. The French didn’t try to challenge this. In 1936 Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. At Versailles the French had demand that this be demilitarized. But the Allies now accepted that Germany had the right to manage its own territory. Then in 1938 Hitler made a claim on Austria. Although there was a lot of grumbling, it was generally recognized that Austria regarded itself as a part of Germany and it would be foolish to declare war over this.

    Then in late 1938 Hitler now made a unilateral claim on Czechoslovakia. The Sudeten region actually was a German-inhabited territory which Germany had a just claim to. But Hitler demanded more. Chamberlain now put his foot down hard and made it clear that Hitler could not be allowed to take more than the Germanic territory in the Sudetenland. Hitler was furious, but realized that the public did not want war. He accepted the Munich treaty, then tore it up less than 6 months later and partitioned out the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Hitler did this not simply because he wanted to conquer Czechoslovakia, but because he wanted to force the British to unilaterally accept that henceforth could press its demands in eastern Europe everywhere it went. That was when the countdown to war began.

    After grabbing the Czech territory, Hitler then began pressing demands to Poland over Danzig. As Hitler makes clear in his memos from the spring of 1939, Danzig was not the issue. The issue was one of living space. The Poles knew from how Hitler had handled the Munich agreement that they could not afford to grant Hitler Danzig. If they had he could have simply waited a few months and then moved on Poland again, the same way he did with Czechoslovakia. Britain and France now saw that their future credibility in the world required backing Poland (after the way they had failed to stop Hitler over Czechoslovakia, they had no choice). So they issued a declaration of unconditional support for Poland. Without such reckless behavior by Hitler no Jewish bankers anywhere in the world would have been able to incite a war.

    • Agree: Levtraro
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @FB
    , @Fox
  303. @Anonymous

    Has it ever occurred to you that it is stupid to assert something demonstrably untrue? Or were you just clearing your throat and spitting – with me as your accidental target?

    • Replies: @Anon
  304. Incitatus says:

    Was the USSR poised to strike Germany Jun 1941? Here’s what Manstein wrote:

    “There has been a great deal of argument as to whether the Soviet troop dispositions were actually defensive or offensive in character. If one went by the strength of the forces assembled in the western parts of the Soviet Union and the powerful concentration of armor in the Bialystok area around Lwow, it was possible to contend – as Hitler did in support of his decision to attack – that sooner or later the Soviet Union would take the offensive. On the other hand, the layout of the Soviet forces on 22nd June 1941 did not indicate any immediate intention of aggression on the part of the Soviet Union.”

    “I think it would be nearest the truth to describe the Soviet dispositions – to which the occupation of eastern Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltic territories had already contributed very strong forces – as a ‘deployment against every contingency’. On 22nd June 1941, undoubtedly, the Soviet Union’s forces were still strung-out in such depth that they could then have been used only in a defensive war.”

    – Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, ‘Lost Victories’ p.181

    “Strung-out” Soviet force is hardly surprising, given the Führer’s history of violating “last territory demands” from September 1938. Hitler was a consummate liar; an inveterate, insatiable suicidal gambler. By 1941 all knew it, no less Stalin (who none-the-less disbelieved invasion plans).

    Once again Unz Planet Germania parses history to titillate doubt, promote a new book. Yes, of course, Stalin was about to strike. Except he didn’t.

    Just like 1914 German General Staff claimed Russia was poised to strike on mobilization. Except they didn’t.

    Sad.

    “A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives”

    What Bullshit.

    • Agree: FB, Levtraro
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @iffen
    , @utu
  305. Incitatus says:
    @Seraphim

    “The fate of Operation Barbarossa was dictated by the ominous choice of its name..”
    Actually it was more due to over-optimism married to unrealistic expectations, lack of contingency plans, and callus disregard for reality (infinite space, no winter uniforms?).

    Adolf’s choice of name was hubris (enlisting a mythic founder predicted to rise from rest and conquer).

    As for poor Friedrich I ‘Barbarossa’ von Hohenstaufen, he died age 68 in the River Saleph. It was his second mid-east adventure (he accompanied, as duke of Swabia, his uncle Conrad III on the Second Crusade 1147-1152).

    “The failure of the Third Crusade presaged the failure of the Crusading effort altogether which went steadily downhill from that point.”

    Actually the Crusades went downhill from remarkable victories in 1098-99. The 4th Crusade was the nadir, sacking a Christian city.

    Or, perhaps, the Albigensian Crusade was the nadir. Nothing better than burning peaceful heretics!

  306. Seraphim says:
    @RUR

    Russia applied the time-honored ‘Scythian’ tactics of scorched earth and total war.
    German high ranking officials, aware that the ‘victory’ against Russia in WW1 (which was not a military victory) far from solving the food crisis in Germany and liberating the divisions for the Western Front, in reality put an additional burden on an exhausted Germany, drafted in October 1940 a memorandum on the dangers of an invasion of the Soviet Union. They said Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Baltic States would end up as only a further economic burden for Germany, predicting a net economic drain for Germany unless its economy was captured intact and the Caucasus oilfields seized in the first blow.
    But military planners (although they studied the failed Napoleon’s campaign) concluded that there was little danger of a large-scale retreat of the Red Army into the Russian interior, as it could not afford to give up the Baltic states, Ukraine, or the Moscow and Leningrad regions, all of which were vital to the Red Army for supply reasons and would thus, have to be defended. They did not expect the massive evacuation of industries and people beyond the Urals planned before the invasion occurred and there are indications that it started already in late 1940-early 1941.

    • Replies: @FB
  307. @Patrick McNally

    After grabbing the Czech territory, Hitler then began pressing demands to Poland over Danzig. As Hitler makes clear in his memos from the spring of 1939, Danzig was not the issue. The issue was one of living space. The Poles knew from how Hitler had handled the Munich agreement that they could not afford to grant Hitler Danzig.

    A good summary but I would add that Hitler was not making good faith offers on Danzig or the corridor. The Poles were correct to not trust him but his offers were all unreasonable anyways. He talked in public about just wanting a corridor but behind the scenes he was asking Poland to become a client state of Germany. The British were actually working to get him the corridor but he already had plans to invade.

    The Germans were insulted by the existence of Poland. They were drawing up plans in the 1930s to carve it into pieces. If Poland had given Germany the corridor then Hitler would have invaded anyways. Poland was an insulting reminder to the Germans that they had lost WW1.

    • Replies: @RUR
  308. Anon[378] • Disclaimer says:

    The claim that Stalin would have been deterred from invading Western Europe by the prospect of war with the US and Britain is not at all convincing. (Leave aside the question of whether the Soviets were capable of pushing all the way to Paris; it’s perhaps debatable in 1941 but 1942 is
    a very different question.) What would he have had to fear? If he thought he could deal a fatal blow to the Germans, why would the US and Britain concern him? Britain obviously could not defeat the Germans without American help, and even then they had to wait until the Germans had been bled white in the east before attempting a landing in France. Opposition to entering the war was still strong in
    the US in the summer of 1941, and ultimately it was Hitler’s declaration of war on the US that brought them into the European theater, not any action by FDR. Not to mention the well-known infestation by Communists of FDR’s government. It is inconceivable that the Americans would have had the political will to enter a war against an opponent who had just defeated the supposed primary threat to world peace and liberalism. It’s hard to see how that would have played out in Britain also, esp. since the Soviets would not have declared war against Britain. And if Stalin’s spies knew of American atomic weapons work, he surely would have put his own scientists on the case. Ultimately controlling the entire Eurasian landmass would have given the Communists incredible security against their capitalist foes, as well as providing a base of operations for further expansion. It was a high risk but very high reward venture, and it is not at all unbelievable that Stalin would have been tempted by the possibilities. In some sense they would have faced the same calculus as the Germans: once they invaded, there was no reason to limit the operation, and every reason to go for broke.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  309. @Incitatus

    Once again Unz Planet Germania parses history to titillate doubt, promote a new book. Yes, of course, Stalin was about to strike. Except he didn’t.

    Just like 1914 German General Staff claimed Russia was poised to strike on mobilization. Except they didn’t.

    It is also ignored on Unz Planet Germania that Germany helped create the Soviet beast by escorting Lenin from Switzerland and by funding the Bolsheviks. This was done to get Russia out of the war.

    They could have released him to White Army patriots in Germany and saved the world a lot of trouble.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  310. Anon[378] • Disclaimer says:
    @WIzard of Oz

    You are a self-important, boring gasbag. Please go fuck yourself.

  311. FB says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    You obviously have no clue about the subject.

    Your handwaving about ‘positioning’ of forces is based on what formal military training? Or even what sources, as to the accuracy of the geography you claim? [Legitimate, not amateur ‘historians’ or bloggers].

    The historical facts are that all three of the intel services of Russia, Britain and the US had good knowledge of the Germans’ invasion plans. The spy Richard Sorge managed to get the exact invasion date, June 22, in his work in Tokyo. This is all covered in Waller, Hastings and Roberts, to name just a few.

    Glantz writes extensively about Soviet defensive preparations, and it has nothing to do with your bum-whistling. The General Staff expected the main attack to come through the Pripyat Marshes region of southern Belarus, which in fact proved to be the case. But Stalin overrode those plans, expecting the main assault to come at Ukraine.

    The State Defense Plan [DP-41] was authorized in early 1941 and comprised of two distinct echelons, one forward and one in the rear whose purpose was for a counter-attack. By the date of the invasion, these echelons were still mobilizing and were not near full strength. According to Sakwa [2005] the Red Army Units were still dispersed and lacking adequate transportation. Hardly an invasion plan.

    By contrast, the Wehrmacht was fully prepared to launch, having begun massing troops near the Soviet border even before the Balkan campaign had finished. Müller [2016] writes that Hitler had moved three million German troops plus 700,000 Axis soldiers to the Soviet border regions. The Soviet high command was alarmed by this movement but Stalin was convinced that Hitler would not attack so soon after the non-aggression pact signing.

    The Marcks Plan (published 5 August 1940) was the original German plan of attack for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Soviet Union during World War II, as depicted in a US Government study (March 1955)

    In 2006 the Russian Ministry of Defense declassified important documents relating to Soviet preparedness for the German invasion.

    The documents generally indicate that the Soviet high command underestimated the German threat and ignored the information about the impending invasion.

    [General] Ivanov wrote that Germans exploited the Soviet “carelessness, complacency and hope that Germans will do nothing serious, confining themselves to provocations”.

    He notes that “despite the obvious signs of a large concentration of German troops, the commander of the Kiev Military District forbade the deployment of covering forces, as well as bringing troops into combat readiness, especially strengthening them even after the shelling of the state border and air raids” began.

    The threat was underestimated: unique documents about the first days of the war have been declassified

    This nonsense from the defector Rezun [aka Suvorov, after the famous 18’th century general] is accepted by no serious scholar or researcher. And the ‘quality’ of the discussion here is a good indicator of the type of flakes that are drawn to this kind of silliness.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Seraphim
    , @Mulegino1
  312. The Buying of Mr. Churchill
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/buying-mr-churchill/

    Are we ready for a New History of World War II? Let’s take a look at what was happening in the U.K. back in 1938.

    In 1938, when he was 64 years old, his creditors prepared to foreclose on him, and he was faced with the prospect of a forced sale of his luxurious country estate. At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life: he was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated to that country from eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward, advanced the aging demagogue a “loan” of 150,000 pounds just in time to save his estate from the auctioneer, and then quietly slipped into the background again. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s adviser and confidant but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of publicity which thenceforth illuminated Churchill’s again-rising political career.

    Churchill immediately became the sharpest Parliamentary critic of his own party’s (at that time he had once again switched from the Liberals back to the ruling Conservatives) policy of detente with National Socialist Germany. He took up the Jewish cry, “Delenda est Germania – Germany must be destroyed,” and urged his government, in a series of jingoistic and bloodthirsty speeches, to join the Jewish “holy war” against Hitler. This was the same Churchill who, in September 1937, had said of Hitler: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

    One of Churchill’s last acts of “statesmanship” at the behest of the Jews was his insistence on the massive Anglo-American terror raid on Dresden in February 1945, a hate-inspired act of Jewish vengeance against the German people which cost the lives of approximately 200,000 men, women, and children and served no military purpose whatever.

    In the postwar years the sun set on one portion after another of the British Empire, and the entire process of disintegration was set in motion by Churchill in his reckless disregard of British interests during the seven-year period, 1938-1945, when he served an alien master. Yet, the establishment history texts continue to heap lavish praise on Churchill, extolling his “greatness.” If there is anything truly remarkable that Winston Churchill should be remembered for, it is his success in raising the price of treason from 30 pieces of silver to 150,000 pounds sterling.

  313. Anon[378] • Disclaimer says:
    @FB

    I was wondering when Mr. Copy-and-Paste was going to emerge from his mother’s basement.

  314. FB says: • Website
    @Patrick McNally

    Excellent historical overview!

    • Agree: iffen
  315. A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity!
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/blank-check-forked-tongues-britain-poland-started-wwii-blamed-hitler-germans-eternity/

    On August 14, 1939, the Polish authorities in East Upper Silesia launched a campaign of mass arrests against the German minority. The Poles then proceeded to close and confiscate the remaining German businesses, clubs, and welfare installations. The arrested Germans were forced to march toward the interior of Poland in prisoner columns. The various German groups in Poland were frantic by this time, and they feared that the Poles would attempt the total extermination of the German minority in the event of war. Thousands of Germans were seeking to escape arrest by crossing the border into Germany. Some of the worst recent Polish atrocities included the mutilation of several Germans. The Poles were warned not to regard their German minority as helpless hostages who could be butchered with impunity.

    British Ambassador Nevile Henderson in Berlin was concentrating on obtaining recognition from Halifax of the cruel fate of the German minority in Poland. Henderson emphatically warned Halifax on August 24, 1939, that German complaints about the treatment of the German minority in Poland were fully supported by the facts. Henderson knew that the Germans were prepared to negotiate, and he stated to Halifax that war between Poland and Germany was inevitable unless negotiations were resumed between the two countries. Henderson pleaded with Halifax that it would be contrary to Polish interests to attempt a full military occupation of Danzig, and he added a scathingly effective denunciation of Polish policy. What Henderson failed to realize is that Halifax was pursuing war for its own sake as an instrument of policy. Halifax desired the complete destruction of Germany.[39]

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  316. gatobart says:

    I am afraid that any analysis by Westerners about Stalin’s mindset and intentions during the late 30s until the German invasion is heavily tainted by the not so subtle brainwashing having been practiced on them for ages by their political leaders, their media and their scholars. They can’t for a moment let go the frightening image of this new Ivan the Terrible (which wasn’t Terrible after all but rather Awesome, in a faithful translation from the Russian) . They can’t possibly put to rest the scary image of a giant Stalin hovering above Europe waving in his hand the big fearsome stick we all know as the Red Army, threatening to let it go on their heads any any moment with all his fury. Little they seem to remember that Mother Russia had been invaded by barbarians from the West and the Est for millennia, all of the invaders trying to destroy Russians as a people and Russia as a nation, to be able to plunder the land for all its worth. And by May 2021 nothing of that has changed it seems, all the actors are the same, they are all there very present and obviously trying to do the same thing once again, except those from the Est. There is a lot of hypocrisy in their words and their analysis, which has been typical of Western empires and their denizens for centuries, when always trying to present Russia, or the USSR, as the aggressors and their own as the victims. (Can you hear me, Poland..?) And many of the comments in this thread reflect that. Stalin is usually portrayed as another dictator like Hitler bent of invading countries and conquering the entire continent of Europe (just like many Westerners see Putin nowadays) blissfully unaware to the realities of the period; apparently ignorant that, since taking power after the death of Lenin, what worried most Stalin in the external front was another foreign invasion, this time from the West, as it had happened only a decade before, after the Bolshevik Revolution. We could well make the case that all his maneuvering, invading countries and annexing them was meant to build a defensive wall of land around the Soviet Union so any defense against a Western invasion would be carried out in foreign land (which is Putin’s POV right now, when the US NATO gang is showing intentions of going after Russia once again). But no, Stalin has to be portrayed as a reckless and power hungry dictator bent like Hitler on war and bloodshed, on hostile acquisition of new territories for his empire. Yet the historic record shows that nothing of that is true. The ones with global ambitions inside the Bolshevik Party were Leo Trotsky and his ideological pals and Stalin showed over and over again that he had no appetite for listening to them and starting a Global Communist Revolution, by persecuting and even eliminating them in every occasion he could; he even sent his agents to Spain during the Civil War and many who fought in that war complained that these agents were more interested in killing Trotskyists than Franquistas. He also abandoned, we may even say betrayed, those who tried to start Communist Revolutions in Eastern Europe after ww1, specially in Hungary and Germany. From the go Stalin showed that he had no appetite for foreign adventures because his focus was always on his own country, you may call it empire, the USSR. Yet, as I said, that brainwashing of the minds of many Westerners have been way to deep and effective to the point of making them blind to those facts.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Zarathustra
  317. Seraphim says:
    @FB

    Russians had first hand information about Barbarossa through the Generals Fritz Thiele, Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff and Fritz Erich Fellgiebel (all three were in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler and finished by being executed).
    Thiele was the subordinate of Fellgiebel who in 1938 was appointed ‘Chief of the Army’s Signal Establishment and Chief of the Wehrmacht’s communications liaison to the Supreme Command (OKW) and subsequently ‘General der Nachrichtentruppe’ (General of the Communications Troops) on 1 August 1940.
    The information was passed to the Soviets through Rudolf Roessler and Sandor Rado from Switzerland with collaboration of the Swiss military intelligence.
    I am doubtful that their information had been ‘underestimated’. On the contrary they assessed correctly that an attack on Germany would have had the same results like in WW1 and decided for defense in depth.

