RSS
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).
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
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.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
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!
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.
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.
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.
You write:
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).
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.
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.
Interesting source on this topic:
https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
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…..
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”.
I used to be into “Suvorov” back in the day. Today, not so much.
“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.
So literally the same position which England and France had about trying to get Germany and Russia to bleed each other out.
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..
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
Europe’s resources. Not Germany’s. Europe’s. Which includes colonies.
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
There is also the idea that Hitler paused to build airfields in the balkans but how accurate this is I do not know.
‘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.
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.
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/
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.
WW2 was a war of Russo- American conquest of Europe.
From the outset.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
needs correcting.
But thanks. Careful analysis, very convincing.
The concept of “the West” is becoming more and more sickening to me. Is Westism any better than Nazism from a moral standpoint?
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.
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
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).
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
It is nice to hear some reality in this discussion.
Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dubious Claim
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
I’ll have to read that, because…
…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:
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!
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.
Then you haven’t read enough:
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:
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:
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.)
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
You might want to buy McMeekin’s book and read his bibliography, as it contains two of Suvorovs works.
I find the “if only Hitler had taken Moscow” then victory thesis somewhat questionable.
Napoleon, 1812 is not necessarily indicative, but it is suggestive.
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.
“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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
https://en.nuremberg.media/cross-examination/20210211/112113/Five-minutes-to-Paulus.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 —
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—–
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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—-
What this shows is to never trust history’s story.
Historians are the long term propagandists for empire.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
“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..
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.
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”..
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!”
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.
“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.
Interesting. So one thing is not mentioned, and this lends credence to another thing not mentioned? Is that your logic?
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.
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!”
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.
One can check out the conversation in between Hitler and Mannerheim here
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.
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.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p50_Hitler.html
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.
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.
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.
It was never “Stalin’s War” or anyone else’s. It was only the jew bankers vs Germany.
“ 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.
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.
(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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And Denmark was amassing massive troop formation on the border to invade Germany. LOL.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
https://www.historynet.com/ultra-the-misunderstood-allied-secret-weapon.htm
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
So could you provide us with a brief answer to Tom Verso’s question based on your reading of Icebreaker?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)–
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/germanys-incredible-courage-to-defend-europe-how-hitlers-invasion-of-the-soviet-union-surprised-stalin/
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.
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.
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.”
Very interesting and sound perspective.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.)
dude!
you’re stealing my 307.
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.
In short the theory that Hitler invaded preemptively to forestall a Stalin invasion is neither provable nor disprovable, says Professor Me.
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)
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!’”
Never underestimate the Icelandic threat!……said no one ever.
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…..
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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…
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’ !)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.!
“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.
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.
So you mean Jewish Capitalists acted to beef up the Soviet economy and its military?
Now why would Jewish Capitalists do that?
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.
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.
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.
The Germans were defending their homeland. The Russians were slave mercenaries for Satanic Pedophiles in the Kremlin and Wall Street.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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];
• 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:
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Stalin foretold the atomic bomb?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
P..S. I should have said that the other half of Europe fell,”because of the MISUSE of the allied forces.
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.
What did Hitler think, and when did he think it?
What did Stalin think, and when did he think it?
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.
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.
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.
Not a very strong set of reasons.
As Ron pointed out, that’s a very weak argument.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Mistake
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or I should say, whoever was behind the British….
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?