  318. Malla says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Hitler has a clear record of making up fake statistics such as when he charged that the Poles had massacred 58,000 Germans.

    Even if there were exaggerations, it does not mean these were not based on truth.

    It was not the motive for the German invasion.

    Not true at all.

    What is important for comparison is not Hitler’s speech in public on June 22,

    It is extremely important. And the perceived threat from the USSR is not that of Hitler alone but of German intelligence. Even Romania and Finland made similar observations.

    It is perfectly clear that he foresaw an easy victory over the USSR and was not motivated by concerns about a Soviet invasion.

    He might have expected an easier victory but he was solely motivated by fears of Soviet invasion.

    If Mannerheim had talked with him on June 21, 1941, Hitler would have said privately that the USSR was a house of cards ready to fall if someone just kicked the door in.

    You are farting out bullshit.

    It’s clearly documented that Stalin had a well-placed network of agents in both the US and UK

    .
    Exactly!!!Bingo!!!

    But the corollary of that is that Stalin was very well aware that both Churchill and Roosevelt were looking around for a nice successful good war to make the world safe for democracy.

    Nah, FDR as well as the British Govt was quite pro-Soviet leanings and forces.

    But if Stalin had tried invading Europe in 1941 then there’s no question that in short order Churchill and Roosevelt would be rallying for a war to make the world safe for democracy, against the USSR.

    \
    Very doubtful.

    The only reason Japan did not plan on attacking the USSR in 1941 was because they thought Hitler would take care of it.

    Not true at all, I have explained why Japan did not attack the USSR in my earlier posts. And I think this was their mistake.

    After Britain and France foolishly rejected Hitler’s peace proposals when Stalin made an alliance with Hitler, the Germans foolishly had a good impression of the USSR. But it was only a trick by the USSR. Hitler only realized too late that the USSR was planning an invasion all along. It is very unlikely Hitler would have invaded the USSR at that point in time when his situation in the West was not resolved. Similarly it is very unlikely Japan would have invaded the USA when the situation in China was unresolved. Basically they were moves taken on desperation.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  319. Meet the Man Who Started World War II
    https://www.realhistorychan.com/edward-rydz-smigly-started-ww-2.html

    In November of 1938, the U.S. mid-term Congressional elections dealt a crushing blow to Franklin Demono Roosevelt’s Democrat Party. With America still reeling from the decade-long Great Depression, absent some foreign “crisis”, it appeared that the failed two-term President would not be able to seek a third term (He ultimately held office until his death in 1945). It should be noted that at this hard time in American history, prosperous Germany was enjoying full employment, a strong currency, the Autobahn, the Volkswagen, and a happy reconciliation between labor and the entrepreneurial class. But we digress.

    Even the claims of Jewish persecution in Germany were no longer valid. Though the dominant Jewish elite had in large measure been stripped of high positions in finance, press, government, law and academia, the truth was, the 330,000 Jews who remained in Hitler’s Germany were unmolested and actually quite prosperous. Indeed, after anti-Jewish riots broke out following the 1938 Paris murder of a German diplomat by a deranged Polish Jew, it was Hitler himself who, via Josef Goebbels, immediately issued an Emergency Order for the anti-Jewish violence (since exaggerated in scope) to cease.

    And so, by 1939, the New World Order crime syndicate and the British & French chauvinists had nearly run out of all options and all propaganda pretexts for instigating another war against peaceful and prosperous Germany, as they had done in 1914. The last hopes for starting the war to re-enslave Germany rested on the shoulders of one man, and one man only. His name was Edward Rydz-Smigly — the criminal fool who started World War II. As is to be expected, his name is virtually unknown outside of Poland. It’s high-time this dirty, rotten, ego-maniacal scoundrel gets the posthumous “credit” he so richly deserves.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  320. @Anonymous

    1. Europe swiftly surrendered to Hitler with no country resisting longer than just over one month. Europe’s industrial powerhouse was focused on waging a war with the USSR. France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, and other industrial frontrunners all were making cutting edge weaponry for the Eastern Front.

    Italy was allied with Germany. Most Eastern European nations were right-wing and nationalist, natual allies of Germany, especially against Communist Russia.
    Besides, there were only three major Western European powers: Germany, UK, and France. UK held on against Germany, largely due to its naval power. France was the one major defeat.
    Spain leaned toward Germany but Franco didn’t want any part of Hitler’s adventurism and remained neutral during the war.

    At any rate, I’m still not convinced Stalin intended to attack the West. Just not his way. He wasn’t a gambler, at least not on that scale. I think he built up offensive operation to ‘psych’ Hitler, i.e. that Russia was no scaredy-cat France that dug in only defensively.
    It’s like when two tough guys face off. Both put on offensive posture of “I will kick your ass”.
    Of course, things got complicated because Germany and Russia were partners and ostensibly on friendly terms. So, they acted like ‘friends’ onstage but were increasingly hostile behind the curtains.

    I wonder what would have happened if indeed Stalin attacked Germany first.
    Would the West have cheered it on and supported Stalin OR would it have supported Hitler as the best hope against Bolshevism? Or, would they have sat back and let the two monsters destroy one another and intervene only when one seemed to have the upper hand.

  321. Hatuxka says:

    So having failed in the Stalin-was-negligent-and-incompetently-unprepared line of fiction, we now have Stalin was cunningly massing for an invasion of Europe inside the borders and treaty lines of the Soviet Union against a country that was massed on the these borders by having invaded all of Europe? Seriously? These authors are mentally teenage boy-jerks.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  322. On August 12, an Anglo-French delegation arrived in Moscow for further discussion. But Stalin then changed his mind, and Molotov did not receive the delegates.[30] In a speech to the Politburo on August 19, 1939, Stalin explained why he had finally opted for a pact with Germany:

    The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western powers. War would be avoided, but down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany’s proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war. …

    Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and, with a refusal, politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia …

    For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for as long as possible, and all forces, with which we are actively involved, should be directed toward this goal …

    Therefore, our goal is that Germany should carry out the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such a degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovietized Germany.

    Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR—the workers’ homeland—that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work in such a way that this war, once it is declared, will be prolonged maximally. We must strengthen our propaganda work in the belligerent countries, in order to be prepared when the war ends.

    This speech was leaked to the French news agency Havas the same year. Stalin immediately denounced it as a fake in Pravda, which was exceptional on his part. Its authenticity has long been debated, but in 1994 Russian historians found an authoritative text of it in the Soviet archives, and the authenticity is now generally accepted. In any case, there are other sources confirming Stalin’s ploy so that there is no doubt, for McMeekin, that with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, “Far from wishing to forestall a European war between Germany and the Western powers, Stalin’s aim was to ensure that it would break out.”[31] For Stalin,

    Of course Stalin denounced it as fake. He couldn’t very well acknowledge that to have been huis plan all along.

    Stalin is the only one who appreciated the dynamics of the international situation, the relation of forces and how he could effectively shape them to serve Soviet interests. Not so much for Hitler. And the British for all their scheming were not much better than Hitler except to going along with Stalin’s plan to entice the Germans to attack Poland by reaching the pact with Hitler.

    The key is Stalin recognizing that the only way he could trigger a war between the capitalist powers was to sign that pact with Hitler to give him a free hand against Poland that he knew Hitler would use to launch an attack, and that agreeing to a pact with the British would force Hitler to call off any attack he had in mind.

    The British, on the other hand, were only half-heartedly reaching out to Stalin since their plan was, as in WWI, to feign neutrality toward the Kaiser while all the while scheming to launch a war they could blame on him that they succeeded by using Belgian neutrality. In the run-up to WWII, the Brits sort of hinted to Hitler they were favorably inclined toward a solution of the Corridor and Danzig issues and by failing to reach an agreement with Stalin to work together against Hitler, they led him to believe they were making empty promises to Poland that they never intended to keep that sort of gave him a free hand to solve the problem that everyone up to then had agreed needed to be addressed in some way.

    So the Brits and Stalin were working in opposite directions achieve the same objective for different purposes that lured Hitler into setting off the war for their separate and actually opposing purposes. It worked like a charm

    Hitler was clearly shocked when Britain turned on him after Poland. Stalin was licking his chops seeing his plan in full bloom. And the Brits expected to wage a war of attrition that strangled Germany that would bring Hitler to his knees without them having to fight another great land war to achieve it by cutting Germany off from the resources she would need to continue the war for a prolonged period. The Dyle Plan was designed to push allied armies closer to the German border at the outset of any German attack, with the Maginot line covering the eastern flank of the allied armies moving to the north.

    What upset the applecart is the stunning success the Germans achieved with the Ardennes offensive bringing on the fall of France in five weeks that no one, including the Germans actually expected to work as effectively as it did.

    Hitler and the Germans then made four miscalculations that doomed them.

    The first was how they conducted operations after cutting off the Brits and French at Dunkirk with the real facts about what led to those decision yet to be told. The fact is that the disposition of the panzer troops and the direction of German attacks from the south were designed to push toward the sea the bottom of the sack that had been created when allied armies were cut off from their lines of communication to France instead of attacking the sack at its neck to cut the armies off from the sea to prevent their evacuation or to keep hem supplied. What is odd about how Army Group A assessed how the campaign developed is that there is no comment in it during this period that expresses any sense of urgency to launch attacks to close of the neck of the sack. Now this is of course where Hitler’s “halt” order comes in to explain everything, but there is nothing in Army Group A diary that disputes or objects to the order, and even Guderian notes in his book that after hitting the sea, he got no directions from higher hq on how to proceed and he went to upbraid Dietrich when his SS Leibstandarte crossed the “stop line” to take British positions at Watten.

    It is, however, an admittedly open question about whether effectively cutting off from the sea the over 400,000 troops in the Dunkirk pocket would have brought about a quick collapse rather than the surrounded troops putting up a do or die stand that could have been very costly for the Germans to subdue and given the French a new lease on life.

    We will never know.

    The second was the Battler of Britain in which the Germans lost over 1700 aircraft but, more important, their highly trained crews they never effectively replaced. Now imagine where the Germans would have been in the in the Russian campaign if those forces had still been on the TO&E. The battle and the losses were a complete waste that achieved less than nothing by bolstering British morale.

    Third was Hitler launching the invasion of Russia. The invasion gave Stalin an enormous morale booster as the victim of an attack. Hitler would have been vastly better served making defensive preparations to ensnare the Soviets into attacking Germany when the Red army would have been ill prepared to conduct well coordinated offensive operations following the purges in the officer corps. Had Hitler waited for the Russians to strike first, he would also have been able to enlist huge parts of Europe on Germany’s side to fight off the Bolshevik “hordes” threatening all of Europe like the Huns, Mongols, Tatars and Turks had done in the past. Doing this would have made it difficult for both Churchill and FDR to ally themselves with the Bolsheviks to fight the German defenders of Christendom as Goebbels would have presented it to Europe to great effect.

    Last, the Germans failed to gear up their economy for total war until 1943 which was way too late when all their adversaries did so at the outset of hostilities.

    Stalin’s August speech is indeed a telling revelation about the real maneuvering that went into launching the war.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  323. Two points: 1) it’s a shame the author doesnt mention Udo Walendy who was one of the first to write about this. 2) There is explanation needed on why hitler rushed to invade poland?? the answer is because poles had starting wiping out their minorities and were about to cut the rail lines connecting germany to danzig in september (autimn), meaning the death of thousand of germans since those rail lines provided the energy supplies and other supplies needed for existence there. There were also lots of mass assassination of germans in poland. Hitler wanted to end this and stalin knew this too.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  324. FB says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    They [German planners] did not expect the massive evacuation of industries and people beyond the Urals planned before the invasion occurred and there are indications that it started already in late 1940-early 1941.

    Exactly. That is some crazy way to plan an ‘invasion’—by evacuating all your war production industry thousands of miles in the other direction!

    The evacuation plans were already being implemented even before Operation Barbarossa started.

    …the transfer of machine tools and skilled workers to “shadow factories” in the east, began much earlier. The U.S. military attaché reported significant transfers of machines and men from the Moscow area to the east in late 1940 and early 1941. The rapid growth in production early in 1942 suggests that the evacuation started in 1940.

    –Evacuation in the Soviet Union

    This is the final nail in the coffin of the Suvorov ‘hypothesis.’ Obviously the idea of a Soviet attack flies in the face of evacuating PREEMPTIVELY in the opposite direction—and supports the known plan of defense-in-depth.

    What possible mental gymnastics could possibly try to square these diametrically opposite currents? I doubt even the most ridiculous Unztards here would be foolish enough to give it a whirl, lol!

    • Thanks: Bugey libre
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  325. Petermx says:

    I do believe the USSR had plans to attack Germany and Germany probably had plans to attack the USSR. Having plans to do something does not mean you intend to carry them out but unlike Germany, the USSR proclaimed publicly communism’s plan for world conquest . The British and Americans also had plans and still do. I believe the narrative presented here is false. It completely lets Great Britain and France off the hook. Germany and the USSR were enemies and it made perfect sense for these two world powers to attempt to avoid a war between each other, just as the USSR and the USA had many treaties during the cold war to avoid war. It did not make sense for Great Britain to give Poland a war guarantee to defend that country since it was incapable of doing so. It also did not make sense to only come to Poland’s defense if Germany attacked and not the USSR. That does make sense when someone is paying Churchill to go to war with Germany.

    Furthermore, equating the small amount of land the gigantic USSR (12 time zones) lost and the Ukrainians living on that land to the large amount of territory with millions of Germans living on land given to Poland is ridiculous. A significant number of Ukrainians and Byelorussians saw their USSR government as murderers and they also were aware Jews played a huge role in that government. No offense to the Polish people but it did not exist as an independent country in 1918 and it was not a world power in 1939. Furthermore, the idea that Germany wanted a war with Poland is also ridiculous. Hitler and Germany did not want a war with Poland, at the same time the status quo with Danzig and the Polish Corridor (formerly Germany and with Germans living on it) was unacceptable. Hitler’s proposals for peace were too generous and this was done in an attempt to avoid a war and also a world war as Britain’s war guarantee guaranteed.

    When France went to war with Algeria, did Great Britain declare war on France? When the USA declared war on Spain in the early 20th century did Great Britain declare war on the USA? How about when the USA attacked North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Syria, Iraq or other countries? Did the USA and Great Britain attack Russia when it intervened in Georgia’s attack on Ossetia or when Israel attacked the Arab countries in 1967 (yes, Israel initiated that attack)? Did the USA or Britain threaten Israel when it stole nuclear technology and uranium and acquired nuclear weapons? No, and in fact Great Britain and the USA cover for Israel, not requiring it to join the non-proliferation pact and not make it liable to inspection like every other country is. Almost all the interventions I mentioned above were thousands of miles from Europe and would not involve loss of life to Europeans and British. No, the only thing the British insisted on was something Germany could never accept and something that would guarantee all of Europe would be at war again and that Britain itself would lose a lot for, namely its status as a world power. That for a country that did not exist 21 years earlier and a country that was not a world power – Poland.

    This article ignores that American Ambassador Kennedy said that Prime Minister Chamberlain said that the Jews pushed Britain into the war and many other well known people said the same thing. Hitler also [correctly] blamed Jews for pushing Europe into WW II and guaranteed Jews would be seen as Germany’s most dangerous enemy. This article ignores the bribes wealthy Jews paid to the near bankrupt Churchill to attack Germany. This is discussed in David Irving’s book Churchill’s War.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  326. Ron Unz says:

    I’m now nearly done with the McMeekin book, and it seems absolutely outstanding. It’s also amazing how many “fringe conspiracy theories” turn out to be completely true.

    For example, a year or two ago I read the short memoirs of FDR’s former son-in-law, which was published by a rightwing fringe-group (in his later years, that son-in-law had become chairman of a different rightwing fringe group).

    He claimed that towards the end of the war, the US government had become dissatisfied with President Chiang Kai-shek of China, and therefore decided to have him assassinated, though it ultimately never happened.

    Given the extreme fringe-source, I’ve never really been sure whether the story was nonsense, though I’ve occasionally mentioned it in comments, emphasizing that it was just a claim by FDR’s son-in-law.

    Meekin demonstrates that it was absolutely true, citing the personal memoirs of a high-ranking and highly-credible American official.

    I think this also greatly enhances the credibility of David Irving’s (far more solidly attested) claims that Churchill had assassinated the head of the Polish government in exile, and had tried but failed to assassinate Charles de Gaulle.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
    , @Włodzimierz
  327. Seraphim says:
    @Hatuxka

    The ‘West’ operates on the premise that whatever wrong happened Russia is to blame.

    ”Biden says ‘no evidence’ Russia responsible for pipeline cyberattack… but Russia has ‘some responsibility’” @https://www.rt.com/usa/523420-biden-colonial-pipeline-russia-responsiblity/.

    “So far there’s no evidence from our intelligence people that Russia is involved,” Biden told reporters. However, he followed that statement by saying that the ransomware used “is in Russia,” and Russia therefore has “some responsibility to deal with this.”
    Rumors of Russian involvement were stoked by several mainstream media outlets over the weekend, after it emerged that ‘DarkSide,’ a criminal hacking organization believed by CNN’s anonymous sources to be based in “a Russian-speaking country,” was responsible for the attack. In a short statement on Monday, the FBI confirmed “that the DarkSide ransomware is responsible for the compromise of the Colonial Pipeline networks”.
    Other media outlets took the opportunity to link the hackers to the Russian government, “whether they work for the state or not,” in the words of one cybersecurity consultant to NBC”.

    Russia did not do it, but Russia did it! You can’t win!

  328. Dube says:
    @Robert Konrad

    But we must agree to disagree about the role General Weygand (and 400+ French officers) played in preparing a plan to defend Warsaw against the Russian armies. I’d like to add that Weygand was an advisor to General Rozwadowski, who, more than Piłsudski, is usually credited with developing a successful defense plan.

    Weygand advised Rozwadowski in a defense plan? Tukhachevsky didn’t get disheartened by a “defense plan,” and so withdraw. He was routed by Pilsudski’s attack plan, an offensive.

  329. Fox says:
    @Patrick McNally

    What memos about “living space” are you referring to? Hitler’s one major goal was to undo the ridiculous provisions of the Versailles Treaty which was formulated without any participation of Germany (participation is the hallmark of a treaty) and which Germany had to sign under threat of the starvation blockade and the threat of occupation.
    Danzig and the immediate vicinity was the last correction to this ill-conceived and evil “Treaty” Hitler wanted to achieve. There is nothing wrong with a German province (Danzig) that was forcibly split off Germany to rejoin it; the population of Danzig was German (the numbers given are between 97 and 99 %). The area inbetween the “Korridor” was to be considered by the outcome a plebiscite. Hitler did not bring up Upper Silesia, the province, heavy with coal, zinc and lead ore, which, despite the outcome of a plebiscite in 1921 that was strongly for it to remain with Germany, was turned over to Poland. He wanted a final agreement with Poland, and this would have been reached with an agreement regarding Danzig and the Korridor.
    With a peaceful settlement of the Eastern border, the era of Versailles would have come to an end; there is no evidence of any kind to the contrary. (I.e., talk about “living space” and the like are speculation, useful to provide a cover for the irrational actions of the British Cabinet, leading to the outbreak of war).

    Hitler had productive solutions for a difficult problem that was created by stupid, ignorant, megalomaniac, envious, vindictive and covetous old men at Versailles. He did not create these problems, and the “democracies”, despite having had 15 years to address the ridiculous and incendiary consequences of their will cast into the Treaty of Versailles did nothing. There is the living proof that in democracies stupid, ignorant people, people who have no common sense and no insight can become heads of state and wreak havoc.
    Hitler was seeking generous solutions accommodating the difficult situation in Central Europe with is many regions of mixed populations. Hence, Alsace-Lorraine, South Tyrol, North Schleswig were to be ceded to France, Italy and Denmark, even though they all had been German provinces, but in the interest of peace and the will to end the repetitive irredentist uproars, he acted in this manner.

    • Thanks: HdC
  330. @Rahan

    Suvorov is a defector, ergo a paid disinformer. The cottage industry of creating ‘Soviet archives’ for Western agit-prop peaked in Yeltsin time, and was remarkably productive. This theory is simply another front by the Right to discredit Soviet Communism, to the benefit of its members, like the charming Ukronazi orcs and the Baltic lemmings. After WW2 the US and its stooges crushed the Left throughout Western Europe and installed Nazis in power in West Germany, while hundreds of thousands of fascists were transported to the West, to found infestations of Ukrainian, Croat, Baltic etc revanchist emigres. When the Iron Curtain disappeared, their descendants returned, still as fascistic as ever, perhaps worse, as we see in the Ukronazi fascist entity today. World War Two never really ended.

    • Agree: AnonFromTN
  331. ‘…The USSR thus remained officially neutral, and incurred no blame on the part of France and England…’

    Now that’s really not true. Throughout the period of the phony war, Russia was regarded by Britain and France as, if not an enemy, certainly close to one, and various schemes to wage war against her were proposed and prepared, ranging from aiding Finland to bombing Baku. The variety of such notions ever got to be a bit of a joke, as this bit of contemporary doggerel suggests.

    [MORE]

    ‘Baku, or the Map Game

    ‘Its Jolly to look at the map, and finish the foe in a day.
    Its not easy to get at the chap; these neutrals are so in the way.
    But what if you say ‘what would you do to fill the aggressor with gloom?’
    Well, we might drop a bomb on Baku. Or what about bombs on Batum?

    ‘Other methods, of course, may be found. We might send a fleet up the Inn.
    We might burrow far underground and come up in the heart of Berlin.
    But I think a more promising clue to the Totalitarian doom
    is the dropping of bombs on Baku.
    And perhaps a few bombs on Batum. ‘

    But it was all quite in earnest. Weygand assembled two small divisions in French Syria for an expedition, and British and French planners tried to work out how they could bomb Baku without violating Turkish airspace. An expedition was in the works to aid Finland when that nation finally capitulated to Russian demands.

    Russia was, along with Germany, most certainly ‘the foe.’ It was just that until some effective way could be devised to get at her, there would be little to be gained by threatening war.

  332. Bankotsu says:
    @789

    We are not young anymore.

    I have been posting links to that Carroll Quigley page for far too long.

    But sadly people from anglo saxon world are not interested in that, they prefer the Stalin instigated WWII by pushing Hitler westwards to the Chamberlain instigated WWII by pushing Hitler eastwards. The latter one is the truth, but no one cares.

    “…Former UK PM Edward Heath: I think the Soviet Union has a lot of troubles. They are facing domestic economic difficulties and agricultural predicament, and there are also differences within the leadership, over questions of tactics and timing, not over long-term strategy.

    Mao Zedong: I think the Soviet Union is busy with its own affairs and unable to deal with Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, China and the Pacific. I think it will lose.

    Heath: However, its military strength is continually augmented. Although the Soviet Union has encountered troubles at many places in the world, its strength is continuing to grow. Therefore, we deem this to be the principal threat. Does the Chairman think the Soviet Union constitutes a menace to China?

    Mao: We are prepared for it to come, but it will collapse if it comes. It has only a handful of troops, and you Europeans are so frightened of it! Some people in the West are always trying to direct this calamity toward China. Your senior, Chamberlain, and also Daladier of France were the ones who pushed Germany eastward.

    Heath: I opposed Mr. Chamberlain then…”

    https://cpcchina.chinadaily.com.cn/2010-09/15/content_13918111_5.htm

    “…In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

    (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
    (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
    (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

    The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of…”

    http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html

    • Thanks: Bugey libre
    • Replies: @S
  333. JackOH says:
    @Robin Hood

    Robin Hood, thanks.

    I’ve read London banker David Lough’s No More Champagne, about Sir Winston and his money, and have exchanged correspondence with him. If my memory’s okay, Sir Winston’s family cooperated in its writing, and it received mainstream publication and reviews.

    The picture I got of Sir Winston was of a bibulous and profligate man, who, in his seventh decade, was still looking for a co-signer and a steady job in government.

    I read of the Strakosch bail-out of Churchill, and, I think, also of Cassell’s. I’ve also read and heard some of Churchill’s speeches from the early 1930s, alleging a threat from Germany to England for which there was no evidence at the time of his speaking.

    A pretty fair conclusion after reading Lough’s book is that it’s impossible for any reasonable human being to not believe Sir Winston was unduly influenced and blinded by the generosity of his benefactors. In practice, and in my opinion, that meant Churchill could not see the rather legitimate German grievances still outstanding from Versailles, because he was promoting an agenda, Jewish-Zionist, that had the Germans wearing the black hats no matter what they did.

    Your concluding sentence, the “price of treason”, may be off a bit, but probably not by much.

  334. Attached is a piece of serious reading on the last chance for Great Britain — to get the USA into WW2. Wherein, yet again, American citizens were played as dupes.

    “The scale and audacity” of British intelligence activivities in the US between June 1940 and December 1941, concludes one historian, “were without parallel in the history of relations between allied democracies.” /9

    Millions [of Americans] remembered with bitterness the deceit by which the US had entered the world war of 1914-1918, and the betrayal of the solemn, noble-sounding pledges made during those years by US President Wilson and the leaders of Britain and France.

    http://ihr.org/other/RooseveltBritishCollusion

    Above document stresses British Intelligence working in America with a willing FDR against a majority of his own citizens. Below historian D Irving speaks on the role of Chaim Weitzman who claimed US Jews could get the USA into the war. This would simply be an extension of the war they had declared on Germany as early as 1933, whose hopes of others fighting for them looked shaky after the rout of GB and France.

    https://archive.org/details/the-zionist-influence-over-winston-churchill

    • Agree: Robin Hood, HdC
  335. @Robin Hood

    His name was Edward Rydz-Smigly — the criminal fool who started World War II. As is to be expected, his name is virtually unknown outside of Poland. It’s high-time this dirty, rotten, ego-maniacal scoundrel gets the posthumous “credit” he so richly deserves.

    Exactly right.
    Emboldened by the fake assurances of Perfidious Albion, this pompous bloodstained wretch not only threatened war on Germany, easily winnable in just three days in his opinion, but loved to throw his weight around elsewhere, for example —

    In March of 1938, Smigly issued an ultimatum to the tiny Baltic State of Lithuania. Lithuania had refused to have any diplomatic relations with Poland after 1920, protesting the annexation of the Vilnius Region by the new Polish state. The ultimatum demanded that Lithuania unconditionally agree to establish diplomatic ties with Poland within 48 hours, and that the terms be finalized within two weeks. The establishment of diplomatic relations would mean a renunciation of Lithuanian claims to the region containing its historic capital, Vilnius.

    As easy mark for Perfidious Albion to use.

    https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/meet-the-man-who-started-world-war-ii/

    PS Bromberg was just one example.

    https://patri-x.com/bromberg-bloody-sunday-polish-jews-massacre-5500-germans-in-one-day-followed-by-thousands-more-in-the-next-few-days/

    • Replies: @S
  336. @Malla

    I wouldn’t call it a disaster. It is more like a slow controlled decline. The herds get spooked and frightened at very quick changes. We can’t have that.

  337. @Malla

    “Don’t be an idiot.”

    It can’t be helped. This happened a long time ago. I fell on a concrete basement floor when I was 2 years old and was unconscious for one half hour or so my mother told me.

    • Replies: @Malla
  338. iffen says:
    @Seraphim

    The Soviets who knew in detail these plans thanks to their spies in the German High Command couldn’t fail to decipher the hidden message.

    What do you, and others that are knowledgeable on the subject, such as Malla and McNally, make of the fact that mere hours before the attack, more than one German communist, defected and crossed into Russia and warned of the immediately coming attack, whereupon Stalin had them shot. Was that a simple shooting the messenger event?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Seraphim
  339. Blankaerd says:

    Gorodetsky and Glantz probably did not bother to respond to Suvorov on a point-by-point basis, because that would take up multiple volumes nobody is going to read. Yes, Suvorov may have been important in opening up the discussion whether or not Stalin was going to attack Hitler, but Suvorov claims many other things that are both hard to refute and hard to prove at the same time, yet obviously the burden of proof is on Suvorov, and his evidence in most cases is lackluster. Icebreaker by the way was not based on Soviet archives (unlike books by Glantz and Gorodetsky) but instead based on open-source material such as memoirs and diaries and the like. He often quotes people out of context, and interprets said quote with the preconceived notion that Stalin was some genius who masterminded the Second World War, to the point that Stalin even helped Hitler into power in 1933 and set the events that would lead to World War II in motion.

    The claims that the attack on the USSR was a preemptive war was only made by the Germans months after Barbarossa commenced. During talks with Halder in July 1940, Hitler mostly cited strategical and geopolitical reasons for invading the USSR: It became more and more clear to Hitler that Britain was holding on in the war – despite Hitler’s reasonable peace-terms – because it hoped that the US and/or the USSR would at some point declare war on Germany. The Germans were also acutely aware of their dependence on the Soviet Union for resources. Hitler did one last attempt to get the Soviets on board with Hitler’s ambitions by inviting Molotov to Berlin, hoping to drive the Soviets into India. Hitler himself did not have high hopes for the meeting. Molotov wanted concrete agreements while Hitler only spoke in very broad, general terms about the geopolitical situation. Not soon after he signed Operation Barbarossa.

    Hitler started planning new campaigns before Barbarossa commenced, and German intelligence was not aware of the Soviet reserves. After 22 June German military production decreased for a while, because they actually thought they could knock out the Soviets in three months time. Hitler was still riding high on his swift victories in Europe – especially France. Also, Hitler did not mobilize for total war until 1943 – a fatal error. When the objective of completely destroying the Red Army – Some 300+ divisions as the Germans calculated – failed in September, the German narrative shifted from invading the Soviet Union for geopolitical/strategical concerns to a life-and-death struggle between Bolshevism and Nazism.

    • Replies: @Bankotsu
  340. Bookish1 says:
    @gatobart

    Your post is way off. The west was never indoctrinated by what you say about Stalin. If anything the west was mute on Stalin and all the focus was on how terrible Hitler was.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @gatobart
  341. Anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:

    Relocation of some Soviet industry may have begun in late 1940, but full-blown evacuation didn’t begin until after the German invasion.

  342. @iffen

    Stalin had them shot

    Humor for the thread that is 90% BS. Russian joke:
    An aid comes to Stalin and says
    – Here is a man who claims to know the future and wants to talk to you.
    – Shoot him, he is a fraud. If he knew the future, he would never have come to me.

    • LOL: iffen
  343. FB says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Some excellent comments in this thread, dismantling quite completely the latest US bullshit posing as WW2 ‘scholarship.’

    But your point-by-point summary definitely hits each and every target square on the button!

  344. iffen says:
    @Incitatus

    What Bullshit.

    You will have to admit that it’s fascinating bullshit.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    , @Incitatus
  345. S says:
    @Bankotsu

    I have been posting links to that Carroll Quigley page for far too long.

    But sadly people from anglo saxon world are not interested in that, they prefer the Stalin instigated WWII by pushing Hitler westwards to the Chamberlain instigated WWII by pushing Hitler eastwards. The latter one is the truth, but no one cares.

    Good post.

    It doesn’t have to be either/or, however.

    As a micro-cosm, both the Capitalist US/UK and Communist Soviet Union may have been intending to use National Socialist Germany as a deadly pawn with which which to bludgeon the other with. The prize for either should they have succeeded, would be Germany itself, the center of power upon continental Europe, and a major stepping stone towards the obtainment of total world power for which ever side prevailed.

    At first (in 1939-40) after signing the Non-Agression pact with Germany, and, when Hitler was driving West, things seemed to be going Stalin’s way. However, as is known, Western Europe collapsed relatively quickly against the German onslaught, and the Brits successfully parried Operation Sealion by decimating the Luftwaffe.

    Things turned against Stalin in a major way in the Summer of ’41 with Barbarossa, and it was the Soviets, specifically the Russian people, that got bludgeoned, though ultimately pulling through in the end. The Germans didn’t come out too well either, of course. The US/UK, in particular the US, came out the least harmed.

    Having said that, Carroll Quigley writes some excellent stuff.

    In the ‘big picture’, as wiley as Stalin may have been, he had little chance in this ‘game’. The US/UK had already largely conquered the Earth by about 1900 (at the latest) when they formed the ‘special relationship’. At that time, according to WT Stead, the US/UK had acquired three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German empires, and called the US/UK the ‘supreme power’, and ‘world conquerers’. [See pg 10, 11, and 12, of Stead’s 1902 book The Americanization of the World.]

    Besides that, the center of world finance has been in either London (the City) or New York (Wall Street) the past two hundred plus years.

    A person might say, Europe, even Germany, was evenly divided East and West in ’45. True enough, on the surface. The devil is in the details, though, and I have to emphasize the devil here.

    The Soviet portion of Eastern Europe (including East Germany), was largely rural, low population density, agricultural, and relatively un-industrialized. The West portion the US/UK got had high population density, was much more industrialized, more urban, was far richer. [There is a similar pattern with the colonial division of Africa between Britain and France, on the surface appearing to be an even split. The British portion of East and South Africa had the bulk of the water, oil, gold, diamonds, rich farmland, etc. French West Africa consisted primarily of the Sub-Saharan desert.]

    A person then might say, what about the loyal opposition to all of this since 1789, the ‘Reds’? Yes, ‘loyal’ indeed, and what about them? They were created (and ultimately controlled I submit) by the same people who created Capitalism. How many people, for instance,, are aware that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Capitalist US Declaration of Independence, also (1984 O’Brien like) collaborated in writing the 1789 French Revolution’s seminal Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? It was from the French Revolution which Communism would evolve from. Ben Franklin was probably also involved in getting the French Revolution going, as was Thomas Paine.

    The best thing people can do is opt out of this broadly controlled (crimethink, I know) Capitalist/Communist, Right/Left, dialectic, and stop participating in the game.

  346. Anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:

    Glantz did not have anything like unfettered access to Soviet archives, and while he didn’t claim to, he also didn’t do much to dissuade common perceptions that he did.

  347. Anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bookish1

    Agreed. Contra the fantasies and delusions of the Stalin nut-huggers here, anti-Soviet propaganda in the West (even at the height of the Cold War) was nowhere near as vituperative as anti-Nazi propaganda. (They still won’t give up on the Brown Scare even today, in fact it’s even worse.) There were (and are) liberals and leftists who would either mute their criticisms of the SU, or engage in outright apologia. The main public hostility towards the SU came from mainstream conservatives, who could never have excused the Germans like their liberal counterparts did the Soviets. (And of course these conservatives, in true ‘Brer Rabbit fashion, mainly advocated for the American national security state, instead of trying to purge the country of leftist subversion.)

  348. Bankotsu says:
    @Blankaerd

    John Erickson reviews the recent controversies surrounding Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union.

    BARBAROSSA JUNE 1941: WHO ATTACKED WHOM?

    “…A critically important link in the evolution of Soviet war planning and operational preparation came with two-part `Red versus Blue’ strategic war-games conducted during the first week of January 1941.

    We now have a detailed record of these war-games, planned as early as October 1940 and designed to test the revised war plan. Generals Pavlov and Zhukov played alternatively attacker and defender…

    …In the event Stalin sanctioned neither. As a result the Red Army could neither attack nor defend. Mindful of the precedent of 1914, when mobilisation triggered war, Stalin ruled out mobilisation and refused to authorise increased readiness.

    The plan of May 15th was possibly designed to impress him with the urgency of the situation, a plea for increased readiness. But it was essentially what the Red Army went haltingly to war with in June, based on a maldeployment dating back to October 1940 and the strategic design founded in the January 1941 war games.

    Three initial directives dated June 22nd-23rd prescribed `counterblow’ objectives culled from the war games. Stalin had neither the intention nor the capability to embark on `preventive war’.

    His ‘war avoidance strategy’ ruled out a pre-emptive strike, and even militated against timely defensive moves lest they be construed as `provocations’. But what of Stalin himself and his strategy?

    It is only in the past decade that a serious revision of what might be called accepted interpretations of Stalin’s policies on the eve of the war has occurred.

    That these `standard interpretations’ have persisted is due, in Professor Gorodetsky’s view, to `the almost total absence of evidence of Stalin’s intentions’.

    The scant evidence which did exist was largely exploited to place the major responsibility for the disaster of 1941 at his door. It is no longer a case of scant evidence. Gorodetsky, author of The Icebreaker Myth (published in Moscow in 1995) was able to conduct a `thorough scrutiny’ of Soviet archives, the Foreign Ministry, the General Staff and intelligence materials. The fresh evidence is impressive, the conclusions arresting. No longer was Stalin the devious plotter or the `outwitted bungler’. This is a rational Stalin, a geopolitical operator, interested in negotiating for European peace, but his presumption of being a possible arbiter seduced him from awareness of the German threat.

    A misreading of the political scene, coupled with his near paranoid suspicion of the British, led him to discount his own intelligence reports; but, worse, military errors impelled him to adopt a policy of outright appeasement towards Germany, which led inevitably towards disaster.

    Gorodetsky considers Stalin’s policy to have been `rational and levelheaded’, his mentor in foreign policy Machiavelli. But perhaps ‘the single most significant factor’ in bringing about the calamity of 1941 was Stalin’s failure to consider what could follow if appeasement and warding off suspected, supposed `provocations’ completely failed.

    In that event Stalin had left the margins too close to call, reality was upon him in the shape of full-blooded, war-waging, murderously destructive Operation Barbarossa, the threat he had hoped to parry or parley away.

    The Soviet Union had to bear the terrible cost of Stalin’s dogged, obstinate pursuit of what became self-disarming mechanisms of which the final fatal instance was dismissing, discounting the imminence of war. The `Suvorov’ fantasies, fictions and inventions do not bear comparison with a horrendous reality…”

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1704&sid=69c4ae71b491b63a743fefd84984c895

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  349. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rahan

    It’s one thing to want to apply the Belgian Congo Negro-extermination system

    another anti-white slander, created by a jew, of course

  350. Anon[263] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Verso

    Zhukov not any more unreliable than most memoir writing Generals and cannot be discounted without evidence. Hitler wrote it down in MeinKampf. It is beyond absurd to ignore this out in the open statement of intent. The unprecedented scale and success of the first 3 months of the Blitzkreig prove intent. “We were just attacking the Russians before they attacked us and took Paris..” “so you don’t need to hang me I’m innocent” Please. The Red Army, by far the largest in the world at the time, had just gotten exposed for the corrupt poorly lead and equipped entity it was in Finland. Stalin was aware of this and brought Zukov back from the east to change things up, too late though. Although Stalin may have long dreamed of going all the way to Normandy by surprise, he knew it was only a dream, particularly going against the Wermacht of May 1941.

  351. EugeneGur says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’m now nearly done with the McMeekin book, and it seems absolutely outstanding.

    Except it is completely false. By the way, that guy wasn’t the first to advance that “theory” and neither was Rezun, a.k.a. Suvorov – Goebbels was. Keitel and Jodl both used the same excuse at Nuremberg; didn’t quite work for them, though. The testimony of the field marshal Paulus, who personally oversaw the operative planning of “Barbarossa”, made it absolutely clear that it was a pre-planned operation aimed at colonizing the Soviet territory and had nothing to do with any threat of the Soviet attack. That idea never even came up in the German high command. The notion was corroborated by Manstein and other German commanders.

    But that’s not enough for you, is it? Of course not. It’s fashionable now in the West to make of the Nuremberg and completely disregard its materials and conclusions. I am always amazed at how willingly you guys side with the Nazis. Makes me think that fascism is inherent to the Western psyche.

    • Agree: FB, Robert Konrad
    • Disagree: HdC
    • Replies: @anon
  352. Marcali says:
    @Zarathustra

    The next province is Bessarabia. What do you think that suggests?

  353. Marcali says:
    @Zarathustra

    Just ask the original peoples of Siberia how they never encountered a Russian aggressor.
    You might ask some Alaskans as well.

  354. Marcali says:
    @John Johnson

    Vlasov knew what he was talking about:

    Crimean Front: „On 2 March, Mekhlis (the highest ranking Jew in the Red Army) launched his ’big music’ in a fiasco that proved to be the insane apogee of terror applied to military science. He banned the digging of trenches ’so that the offensive spirit of the soldiers would not be undermined’ and insisted that anyone who took ’elementary security measures’ was a ’panic monger’. All were ’mashed into a bloody porridge’.” There goes an army group of 250,000 men.
    (Simon Sebag Montefiore: Stalin, the Court of the Red Tsar, Phoenix, 2003, p. 421.)

    • Replies: @S
  355. Ron, are these Guyenot articles translations? Does he publish in France?

  356. Levtraro says:
    @Anonymous

    I am inclined to think that it was the A-bomb that made them put the Operation Unthinkable in the back burner. They decided to take no chances on the ground and incinerate the USSR with new bombs which was much easier than incinerating Dresden (and pretending there were so few victims since the ashes don’t count). So the war was put on hold while they manufactured enough nuclear bombs. The Soviet bastards invented their own, moreover, overpassed the West in missiles, and the pause is still lingering

    .

    Markus Wolf, chief of intelligence services of the Ministry of State Security of East Germany during 34 years (known as the man without a face, he had one, but no one in the West knew what it looked like until 1978) attributed a great deal of credit in the development of the Soviet bomb to the German-British physicist Klaus Fuchs. Actually, I clearly remember reading in Wolf’s memoirs (“Man Without a Face”, 1997, PublicAffairs), that to Wolf, Fuchs was the single individual that contributed the most to post-WWII peace, by passing extremely important technical info to both the British and the Soviets, but mostly to the latter, regarding the design of the H bomb, results of tests of uranium and plutonium bombs, and for the production of uranium 235. So to say that the Soviets invented their own may not be precisely correct. They had the advantage of knowing American-British-Canadian progress in the area. This according to Wolf.

  357. @Anon

    The ability of Soviet agents to influence the Roosevelt administration was always contingent upon Hitler playing the role of the forward aggressor while Stalin stayed in the background. When the US and USSR had emerged as the clearly victors in 1945 this unraveled immediately. Although Moscow was suspicious of the Marshall Plan there was nothing which Harry Dexter White could do to prevent this. You’re greatly exaggerating the influence of Soviet agents like White.

    If Stalin had been so stupid as to attempt to conquer Europe in the Rezun claims then it would have been totally impossible for people like White to bury the matter. Instead we know that Churchill would have been immediately clamoring for war against Stalin, and likely reaching out to Japan as an ally. Meanwhile people like Charles Lindbergh, who went along with the war Pearl Harbor, would now instead be coming forward as critics of Roosevelt over his Soviet policies. Roosevelt would still be stuck with the quandary of how to justify the economic measures which he wished to take in the absence of a war.

    It’s funny to see how many of Roosevelt’s fiercest critics used to like to point out how until Pearl Harbor came along the US public was very wary of joining in an alliance with Dear Old Uncle Joe. Yes, they were. that’s true. But when it’s pointed that a ridiculous move by Stalin such as Rezun claims would have brought about the opposite result people try to shrug it off. The fact is that there would have been no Pearl Harbor in Rezun’s scenario. Japan would have attacked the USSR no later than July 1941, if Stalin had done something this foolish.

    Many of the same people who point out the role of Pearl Harbor in changing the public sentiment in the US also like to point out the Churchill-Roosevelt correspondence which Tyler Kent tried to expose. It is true that Churchill and Roosevelt had an exchange going well before Churchill become Prime Minister. Both Churchill and Roosevelt had their hopes pinned on a Good War which earn them prestige, and both saw Hitler as the likely figure who would provide that war. But if Stalin had this idiotic move then not Churchill and Roosevelt both need to find a new Good War for sale, but the tight correspondence which they already had going would have continued. Given the documented fact of Churchill having advocated for campaigns against Stalin first in 1940 with Operation Pike and then in 1945 with Operation Unthinkable, we can easily predict what types of influence Churchill would be exerting on Roosevelt.

    While it would be easy that argument in much greater detail, there is an important corollary point which deserves greater emphasis. Simply put, Joseph Stalin was not a blundering clod like Adolf Hitler. Stalin was a ruthless paranoiac who could fantasize about conspiracies under his bed, but he was not an arrogant fool. Every single one of the lines which I’ve indicated above would have been carefully laid out by Stalin himself if he ever contemplated doing something like what Rezun asserts. Stalin would never have assumed that Harry Dexter White could simply fob things off onto the US public as “Oh, I think Dear Old Uncle Joe is just helping democracy in Europe.” That’s a ridiculous projection of Hitler’s own pompous buffoonery onto Stalin where it does not belong.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Johnny Rico
  358. @Nigel Winters

    Sanning’s book came out in 1983, so it pre-dates Suvorov’s first article on the subject by a couple of years, but I’ve no doubt these ideas were already in currency in sympathetic German circles long before.

    Topitsch’s book dates from 1987 and is well worth reading if one can find a copy. His is more of a diplomatic than a military study, arguing that the circumstances of Nazi-Soviet Pact indicate not that the Soviets were scared of Germany, but rather the opposite – they were the ones beliigerently badgering the Germans for concessions. In that sense, Hitler was aware of the threat from 1939, so the German planning and build-up of forces during 1940 do not prove that he was simply fulfilling his longstanding desire for Lebensraum.

  359. gatobart says:
    @Bookish1

    BS. The “West” is being right now heavily indoctrinated against Russia, Putin, China and Xi and if you spout out such nonsense as such as all “this is not happening” then you are giving yourself the best demonstration of how right I am. Stalin was a paranoiac and ruthless dictator who didn’t hesitate to eliminate those who he saw as a threat to his position as head of the CP-USSR and top dog in the USSR and to same extent his demonization makes sense, after all the man fits the bill. On the other hand Vladimir Putin is a rather open and democratic leader of modern day Russia (even if we may qualify the “democratic” part because of his incredible staying (in power) capabilities) one still enjoying a rate of popularity among his people “leaders” in the West could only dream of, yet he has been blamed of every possible sin and evil deed in the West, by politicians and the mainstream media, even the most incredible, and the sheeple has dutifully swallowed it all. (they are gonna probably end up blaming him for the Colonial malware affair, what else is new…) He has even been accused of paying bounties to the Taliban for doing exactly what the Taliban has been gladly doing for decades anyway, killing U.S. troops. Absurd also, as Russia has been giving crucial assistance for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan by providing stop overs for US planes carrying military supplies and he has himself said that Russia benefits with the “American” occupation of Afghanistan as “it has helped contain Islamic terrorism in the region”. Yet, despite all this, according to public polls in the U.S. around two thirds of “Americans’ believe the “Putin is paying the Taliban to kill Americans” canard. But while being such an evil schemer in the eyes of the Western populace, thanks to the 24/7 brainwashing practiced on them, he has been also portrayed as an incredibly ineffective and stupid poisoner, as he has not only constantly failed to actually kill his victims but he has also made everything within his power to deliver them in the hands of Western medical experts so they could denounce him in front of the world…! If they are doing that against Putin, how couldn’t they have done it against Stalin…?

    No, I wan’t writing something that is not true, I wasn’t even exaggeration. Quite the contrary,. I was falling short in my comment on the deep and effective anti-Russian brainwashing of the sheeple of the West.

    But you are half right on one thing. Stalin wasn’t demonized in the West while he collaborated, while stayed out of the way of the Anglo powers in their route to world supremacy, something being made possible to a great extent by the FDR presidency. But when he refused to keep dancing to their tune and get under the US economic and military umbrella; when he said no thanks to the invitation to be another U.S. client state or minion by refusing to be another Marshall Plan sucker, then is when he suddenly turned into the Devil himself. Deja vu…? Of course! Saddam Hussein, Muhammar el Qadaffi, Rafael Noriega, you name them.

  360. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Patrick McNally

    You’re overstating the significance of Operation Unthinkable (there were two of them, I assume you’re referring to the offensive-minded one). Yes, it was pondered, but rejected as infeasible due to the huge Soviet numerical superiority (and that’s before realistically removing American troops from the mix, they would have headed to Asia). This was really just more Churchillian bluster (according to his generals he spent most of the war drunk; I can tell).

    White was hardly the only Soviet asset in American government.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  361. @Patrick McNally

    Your needlessly over-analyze counterfactuals. Pointless self-aggrandizing.

    “Simply put, Joseph Stalin was not a blundering clod like Adolf Hitler. Stalin was a ruthless paranoiac who could fantasize about conspiracies under his bed, but he was not an arrogant fool.”

    Gross generalizations that countless examples prove faulty and useless.

    And easily predicting is something only fools can do.

    Simply put.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  362. @iffen

    Nope.

    Manstein’s Lost Victories has been panned by just about every analytical military historian as self-serving bullshit.

    • Replies: @iffen
  363. @Robin Hood

    Your general points about Churchill’s background are all well and good, but they simply reinforce my point. Churchill was an opportunist who was looking to hang his hat on a goof war. There is no way on earth that he would have sat back quietly if Stalin had committed the insane lunacy which Rezun claims. Nor is it true that any Jewish funders anywhere would have been happy to see Stalin do something this crazy. Instead they would have waited to see Hitler crushed and then everyone would have begun demanding that Stalin move his buttocks back to the 1939 frontiers.

    Much of the fellow travelers’ sympathy for the USSR in the 1930s was motivated simply by anti-Hitler politics. Everyone, including Hitler himself, believed that the USSR was a largely impotent state that would collapse swiftly in a war, while the Third Reich was seen as the new rising power over Europe. Under those specific conditions, people were willing to spout apologetics for the Moscow Show Trials and treat Stalin as an ally. That would have stopped very soon after if Stalin had gone ahead with the Rezun lunacy.

  364. anonall says:

    3 worthwhile books that are different from the false conventional historical belief taught in American schools as truth, yet all agree.

    1st) “Freedom Betrayed” by ex-President Herbert Hoover. Hoover saw that the Roosevelt administration was strangely working hard to get American into an unnecessary war via USSR agents and it was literally Hoover’s life’s work to document it. Nothing was put into the book that was not double sourced, and he had a full time team working on gathering facts, reworking and re-editing the manuscript for years.

    2nd) Operation Snow”. Hoover suspected something like this occurred, but the facts did not come out until 1995 after the USSR fell and we got first hand accounts and documentation from Former Soviet NKVD agents that the USSR had a Jewish agent high up in the Roosevelt administration which the Russians had directed to get the US into war with Japan. That traitor, Harry Dexter White (original name Weiss) with a few other Soviet agents working in the US Government (in the early 50’s there were over 20,000 government workers fired for being “security risks”) was wildly successful as he literally brought about Pearl Harbor and the millions of deaths and horrors that followed.

    3rd) “The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II” by Viktor Suvorov. One of only 2 USSR GRU agents who defected to the west, Suvorov explains in minute and factual detail why Germany had to attack USSR as a defensive move. At the end you’ll say: “Ahaahaha! THAT EXPLAINS IT!”

    • Replies: @gatobart
  365. FB says: • Website

    It’s hard to decide which is the more laughable—the house of cards that McMeekin has assembled with this ‘history’…or the ‘review’ published here.

    We have for instance this:

    The most dramatic material evidence of more offensive Soviet intent was the construction of forward air bases abutting the new frontier separating Stalin’s empire from Hitler’s. The “Main Soviet Administration of Aerodrome Construction,” run by the NKVD, ordered the construction of 251 new Red Air Force bases in 1941, of which fully 80 percent (199) were located in western districts abutting the German Reich.

    ‘Dramatic’ indeed…if only McMeekin knew the first thing about air combat, or even the Soviet Defense Plan of 1941.

    The Soviet Union hardly produced any long-range bombers of the sort required for offensive operations. Instead, the bulk of production was in short-range, ground-support aircraft, specifically the Ilyushin IL2 ‘Shturmovik’ also known as the ‘flying tank.’

    Over 36 thousand of these were produced during the war, making it the most-produced aircraft type of all combatants in the war. Its mission was simple, to counter attacking ground armor and infantry, and its modest fuel capacity meant it was a short-range aircraft and thus required basing near the front lines.

    Glantz describes the role of IL2 in the final German offensive in the east, Operation Citadel in 1943:

    Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region [13th Army].

    Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20–30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara.

    —Glantz and Orenstein 1999, p. 260.

    So positioning your defensive aviation assets in a place where they are needed to repel a tank invasion is, in the logic of McMeekin a ‘dramatic’ proof of a planned invasion?

    Next we hear that McMeekin ‘believes’ that ‘the ideal launch date for the Soviet offensive … fell in late July or August’ [of ’41].

    Yet speaking to his generals in December 1940, Stalin said this: ‘We will try to delay the war for another two years.’—Berthon and Potts, 2007, page 47.

    Yet Hitler already had a full plan for invading Russia months previous!

    As early as August 1940, British intelligence had received hints of German plans to attack the Soviets only a week after Hitler informally approved the plans for Barbarossa and warned the Soviet Union accordingly.

    —Waller, 1996, page 192.

    So Hitler had already approved the invasion BEFORE August 1940, as the Marcks plan I already mentioned above shows. I suppose McMeekin could argue that Hitler possessed some kind of precognition of a coming Soviet invasion, long before the Soviets began mobilizing and moving troops to the frontier as per the Defense Plan of 1941 [DP41]?

    I had mentioned already above the lack of preparedness of the Soviet mobilization even by the time of the June 22 invasion. Yet we are supposed to accept with a straight face McMeekin’s ‘belief’ that they were about to attack just one month later?

    …in the autumn of 1939, the Soviets disbanded their mechanized corps and partly dispersed their tanks to infantry divisions; but following their observation of the German campaign in France, in late-1940 they began to reorganize most of their armored assets back into mechanized corps with a target strength of 1,031 tanks each.

    But these large armoured formations were unwieldy, and moreover they were spread out in scattered garrisons, with their subordinate divisions up to 100 kilometres [62 miles] apart. The reorganization was still in progress and incomplete when Barbarossa commenced.

    —Glantz, page 22, 109; Dunnigan, page 82.

    So the Russian forces were ‘spread out’ instead of in column formations that would be necessary for an attack?

    Soviet tank units were rarely well equipped, and they lacked training and logistical support. Units were sent into combat with no arrangements in place for refueling, ammunition resupply, or personnel replacement. Often, after a single engagement, units were destroyed or rendered ineffective.

    That’s some ‘invasion’ preparation.

    Defense Plan 1941 was a classic defensive grouping consisting of a widely spaced forward echelon, with a smaller rear echelon for delivering a counter-offensive. Neither one was near full strength on the eve of Barbarossa, nor could this grouping be interpreted in any way other than defensive.

    Even Manstein noted this, as quoted in a comment above:

    I think it would be nearest the truth to describe the Soviet dispositions – to which the occupation of eastern Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltic territories had already contributed very strong forces – as a ‘deployment against every contingency’.

    On 22nd June 1941, undoubtedly, the Soviet Union’s forces were still strung-out in such depth that they could then have been used only in a defensive war.

    But I guess McMeekin knows more about military tactics than Feldmarchall von Manstein?

    This hilarity is only exceeded by the clownish interpretation of Guyenot:

    Just like Suvorov, McMeekin gives undisputable evidence that Stalin was planning to invade Europe in 1941, and had planned it for a very long time.

    Which is why Stalin ordered the evacuation of industry to the Urals and Siberia, starting in 1940?

    But the McMeekin whopper is yet to come—with his treatment of the events leading up to the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact in 1939. This is the most dishonest portrayal imaginable, whereby he turns historical events on their head:

    On June 2, 1939, Molotov handed the British and French ambassadors a draft agreement, under which the Soviets might provide mutual assistance to smaller European states under “threat of aggression by a European power.”[29] On August 12, an Anglo-French delegation arrived in Moscow for further discussion. But Stalin then changed his mind, and Molotov did not receive the delegates.[30]

    What a complete farce. The fact is that Stalin tried desperately for YEARS to bring Britain and France into an anti-Hitler alliance. He was completely rebuffed. That ‘delegation’ of gofers [dispatched unhurriedly by sea to Moscow] had no authority to conclude any kind of deal. And Stalin is supposedly to blame for blowing off this charade?

    Turning this historical episode on its head must be the crowning achievement of this ‘historian’ McMeekin.

    Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

    Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler’s pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany’s other neighbours.

    The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.

    The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

    But the British and French side – briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals – did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later. by Poland.

    —Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’

    Could it be a surprise that after nearly six years of failed attempts to organise an anti-Nazi front, that the Soviet government would lose all confidence in the French and British governments and cut a deal with Berlin to stay out of a war, which everyone recognised was imminent?

    This was the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact signed on 23 August 1939. As for the Poles, in their hubris and blindness, they mocked the idea of an alliance with the USSR right up until the first day of the war.

    —Why the West Falsifies the History of World War II, Michael Jabara Carley

    [Interesting to note that this review ‘author’ Guyenot, puts this under the heading ‘The Gangster Pact’].

    Then this ‘review’ veers off into a discussion of Stalin’s drive for industrialization, which of course completely transformed the Soviet Union into a modern, industrial and urbanized society with universal education and healthcare and a comprehensive social safety net, and one of the world’s best-educated societies that would lead the world in science and technology within a few decades.

    Of course all of this industrialization and modernization drive is for strictly nefarious reasons—chalked to put the economy on a ‘war footing.’ And of course the boilerplate horror stories of this era;

    The worst nightmare of the Bolshevik leaders lies in the emergence of a popular rejection of war similar to that which brought down the Romanov dynasty.”

    This is what motivated the “Great Turn” of 1928, whose victims, either by execution, deportation, or famine, are estimated at between 10 and 16 million. During this time, Stalin sold an average of 5 million tons of grain abroad each year to finance his armaments.

    Of sure. Except those who lived through that era tell a very different story:

    Why did my mother keep the portrait of Stalin? She was a peasant woman. Before collectivization, our family lived well. But at what cost did they get it? Hard work from dawn to dusk. And what were the prospects for her children (she gave birth to eleven children!)? To become peasants, at best, artisans.

    Collectivization began. Destruction of the village. Flight of people to cities. And the result of this? In our family, one person became a professor, another became a plant director, a third became a colonel, and three became engineers. And something similar happened in millions of other families.

    I do not want to use evaluative expressions “bad” and “good” here. I just want to say that in this era in the country there was an unprecedented in the history of mankind the rise of many millions of people from the very bottom of society into masters, engineers, teachers, doctors, artists, officers, scientists, writers, directors.

    —Alexander Zinoviev, Soviet philospher, writer.

    So there you have it. This tissue of nonsense from McMeekin is a carefully and selectively constructed house of cards that will not withstand even a breath of air exhaled upon it. It is of course typical in the long line of fake ‘historiography’ emanating from the US over seven decades or more.

    Just like the anti-Soviet agit-prop of the cold war era served a purpose to obfuscate and discredit, so too the current anti-Russia agenda whereby rewriting the history of WW2 is a key subject. McMeekin’s ‘scholarship’ on the subject of WW2 history carries about the same legitimacy as Josef Mengele’s work in medicine. Perhaps less.

    • Thanks: Begemot, Robert Konrad
  366. maz10 says:

    It is sometimes amusing to read the comments of the pro German camp.

    Was Germany treated unfairly at Versailles? One might say so except for some ‘minor’ details. Namely while the Germans did not impale babies on bayonets or mass rape women in Liege’s city square they still did plenty of awful things in Belgium for real. The terms they imposed in the Treaty of Bucharest and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were pretty harsh too. In other words when the Germans were winning they behaved like arrogant assholes. It was thus fitting and deserving that they got the treatment arrogant assholes get when they lose – which is exactly what happened to them at Versailles. Sorry, but I am not sorry.

    Similarly Hitler’s reasonable demands – they might have been reasonable (with caveats as explained below) up to and including getting Sudetenland. But once the Germans gobbled up the rest of Czechia and made Slovakia their puppet state that was not more so. The policy of appeasement was thus not and could not be ‘killed’ by Churchill as well as those around and behind him (even if the obese demagogue lost his voice from bloviating in the House of Commons) but for Hitler’s own actions.

    Having said that I never stopped being amazed at how many people think that to satisfy German demands is everyone’s obvious duty. Why should anybody listen to what the Austrian painter demanded in the first place? As already explained the harsh treatment at Versailles was a fitting way to discipline arrogant assholes which the Germens were when they were winning. At the very least the Gefreiter should have been told that if he rocks the boat too much it might sink with him drowning in the process. If the rest of contemporary actors can be blamed for something it is not for failing to listen to Hitler’s ‘reasonable demands’ but rather for early on not telling him straight in the face that one set of German arrogant assholes already got harsh treatment for their antics but it will be nothing compered to what is in stock for him and Germany if he does not stop with his annoying bullshit right away.

    Concerning Molotov’s demands and Red Army’s military preparations: that Stalin might have been preparing to attack is a strong possibility, however it does not matter one bit. Even a ‘short’ operation against the Soviets required massive concentration of forces which demanded corresponding logistic preparations. That in turn necessitated time consuming planning even before the first troop and supply trains started rolling. As we know this is exactly what happened with first directives to start planning a war against the Soviets being issued not long after the fall of France back in 1940. Which means the Germans were going to attack the Soviets and in view of that Molotov’s demands as well as the Red Army’s concentrations did not matter. What they are is nothing but an unintended gift to Hitler and Hitler’s apologists which keeps on giving to this very day.

  367. @Robin Hood

    The notion that Hitler was seeking a settlement over Danzig is pure BS. From the protocol of May 23, 1939:

    “It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East..”

    But don’t depend on me for one-shot quotes. Get the 3rd volume of Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations and look it up yourself to read the whole thing in context. The record makes it perfectly clear that Hitler was not seeking a settlement over Danzig, Sudetenland or any of the places which came up. He was set on the conquest of eastern Europe as a great source of new living space for a growing Aryan race.

    What sometimes created some legitimate historical debates was the fact that, as A.J.P. Taylor recognized, there was a tendency after WWII for many people to talk as if the whole war had been hatched from a grand plot in Hitler’s brain. Taylor quite rightly pointed out that, despite Hitler’s broad expansionist aims, he never had any set plan for actually starting a big war. Rather he blundered his into a big war by imagining that he could endlessly push for more and more without seeing when he overstepping the line. But the notion that Hitler was simply seeking a settlement with Poland over Danzig is a blatant lie. He clearly enunciated much greater aims to his staff even as he pushing the demands over Danzig on the Poles.

  368. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    Manstein’s memoirs like all memoirs and memoirs of Nazi generals in particular are self serving but on the issue of Red Army positions he is correct. The same Manstein in Fall 1944 when Red Army was already on the Vistula line purchased a country estate in Eastern Pomerania which 3 months later was lost to Germany for ever. Great foresight and political awareness of Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein? What was he thinking?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  369. @Fox

    Still making sound and enlightened comments.

    • Thanks: Fox
  370. S says:

    ..the Comintern, founded in Moscow in 1919, aimed at the sovietization of the whole world, as symbolized by its emblem, later incorporated into the banner of the USSR…Lenin’s primary goal was Berlin.

    Similarly, Capitalism, founded in London in 1776, wanted the Americanization of the whole world, and it too had its primary goal of Berlin.

    [MORE]

    Below are some excerpts from the 1853 geopolitical book The New Rome, or, the United States of the World.

    It foretells that a future US/UK united front in it’s drive to conquer Germany will unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth. Immediately following the future world war a grand struggle will ensue specifically between the US and Russia, to determine which of these two powers will dominate first Europe, and then the world.

    1776 Capitalist ‘thesis’…1789 Communist ‘anti-thesis’…202? Global Multi-Cultural ‘synthesis’?

    Pg 105

    That great uprising of all peoples, that world’s war which is for ever seen to hang, like the sword of Damocles, over the passing joys and troubles of the hour, will fall when the Anglo-Saxon empire shall lay its slow but unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation. Then will the mastery of Europe be the prize of the death-struggle between the Union [US] and the Czar [Russia].

    Pg 109

    Thus the lines are drawn. The choirs are marshalled on
    each wing of the world’s stage, Russia leading the one, the United States the other. Yet the world is too small for both, and the contest must end in the downfall of the one and the victory of the other.

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/104/mode/2up

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/108/mode/2up

  371. gatobart says:
    @anonall

    “3rd) “The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II” by Viktor Suvorov. One of only 2 USSR GRU agents who defected to the west, Suvorov explains in minute and factual detail why Germany had to attack USSR as a defensive move. At the end you’ll say: “Ahaahaha! THAT EXPLAINS IT!””

    Now, FF to the 2010s. Syrians generals and ministers who had been sacked by Basher el Assad or were simply defecting “to the West”, also “explained in minute and factual detail” that the bloody and genocidal dictator was about to be toppled, that he had at most two weeks in power and that he had perpetrated incredible acts of cruelty and genocide against his own people: barrel bombing them, gassing them, you name it…

    Venezuelan generals and politicians defecting to the US from the Chavez/Maduro regime have also “explained in minute and factual detail” that the murderous dictator (be that Chavez or Maduro) is about to fall, that everyone around him has abandoned him and everyone in Venezuela is anxiously waiting for the inevitable U.S. military invasion that will bring back freedom and democracy to their country.’

    Also, Russian “opponents” to the ruthless and murderous Putin regime have traveled to the West and “explained in minute and factual detail” that the Russian dictator has murdered anyone trying to form an apposition movement to his rule, etc, etc.

    And we can go on and on.

    Do we see a common thread to all these “news” …? of course. Every time a foreign leader displeases the US NATO family (and I don’t say it in the nice, cozy, sense) he instantly turns from a great democrat and a lover of freedom to a dastardly felon who deserves nothing less than execution (And every time those defecting from his regime have the same story to tell, as if reading from an already prepared script written by someone else): Saddam Hussein and Muhammar el Qadaffi did it when they decided to accept currencies other than the USD dollar for their oil and the same now with Venezuela and Iran. Fidel Castro evolved from a “young idealistic Cuban leader who wanted to bring democracy to his country under the umbrella of the US” to “the jackal of the Caribbean” after he started nationalizing the sugar cane industry and ran afoul of Washington. Putin had a brutal transformation from Great Guy Vlad to a cursed mix of Stalin, Hitler and the Devil the moment he decided to stop playing dead when the US was about to invade another oil rich country and to provide military aid to Syria to repel the “American” aggression in the disguise of a civil war. Stalin suffered the same fate when the war was about to end and “America” realized they couldn’t possibly make a Boris Yeltsin out of him.

    In all this confusion two things are clear:

    a) every time a foreign leader starts looking for the interest of his own country rather than that of Washington, he immediately turns from a saint into the Devil incarnated himself.

    b) the so-called West is full of gullible, brainwashed idiots, and many of these comments are the living proof of it.

    • Replies: @Robert Konrad
  372. Mulegino1 says:
    @FB

    Your cut and paste childish appeals to authority and credentialism- typical of the arrogant, blathering hasbarist- are totally insufficient to eclipse the reality of the events which did transpire:

    The “Staggering Colossus” myth is just that- a myth. The Soviets had already proved themselves capable of successful offensive operations, as against the Japanese at Khalkin Gol and in breaching the Mannerheim Line in Finland, which, despite all claims to the contrary, was an incredibly formidable defensive obstacle.

    The Soviets were deploying massive amounts of men and material along their western frontiers- in offensive formations, including the vulnerable Lvov and Bialystok bulges, and light infantry in the Carpathians. Such deployments indicated an imminent offensive operation. The government was not about to tie up enormous rail resources to withdraw these forces back to the interior in late summer and early autumn.

    They had evacuated most of their frontier regions, which were subsequently administered as Military Districts. This has offensive, not defensive implications, as the removal of the civilian population and traffic within these areas greatly facilitates the unheeded offensive movement of the armies.

    The Soviet frontline air force- almost completely destroyed in the first few days of Barbarossa- was sitting on its tarmacs, wingtip to wingtip- an ironclad indicator of imminent offensive action. A defense employment of air forces involves camouflage, concealment and dispersal of aircraft, not bunching them up.

    The vast encirclements and capture of hundreds of thousands of prisoners would not have been possible if the bulk of the Soviet forces have been defensively deployed. The defense of Brest showed that the Red Army troops were entirely capable of sustained and effective defense. However, the vast bulk of the Soviet land forces were caught out in the open at their most vulnerable- staging for a massive westward offensive.

    The enormous edifice of lies, half-truths, and spectral evidence (Hitler thought, Stalin intended, etc.) that constitutes the establishment narrative of the Second World is crumbling like a sand castle at high tide- and this is a major reason why the “Suvorov hypothesis” (it didn’t originate with Rezun, by the way) is under fire The idea of a treacherous German attack against the peace loving erstwhile Soviet ally is one of the last underpinnings keeping the myth alive. Most of this narrative- unique German culpability and evil- is total bullshit, as is the alleged “industrial scale” mass
    murder of Jews. The foundational myth of the current world dystopia is on its last legs.

    • Replies: @gatobart
  373. gatobart says:
    @Mulegino1

    The “Staggering Colossus” myth is just that- a myth. The Soviets had already proved themselves capable of successful offensive operations, as against the Japanese at Khalkin Gol.

    You are just talking nonsense, you have no sense of proportions. Soviet troops in Khlakhin Gol numbered about +60.000 and the Japanese for their part had about half of it. Compared to that, the German invasion of June 1941 involved +50 times that number on the German side (3.8 million according to Wikipedia) And similar proportions can be established for tanks, planes, and military equipment in genera;l. Yeah right, it is about the same thing to send some tens of thousands of troops to fight for a piece of land than to send several millions to conquer an entire country, a world military power on top of that, an entire continent.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  374. Begemot says:
    @John Johnson

    Poland started this war by invading Ukrainian and Belarussian territory long held by Russia with the intention of adding these territories to Poland. The Red Army counterattacked and drove the Poles back to Warsaw, where the Poles themselves counterattacked and drove the Red Army back. The peace awarded Ukrainian and Belarussian territory to Poland. Poland wasn’t defending Europe.

    Poland was not a victim in this business. Poland was an aggressor. This behavior by Poland was behind Churchill’s characterization of Poland as “the hyena of Europe.”

  375. @Malla

    Changing 5,800 to 58,000 is more than just a matter of being “based on truth.” For there were at least 600,000 Jews killed by the Operational Groups and related German units in the east, as well as more Jews dying in ghettos under conditions of malnourishment. So we can just say that the fabled 6 million number is “based on truth.” If you’re frivolously take Hitler’s ridiculous claim about 58,000 as merely “based on truth” then there really is no honest basis for quibbling about anything ever spouted by Elie Wiesel.

    The motive for a German invasion of Russia was stated as far back as Mein Kampf: living space. Hitler did not simply forget this as a motive, he repeatedly recalled it as preparation was made for the attack on Russia. When Hitler was not talking about Russia as a source of living space the principal reason he offered to his officers for the campaign was that he thought to unseat Churchill by destroying his last hope.

    Keep in mind that Hitler gave the order to prepare for an attack on the USSR in July 1940. One of the tricks used not just by Rezun but also Joachim Hoffmann is to focus on the last few months before Barbarossa was launched when citing quotations. By that time German forces were already built up heavily on the Soviet border, Soviet forces were now accumulating in response, and so one has reports coming in from officers like Kietel about a Soviet military build-up. But even then Hitler not only scoffed at the Soviet military and repeatedly expressed confidence over an easy victory, but he also repeatedly to his racial view. The coming collapse of the USSR would demonstrate the how the Aryan race was naturally fit to conquer the living space of the east. This was why Himmler continued to crank pamphlets with titles like “The Subhuman” once the war had begun. It was always through the lens of racial war and conquest of living space, not as a conventionally defensive struggle against a prospective attack.

    You’re greatly inflating the role of authentic Soviet agents such as Harry Dexter White or Kim Philby. The pro-Soviet stance which FDR took was determined by the fact that no (including Hitler) saw the USSR as a major power. That would have changed overnight if Stalin had tried to seize Europe. Churchill did explicitly advocate for an Allied war against the USSR in the summer of 1945 as Operation Unthinkable. He just did not have the influence to persuade people to go along with it. That would have been completely different if Stalin had done something as moronic as Rezun claims. Certainly Kim Philby would have been no position to influence things. Philby’s formal guise was that he was supposed to be a crypto-fascist. It would have been impossible for him to council against going to war against Stalin in the Rezun-scenario without blowing his cover.

    Japan had been in a small limited war with the USSR in 1939. It was Hitler who persuaded the Japanese that they should leave Stalin for him to take care of while they turned further south as a distraction for the British. That would have gone out the window immediately once Stalin began a general invasion of Europe. Moreover, it should be emphasized again that this is not merely an issue of what Japan would have almost certainly but (more important) of how Stalin would have diagnosed the situation. Stalin himself would definitely not have imagined that he could just invade Germany and count on Japan sitting back and looking out at the Pacific. Stalin’s paranoia deserves to be legendary, but sometimes even that can do some good. No way would Stalin have presumed that he could do this. Instead he waited tensely watching to see what Hitler would do and was caught off guard because he couldn’t imagine Hitler being so brazen.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  376. @Per/Norway

    Thanks for the video. The US and Poland are the most russophobic countries in the world. The Americans and Poles (with some extremely rare exceptions) are born to be russophobic. The Russians are finally learning this truth. And the truth should set them free.

  377. S says:
    @Marcali

    Millions of Russians have already paid with their lives for Stalin’s criminal attempts to seize world-wide power to the profit of Anglo-American capitalists.

    All those who put on German uniforms in the war were in a nearly impossible position, particularly the Russians. I doubt any of them ideally wanted to wear them. I think they saw a brief and desperate opportunity where they might have a chance, albeit a small one, to preserve their people, versus no chance at all with the status quo.

    Some of those groups took German aid but still managed a certain autonomy (ie sometimes they attacked the Germans and helped the Allies). That didn’t stop them being betrayed at the end by the Capitalist US/UK ‘Allies’, who like their brother ideologues the Communists, also war against organic identity.

    Having said that, there’s a lot of truth in the above excerpt from The Smolensk Declaration.

  378. RUR says:
    @Patrick McNally

    “If Hitler had simply adhered to the Munich Pact while claiming that Germany needed a route to Danzig then Chamberlain would have supported his claims and there would have been no declaration of war over Poland. The Poles would have been forced to cede Danzig just as Benes was forced cede the Sudetenland at Munich.”

    The Germans wanted a corridor to eastern Prussia through Polish terrritory, not to Gdansk (Danzig) and it was unlikely that Poland would have been forced to cede Danzig under peaceful pressure without a miltary resistance – a war – because anti German spirit saturated the then Polish society from top to bottom…

  379. JKnecht says:

    I’m not going to quote it to you, you can read it for yourself in Irving’s Hitler’s War. Yes, attack coming.

  380. anon[667] • Disclaimer says:
    @EugeneGur

    Except it is completely false.

    that’s quite a debunking

    or an unsupported assertion, one of the two

  381. @Begemot

    You got that right, Begemot. But it was not the only example of Poland behaving like a hyena. Another one is Poland’s hideous decision to participate in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia when it was annexed by Hitler in 1938. Soon after the Nazis occupied the Sudetenland, Poland moved in to grab the Teschen region.

  382. RUR says:
    @John Johnson

    “Poland was an insulting reminder to the Germans that they had lost WW1”

    A larger part of Poland belonged to the Russian Empire – not to Germany, the insult was Polish rejection to join Germany in the planned war against the USSR:

    https://warsawinstitute.org/responsible-outbreak-world-war-ii-jozef-pilsudskis-policy-maintaining-european-status-quo/

    “at the beginning of 1935, Hitler, through his envoy Hermann Göring, urged Polish politicians and military to join a joint crusade against the USSR. Piłsudski definitely rejected the possibility of Poland’s participation in this project”

    Goring continued his efforts in this direction after Pilsudski death. As far as I remember Goring with this objective visited Warsaw about 5-7 times and achieved nothing after that Poland became an enemy… The British guarantees were the last drop that made the German cup run over…

  383. @gatobart

    Isn’t that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Sometimes the most obvious truth is the most difficult to see. Maybe we should start calling it “The Purloined Letter” syndrome.

    • Replies: @gatobart
  384. @Begemot

    Poland started this war by invading Ukrainian and Belarussian territory long held by Russia with the intention of adding these territories to Poland.

    Also Lithuania, see 341 above ref Rydz-Smigly.

    There are (as far as possible) exact transcripts of the attempted negotiations ref Danzig and the Corridor*, territories taken from Germany at Versailles … these negotiations were broken off in large measure by the spurious guarantee given to Poland by Great Britain, which was worthless but which inspired Rydz-Smigly et al’s refusal to negotiate, RS even threatening war against Germany and prophesying victory in 3 days …

    This is a precis of negotiation terms/guarantees/4 Steps etc —

    No one can affirm that the National Socialist Government did not attempt with extraordinary patience to impress upon Poland the desirability of a prompt and peaceful solution. The Polish Government was familiar with the specific solution proposed by Chancellor Hitler since October 24, 1938. The nature of the German proposals was discussed at least four times between the two governments before March 21, 1939.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/whitebook/1.shtml

    It may be noted that these negotiations were attempted with a background of Poles/Jews killing thousands of ethnic Germans … as everyone knows, the negotiations became fruitless and the aged German warship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish garrison at Westerplatte.
    Without GB input WW2 might have remained a local dispute …

    *for example Cambridge University Press https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/irish-historical-studies/article/abs/negotiations-leading-to-anglopolish-agreement-of-31-march-1939/6E4E6A032117337F85E3A2607445B055

    US Office of the Historian https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch12subch11

    Just as Poland was used by London to start WW2, the same country is today being employed by USA to threaten Russia. Despite Poland giving him his war blood-lust, WS Churchill described it as “the Hyena of Europe” …

    • Replies: @HdC
  385. @The Old Philosopher

    Although the alleged Stalin speech has never been authenticated, it remains a plausible document. However from the point of view of this particular thread here, the one key phrase in the text is simply this:

    “If Germany wins she will come out of the war too tired to make war on us for the following decade. Her main concerns will be to keep watch over defeated England and France to prevent them from recovering.”

    You’ll notice that the text presents Stalin as looking literally a decade ahead with no talk about an attack on Germany. If this text were proven to be authentic (it has not been) then it would just be another rebuttal against the Rezun-thesis which asserts that in 1939 Stalin was already planning to invade Europe within just a few years. Instead the text allows for a decade after a Germany victory (and since Stalin did not expect a fast German victory we should be thinking more like 15 years) in which there would be no war between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. Rather, Hitler would be watching over England and France while the USSR carved a sphere of influence in eastern Europe. It’s a very (though unverified) text.

    It’s also clear why, if this authentic, Stalin would have destroyed every copy as soon as Hitler defeated France. The suggestion that the Vozhd was expecting Hitler to be occupied for all of that time and then got off guard by a swift German sweep through is not something the NKVD would like to hear. So maybe the speech is authentic. But it’s an illustration of Rezun’s blatant lying technique that he cites this document as if it were evidence of a plan by Stalin to attack in 1941.

  386. Mulegino1 says:

    For there were at least 600,000 Jews killed by the Operational Groups and related German units in the east, as well as more Jews dying in ghettos under conditions of malnourishment. So we can just say that the fabled 6 million number is “based on truth.”

    The 6 million figure is not based upon any facts whatsoever. The same goes for the “600,000 Jews” allegedly killed by the Einsatzgruppen. There is simply no physical evidence for any of this. The numbers claimed fly in the face of the logistical and technical limitations, and are more likely to have been exaggerated ten-fold, like the tolls of victims of the “extermination camps.”

    The death toll for Auschwitz-Birkenau has been lowered- officially-from 4 million to 1.2 million, a reduction of 2.8 million, more than the current official total. Of course, this figure itself is undoubtedly a gross exaggeration. The camp archives show roughly 69,000 deaths of all causes. Perhaps the total exceeded 100,000- again of all causes. All of the numbers of the official account are to be doubted.

    The Germans did conduct anti-partisan operations and reprisal executions on the Eastern Front. But the numbers almost certainly do not add up to the hundreds of thousands. For a total of even 100,000, approximately ten grave sites the size of Katyn would have to exist. Yet the only enormous mass graves yet to be found are those of victims of the Soviet NKVD.

    One particularly wretched fraud in this regard is the alleged mass grave in Babi Yar. There is not once scintilla of physical evidence that the Germans conducted a mass shooting of 30,000 Jews at this location, nor any evidence of the excavations for mass graves or mass cremations.

  387. This is new to me that germany wanted a pact with poland against russia.If so it ,doesn’t put poland in a good light. Germany sees the danger from russia.not poland.And poles like to see themselves as fervent anti communists. What happened!!

  388. S says:
    @Marcali

    He banned the digging of trenches ’so that the offensive spirit of the soldiers would not be undermined’ and insisted that anyone who took ’elementary security measures’ was a ’panic monger’. All were ’mashed into a bloody porridge’.

    This was at a time in the Crimea when the Germans were using cluster bombs, too.

    I tend to be in agreement with those Russians that think Stolypin’s 1911 murder was a tragedy for Russia. As imperfect as he may of been (whose perfect?), his murder was like that of a good doctor carefully setting a patient’s (Russia’s) badly broken leg, who is wantonly murdered by a quack doctor, who then as an imposter takes the good doctor’s place. The quack doctor (ie the Communists) then pulls out a rusty hack saw and simply saws off the patient’s leg.

    After all, the quack doctor ‘reasons’, both methods end up with no more broken leg, and the hack saw is a lot quicker.

  389. Mulegino1 says:
    @gatobart

    And similar proportions can be established for tanks, planes, and military equipment in general.

    There is no question that in the matter of tanks, frontline Soviet tanks vastly outnumbered those of the Wehrmacht at the onset of Barbarossa, and the number of forward aircraft was also superior. The latter were virtually all destroyed on the ground in the first few days of Barbarossa.

    The Germans simply achieved tactical surprise at the most critical time, and for the Soviets, the most vulnerable- when they were staging for their offensive.

    The same thing- about numbers- could be said about the Battle of Norway, or the North African campaign. Leadership and gaining the initiative, along with tactics and the effective use of resources, are of primary importance, regardless of the scale of numbers.

    Soviet military leadership was quite capable at Khalkin Gol, and was certainly not as good or competent in Finland, but they did win both.

  390. The theory of “preemptive attack” of Germany on the USSR was expressed by Hitler and Goebbels in 1941, long before Rezun character repeated their assertions. The credit should be given where it is due, even when it is credit for inventing lies.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  391. @adrian costa

    Utter nonsense. There was a massacre of at least 2,000 Germans after the war began (estimates of victims from 2,000 to 5,800), but Hitler was explicitly declaring on May 23 that he viewed the drive against Poland as something that was not about Danzig but about the need for Germany to expand its living space. Nothing in that time showed that a massacre of Germans on Polish territory was about to occur. If you look at the later situation, well, the Poles still weren’t justified in those killings which they carried out after Hitler attacked. But that wouldn’t have happened at all if Hitler had not created the crisis which he did.

    • Troll: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @Fox
  392. S says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Interesting about Edward Rydz-Smigly.

    In 1933 HG Wells ‘forecast’ WWII starting over Danzig in his novel The Shape of Things to Come.

    Wells predicted a Second World War breaking out with a European conflagration from the flashpoint of a violent clash between Germans and Poles at Danzig. Wells set its date as January 1940, quite close to the actual date of September 1939.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  393. gatobart says:
    @Robert Konrad

    No. it`s called indisputable patterns in the behavior of the U.S. imperials. And it has always worked like that. Of course brainwashed sheeple won`t be able to see them, as the work done on their poor little minds incapacitates them to distinguish them anymore. Anoyne who bothers to go back and review what the MSM and the politicians of the “West” were saying about Vladmir Putin while he stood aside and did nothing when Iraq was being bombed back to the Stone Age, after having promised his collaboration to George W. Bush in this last`War On Terrorism, and then again when Lybia was being taken to pieces by the US-NATO, will be amazed of what a great guy he was at the time, what an open and afable leader he was. But then he refused to get on their bandwagon when they went again, this time against Syria, and that was enough to turn him into the Devil, Stalin and Hitler all put together. Ever since he has been blamed for everything wrong, ugly and dirty that happens in the world (he hasn`t being blamed for COVID only because everyone has already heard of the Wuhan outbreak but we can be sure he would be if not) and it is just a matter of time until he is blamed for the hacking of the pipeline in the U.S. The same happened to Stalin, who was a warm, amiable Uncle Joe until he decided to pass the “chance” to be another cog in Washington`s imperial machine by refusing to get into the Marshall plan. And that has happened to every single leader running afoot of the empire. Just one question for you: do you really think that us, the rest of the world, are a bunch of imbeciles who cannot see the obvious…? God.

  394. @Petermx

    What is far more important than the USSR declaring its aims of world revolution is the way declared his aim of conquering living space for the Aryan race at the expense of the Slavs as far back as Mein Kampf. The difference here is that the Soviet idea of a world revolution was completely flexible, whereas Hitler’s could only be attained through military conquest. Soviet policy showed that it was willing to use military conquest in Georgia and some other parts of Central Asia to establish its own social order. But it was not bound by this. Lenin summed it up to Raymond Robbins as:

    “Capitalist social control may strangle the Soviet, but the idea of the Soviet will destroy every capitalist control in the world today.”

    Lenin compared this with the French Revolution where the monarchy was restored by the victory at Waterloo, but then the whole social order changed across the entire continent. This was quite different from Hitler’s notions of living space as he described them in Mein Kampf:

    “If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march…”

    So whereas Lenin’s program could be compatible with some occasional military conquests accomplished by Soviet power, but also on a much broader long-term level as social orders change, Hitler’s goals were only attainable through war. When commenting on such passages which run through all of Hitler’s writings, A.J.P. Taylor made the point that such comments do not actually spell a clear set plan for starting WWII. That’s true as far as it goes. But Hitler’s statements are far more of a declaration of aims which can only be attained by military conquest than anything Lenin ever uttered. It just so happens that liars like Ernst Topitsch turned the facts upside-down.

    • Replies: @Petermx
    , @Petermx
  395. RUR says:
    @Begemot

    “Poland started this war by invading Ukrainian and Belarussian territory long held by Russia with the intention of adding these territories to Poland. ”

    But was that territory Russian? These territories were part of Poland much longer than they were
    part of the Russian Empire… this fact can be easily checked. And you do not repeat please that old ridiculous nonsens that they are eastern – NOT WESTERN – Slavs because for example the Bielorussians genetically are coloser to the Poles than to the Russians…

    As for the start of WW2, of course this war was started by Germany and the USSR… The USSR gave the Germans and Hitler an unshakable belief in ther might and future victory because the joint Russian German force was overwhelming…

    And one more thing:
    if you look at a map showing the contours or outlines and the directions of the main German strikes/attacks during 1939 Polish military campain then it’s just impossible not to see that they penetrated very deeply into the Polish territory. From military point of view such strikes are very dangerous because they are overstretched… Such actions are justified only when there is certanty that an ally strikes in the opposite direction to to surround an enemy in order to force its surrender… And the Germans really had such a precious ally… it was the USSR. No doubt that Germans acting by themselves – that is without the military cooperation with the USSR – would have changed the manner/style of their attacks …and then we would have had a different war. BTW Polish historians stress the fact that by September 17, 1939, when Soviet troops crossed the border, the Polish-German front stabiliezied… And one more fact: the fire was so intesive that both Poles and German exhausted their ammunition. So it was jackal-like behaviour demonstrated by the USSR, which caused WW2

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Begemot
  396. Mulegino1 says:

    If you look at the later situation, well, the Poles still weren’t justified in those killings which they carried out after Hitler attacked. But that wouldn’t have happened at all if Hitler had not created the crisis which he did.

    Hitler did not create this crisis ex nihil. As a matter of fact, Hitler does not even bear the preponderance of guilt for it. The Danzig/Corridor crisis was a product of Versailles, and as many prescient statesman and historians of that time acknowledged, it was bound to create another conflict.

    After the accession of the National Socialists to power in 1933, Hitler’s initial policy with respect to Danzig and the Corridor was more conciliatory than that of his Weimar predecessors. His government concluded a non-aggression pact with Poland (under Pilsudski) in 1934, and Hitler was certainly favorably disposed to the Marshal.

    Poland considered itself an ally through the Munich Conference (even participating in the breakup of the artificial entity known as “Czechoslovakia” by annexing the Teschen region).

    It was the incendiary and cynical British offer of military aid to Poland should she become involved in a war with a European power (which obviously meant Germany)- that effectively abrogated the German-Polish non-aggression agreement, as well as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.

    Hitler’s initial offers to Poland regarding Danzig and the Corridor were hardly extremist- Danzig would return to the Reich while Poland would still retain rights to use the port there, as well as a port of its own in Gdynia. A mile or so wide transportation corridor would be constructed to link East Prussia with the rest of Germany. Later, a plebiscite would be held in the Corridor.

    Emboldened by the British promise of military aid, the regime of the Colonels rejected Germany’s offers outright. There ensued a campaign of persecution against the German minority in Poland along with government sponsored violence against ethnic Germans and German culture. Poland had imposed a harsh customs regime upon Danzig, even though the city was a free city under League of Nations’ trusteeship, and not a part of Poland. Also, Polish anti-aircraft batteries along the Baltic coast fired on German civilian airliners travelling from East Prussia to Germany.

    Poland, not Germany, was the first to call for general mobilization against Germany ( a casus belli) earlier in 1939, and actually drew up plans for their “Operation West” offensive against Germany before the Germans drew up their final war plans regarding Poland.

    As late as August 31, 1939, Hitler requested a Polish plenipotentiary come to Berlin to forestall the war. Poland rejected this offer prima facie.

    If there was any party primarily responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War, it was the British War Party, Polish President Rydz-Smigly, and the FDR Administration which, through its appropriately named Ambassador Bullit, urged the British to go to war with Germany at all costs.

  397. @RUR

    So it was jackal-like behaviour demonstrated by the USSR, which caused WW2

    Wow, you get the cake for the stupidest comment on this thread. The competition is tough, but you won fair and square. So, German dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and direct occupation of Czechia in 1938 started nothing. German aggression against Poland on September 1, 1939, which resulted of the grab of ~2/3 of Poland, started nothing. But Soviet grab of ~1/3 of Eastern Poland more than two weeks later, after the Polish government ran away, started WWII. Apparently, Soviet actions in Poland are to blame for Hitler’s occupation of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, and France, as well as for the bombardment of the UK and German advances in the Balkans. That’s a new word in history. Patent it before anyone steals your thunder.

    • Agree: FB, Robert Konrad, Jazman
    • Replies: @RUR
    , @RUR
  398. Begemot says:
    @RUR

    But was that territory Russian? These territories were part of Poland much longer than they were
    part of the Russian Empire…

    And from whom did the Poles take these lands? Poland wasn’t born of a virgin birth, but by conquest. You can’t claim your conquests are legitimate but the other guy’s are not.

    • Replies: @RUR
  399. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mulegino1

    Hitler did not create this crisis ex nihilo.

  400. iffen says:
    @Johnny Rico

    Yep.

    The fact that the most of the sources for this article and these comments have been refuted or dismissed is exactly what make this article and comments fascinating.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @Ron Unz
  401. RUR says:
    @AnonFromTN

    “German aggression against Poland on September 1, 1939, which resulted of the grab of ~2/3 of Poland, started nothing. But Soviet grab of ~1/3 of Eastern Poland more than two weeks later, after the Polish government ran away, started WWII. ”

    No the cake unfortunately is yours, for the especially gifted I repeate that the Germans acting by themselves would have changed their style and directions of their main strikes, and we would have had a differen war. In addition, the USSR gave the Germans and Hitler an unshakable belief in ther might and future victory because the joint Russian-German force was overwhelming… So are you sure that without such an unshakable belief the grab of ~2/3 of the Polish territory was possible ?

    I do not remember the name but some German general in his memoirs wrote that the Germans in 1939 had ammunition for 2 weeks of war only and not more and its a fact… highly likely that without the USSR the war would have started later and the British and French would have acted according to the Agreement…

    Like showing off your ignorance publicly ?

  402. Petermx says:
    @Patrick McNally

    That is nothing but gibberish. The communists showed their bloodlust when they first murdered the Czar, his wife and children and then started violet revolutions in Germany, Hungary, Spain and many other countries. That is why fascism arose, to put down violent communists. In the Soviet Union they murdered tens of millions of Soviet citizens and that is why many people in Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Russia itself welcomed the Germans as liberators, which they were. The Jewish dominated USSR outlawed Christianity and criticism of Jews, they burned down churches, murdered priests and raped nuns. The bloodthirsty Jew Ilya Ehrenburg urged murdering civilians and raping German women in his propaganda. “NAZIS” did no such thing. “Subhuman” is an accurate description of the communists behavior. When the Germans entered the USSR they were often met as liberators by the people, the Red Army were known rapists and that is how eastern Europeans and Germans perceived them..

    Under German or Austrian rule neither Slavs, nor anyone else lived at the expense of anyone. That is why in the video I posted the people of Lviv (Lemberg) welcomed the Germans. Lviv was an Austrian city, or under Austrian rule for 150 years until 1919 and they were treated fairly. But under Poland they did not have it good and under the rule of Jewish commissars millions of Slavs perished. You flipped the story upside down and lie.

    If Germany had sought to conquer eastern territory it would not be to treat others as slaves as the Judeo-Bolsheviks did, it would be so the British could not starve millions of Germans to death again with the help of Americans and others, but as this article points out, it was the bloodthirsty Bolsheviks that intended to conquer Germany and Europe and the brave German army smacked those bloodthirsty animals down until a corrupt politician in Britain brought the rest of the world to the mass murdering communists aid.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  403. Vaterland says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Look, Monsieur, you can be upset all you wish and call it lies a hundred times, when it comes to my decision who I am going to believe – my own countrymen who were actually involved with Hitler and the decision making process at the time and who are reporting on the events in my mother tongue, or Soviet, US and British propagandists who were neither involved directly, most often don’t even speak German (especially important when reading original documents) and with few exceptions do lackluster historic work, then I am decisively choosing the former. This also includes the very dedicated commentators like Patrick McNally, Iffen, or FB and several others.

    The fact of the matter is that in the late 30s the German foreign intelligence knew, not suspected, but knew that Stalin was going to attack at the latest in 1942. You can be happy though as a Russian tankie: Stalin wasn’t gullible and dumb. Both factions knew the non-aggression pact was just trying to buy time to gather allies for the ultimate clash of the titans and ultimately the Soviet Union would have, especially with lend lease, simply outproduced the Third Reich which went into a total war economy way too late anyway and failed to adopt modern methods of mass production. As if facing the industrial capacity of the British Empire, the Soviet Union and USA wasn’t bad enough already.

    Hitler wanted to build an anti-Bolshevik coalition, but it didn’t get much success for reasons of geo-politics and Jewish lobbying – and also bad luck when it comes to the British, while the Anti-Comintern Pact and Axis brought its own problems, including Mussolini’s attack on sympathetic to neutral Greece , which delaid Barbarossa, or Imperial Japan’s war with China which “we” also, without success, tried to negotiate a peace in. And there were a lot of geo-strategic contradictions with Japan and Italy. Stalin wanted an anti-Nazi coalition very early on, but ultimately the British thought it would be better if more Russians and Germans killed each other on the continent, than spilling British blood. The conflict with Poland was also at least severely worsened thanks to Britain. Austrians are Germans, so are the Dutch basically and Böhmen is rightful HRE clay – at least as much as Crimea is Russian – and even if it wasn’t, the contracts Czechoslovakia had at the time with the Soviet Union, including the ability to use it as a staging ground for air assaults on the 3rd Reich, posed a direct threat to Germany. Nevermind the communist activity in this country and its connections to Zionism and the Nazbol beginnings of Irgun and “Racist, Marxist Israel” – including the connections between Robert Maxwell who helped arm the Israeli army. Unlike the Nazis by the way. Or the activities of Maseryk and Benes for that matter.

    Had Rosa Luxemburg and Kurt Eisner and their many other communist, often Jewish, revolutionaries been successful, we would remember them like Trotzki and Lenin. National Socialism was an extreme reaction to an extreme threat – maybe an overreaction, but I don’t think the war could have been avoided either way. Marxism has the commandment of World Revolution after all and the USA, unlike “Hitler-Germany”, actually wanted to become global hegemon and (had to) snack up the British Empire. And they built the globalist world order we live in today with its mixture of internationalism, state-dependency and western Marxism for the plebs and hyper-capitalism for the ultra-rich. Hitler was in their way; or like Saddam, like Gadaffi and like Assad for that matter.

    So, it’s quite ironic when triumphant leftists claim today that fascism is capitalism in decay, when said capitalist regimes lend-leased the Soviet Union to victory and raised Communist China. As then so today, Amazon says Black Lives Matter. (Wikipedia Early Life and political activity of Susan Rosenberg is your friend!)

    Obviously the apologetics of the Red Army play a role in Russia’s foreign policy and since your conflict with Washington they are a hot topic. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree to falsehoods and celebrate them. Especially not when you build the burning Reichstag as a mural in your new military cathedral and enshrine the Red Army as warrior saints of Pan-Slavism, approved by Major Putin. The message was clearly received, anon. “Proud successor state of the Soviet Union.” At minimum. Better than to be cucked like Germany for sure, but dangerous and volatile, too.

    Russia crafted a strong, but ultimately outdated foreign policy. A second Yalta Conference isn’t going to happen. And ultimately this current post-WW 2 world order doesn’t matter all that much any longer: We have a rising, potential new world hegemon who is actually German friendly and sees neither Amalek nor the eternal Nazi in it. But who is also very philo-Semitic. This fact, and Russia’s own hybrid warfare, makes everything so complicated and convoluted today.

    But if there is anything I have finally learned from the Anglo-Sphere, it’s: geopolitics before ideology and racial kinship. So they can kvetch all they like:

    China will ultimately decide, if I will at least die in a free Germany or not. Beijing-Berlin and Moscow it will be. No matter what you or I think. About World War 2, communism or Hitler. This is like the law of gravity. And the less you Russians rock the boat and cause disruptions, the better for everyone involved. It’s 2021, anon, better the country of Peter the Great contributes to zhe foath industriäl revolütion and the Belt and Road, than wars over meme countries.

  404. RUR says:
    @Begemot

    The creation treaty of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth by the Union of Lublin in 1569 formally
    still exists, officially the dissolution of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth has never been proclaimed… remember that well dear tovarishch (товарищ)

    See wiki or some other source on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

    • Replies: @Begemot
  405. Petermx says:
    @Patrick McNally

    The video I referred to was actually posted on a different article and website. I’ll post it here again for you.

    From Mark Weber’s IHR.ORG
    Contemporary film report on a mass rally in Lviv (Lemberg), Ukraine, July 18, 1943, for the newly formed SS Division “Galicia.” Ukrainian-language narration. Runtime: 2:27 mins. Ceremonies begin with an outdoor religious service. Ukrainians greet the German Governor, Otto Wächter, who then addresses the large, joyful crowd. Taking part in the parade are many young men who have volunteered for service in the new military formation, as well as young women in traditional dress. Many carry the symbol of the “Galicia” Division, a yellow stylized lion on a blue background – the Ukrainian national colors.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  406. Vaterland says:
    @iffen

    No, iffen, the only thing that makes the comments “fascinating”, is, how it brings out the usual suspects. And that low grade commentators do not feel embarrassed to share wisdom with us like “Suvorov was welcomed by the West and gave them the story the Western Allies desired!” A narrative for which he was widely black-listed by establishment historians and which completely undermines the Anglo-Spheres very own justifications for their role in WW 2 and foundational mythos of their societies and geo-political program, also staining their alliance with Stalin. While Joachim Hoffmann only barely avoided jail time and his book https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/0967985684 caused a huge scandal in Germany and was fought tooth and nail by the establishment politicians, parties and ideologues.

    But then again, most of the Anglo-Sphere right is dumber than dogshit anyway and infested with shills of all flavors of different fecal matter. It’s pretty much all a hopeless matter at this point. And honestly: I don’t even need you anymore. There is surprisingly much material available in German, if you know where to look and after years of deplatforming even occupied Germany has a better operational free speech situation than the USA and UK.

    • Thanks: Petermx
    • Replies: @Petermx
  407. Seraphim says:
    @iffen

    I do nothing. Alfred Liskow, the German defector who warned that invasion was imminent was not shot immediately as you suggest. He was immediately used as a propaganda asset until he managed to get into conflict with the ‘Stalinist’ leaders of the Comintern – Palmiro Togliatti, Dmitry Manuilsky and Georgi Dimitrov, whom he accused of betraying the true Communism ideals and “working for the Nazis.” He was a ”Trotskist”, obviously. Dimitrov and the rest didn’t take it lightly and Liskow was arrested in January 1942 and sent to Siberia, where ”it is believed” died in ”suspicious circumstances”. He became part of the ‘blame Stalin’ Trotskist-Antifascist legend.

    • Thanks: iffen
  408. S says:
    @Vaterland

    Marxism has the commandment of World Revolution after all and the USA, unlike “Hitler-Germany”, actually wanted to become global hegemon and (had to) snack up the British Empire. And they built the globalist world order we live in today…Hitler was in their way; or like Saddam, like Gadaffi and like Assad for that matter.

    True.

    Upthread I posted a quote from an 1853 US geopolitical book which declared that a future US/UK united front would unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth when it made its move to conquer Germany. The conquest of Germany would be the required first step in the creation of the ‘New Rome’, a truly all encompassing global empire with a US/UK central political axis. Smashing Russia would be the second step. This was over sixty years before WWI.

    [See link below, placed under MORE for some reason.]

    https://www.unz.com/article/barbarossa-suvorovs-revisionism-goes-mainstream/#comment-4651646

  409. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfred

    Umm…

    Stalingrad is not (((cough))) a suburb of Rostov-on-Don.

    Sort of like Birobidzhan being just south of NYC.

  410. Begemot says:
    @RUR

    You have just confirmed my suspicion that there are Poles who live in the past, of a fantasy of the great Polish empire. Even today, under false guises of organizations like the Visegrad group, they hope to resurrect that empire. But it will never return. Why? The Poles themselves killed it by their feckless management of their affairs. Hell, their stupidity effectively killed the Second Polish Republic. They then enjoyed the supervision of their affairs by the USSR and today they are a genuflecting kapo for the US.

    The fact that the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was never officially dissolved is irrelevant. Your countrymen killed it. Poland is a land of ghosts.

  411. FB says: • Website
    @Vaterland

    … who I am going to believe – my own countrymen who were actually involved with Hitler and the decision making process at the time…

    When I was in West Germany as a child while my father was stationed there, I remember all the people cursing Hitler pretty much nonstop for the ruin he brought on the country. There was also an old bag in the neighborhood, a Frau Konopka [which actually sounds like a Polish name] who would hold her little grandkids on her knee and teach them to sing little Hitler ditties, and of course the straight-arm salute, lol.

    Of course she did that when the parents, nor anyone else was in sight. I guess you must be one of those few that was suckled on the mother’s milk [or grandmother’s] of Nazi kindness?

    Many years later I spent a year in East Germany studying at the Technische Universität Dresden, and never once recalled any Nazi sympathizers. I seriously doubt many Germans today would share your lofty view of the fuhrer…but it takes all kinds I guess [and we get most of the doozies here on this website, lol]

  412. Petermx says:
    @Vaterland

    Lets hope Germany is not occupied too much longer. On my visits to Germany I have not felt people were free to talk and hearing Germans speak of “NAZIS” I feel like telling them it’s disrespectful to talk about your grandparents that way. I consider jailing 92 year old women like Ursula Haverbeck and other such people for violating Anglo-American Jewish imposed censorship laws barbaric but those people are barbaric so it’s not surprising. I am glad you can find the material you seek but I seriously hope this won’t have to be done is secret in the future. With the help of websites like this and others the lies may eventually die out. So many have been exposed already, the best they can do is keep lying and hope its sticks. Free speech is dead in the “land of the free” and there are strong indicators the US is heading for a similar ending as the USSR, maybe not quite as bad. Then Germany and Europe will be free and maybe they can actually elect some people that want to improve life in Germany and Europe.

  413. gatobart says:

    Germany has a better operational free speech situation than the USA and UK…

    But they are the ones with the military bases and the nukes in German national territory and the ones calling the tunes Merkel and Co. have to dance to, never forget that. But you are right about China even if your rabid anti-Russian streak keeps showing up. Well, at least we can say it doesn’t do it because of any heavy brainwashing practiced on you by the U.S. as that was already done almost a century ago to your ancestors and that is still there. You sound like a Hitlerjugend militant who went to sleep in April of 1945 and just woke up,(if we only exclude the China part) which is best shown by this crazy and ridiculous line. (you really sound like talking to us from the Berlin of 70 years ago)

    “And the less you Russians rock the boat and cause disruptions, the better for everyone involved”

    What is that boat that Russia is rocking, crazy man …? That of the Belt and Road Initiative which has brought together many countries around the world..? The New Silk Road..? In that line your mindset clearly shows it is practically the same as that of the usual gullible idiotic Westerner who swallows all the propaganda of his masters in Washington, Wall Street, London and Brussels and who keeps fighting a ghost who exists only in his imagination, that of the reincarnation of both Hitler & Stalin put together in the person of Vladimir Putin. Now, nobody doubts that China will be the hegemon of the XXI Century and that Russia will become just a secondary partner, not an equal, but nobody argues either that the China Russia alliance is here to stay and that is NOT Russia the one who has to decide if it gets aboard the Beijing bandwagon, but Germany! The same Germany which is having enormous problems getting rid of the imperial yoke of the U.S. (and which according to many is not even trying as Germans have already become accustomed to their state of submission and to their loss of independence and sovereignty. Now they are becoming even accustomed to being flooded by massive immigration from Africa and the Middle East. Even Bolivians are now more free and independent than Germans, at least they are able to elect their own presidents and keep them in power even if Washington doesn’t want them there. No country in Western Europe is still capable of doing that, they haven’t been able since the 1930s).

    • Agree: FB
  414. Fox says:
    @Patrick McNally

    What source do you have for a statement which you say Hitler made on 23rd May, 1939 do you have? I have never come across it. I would be interested, including the sentences preceding and following it. Furthermore, Poland had occupied and annexed substantial swaths of German territory after the end of the First War. Does occupation and annexation constitute rightful ownership in your book of rules? If so, you live by a set of rules which will sooner or later bring you in conflict with those around you.
    This is not a game like monopoly.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  415. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    And now the Jews have dressed up some drunken idiots from Western Ukraine and use them to kill Russians in Donbass.

    Amazing the progress Satan has made in 78 years.

  416. @Vaterland

    You might be right about Anglos, they are unlikely to know any foreign languages, but most Russian WWII historians read and speak German. In fact, quite a few German WWII historians read and speak Russian. To see a true picture, you need both perspectives. Nature gave us two eyes for a reason: you are easily deceived when using only one.

    As to Rezun, he is a traitor, and that characterizes him 100%. Nobody trusts traitors, even those who purchase their services. Every sane person thinks “once a traitor, always a traitor”.

    Close cooperation between China, Russia, and Germany is what the Empire is afraid of. It uses every dirty trick in the book to prevent that. Let’s face the reality. The Empire miserably failed with China and Russia, hence hysterical anti-Chinese and anti-Russian propaganda. Yet it is succeeding in blackmailing former Stasi informer Merkel into toeing the line (almost) and conducting policies that directly contradict German interests. I wonder what blackmail material the Empire has on the next German chancellor, whoever it is.

    China and Russia are neither philosemitic nor antisemitic. They are just pragmatic. They work with Israel economically when it benefits them, and politically when they believe that Israel undermines the imperial diktat. Israel shows a lot greater independence than Germany, not to mention lesser imperial lackeys.

    As things stand, to achieve Beijing-Moscow-Berlin cooperation, Germany needs a leader with a pair, who is not afraid to challenge the Empire. After all, even underdogs like Venezuela and Nicaragua are bold enough. This cooperation would be clearly in German interests, and both Beijing and Moscow would welcome it. Germany is the rate-limiting factor. It needs non-traitorous leadership. As long as the majority of Germans are cucks, voting for Merkel’s party or even more disgusting Greens, the country is doomed to share the fate of France and the UK, becoming a part of European Caliphate. Ending up among losers, not among winners.

  417. Vaterland says:

    Well, Monsieur Guyenot, I am indeed surprised you were able to publish this piece. I suppose this undermines the narratives of the “Duginist!” accusers, that The Unz Review, by exposing the Western Allies and Zionism, merely tries to undermine the Western consensus for the benefit of Russian foreign policy.

    I only disagree with a key-point: Hitler wasn’t really deceived by Stalin. At the time it was absolutely clear that not agreeing to Molotov’s and Stalin’s demands, such as the partioning of Poland and the free reign over the Baltic States, would have meant immediate war with the Soviet Union. Hitler said this several times, the one time in the discussion with Mannerheim was already linked. So we cannot speak of a crafty deception by Stalin at all, it was clear that in the long run war was unavoidable. And while the anti-Slavic, even genocidal ideology of the 3rd Reich is largely a propaganda lie, the anti-Communist ideology isn’t. And as much as there was a “Drang nach Osten”, there was an equal “Drang nach Westen”. At the end of the day, we live in a world of global powers and will to power.
    But during Barbarossa the reason for the “Lebensraum/living-space” idea to secure agrarian rich Ukraine as a food supply, as a reaction to the British hunger blockade of Germany to force it to agree to the treaty of Versaille, which caused thousands of Germans to starve to death, had already outlived its necessity thanks to agricultural reforms and new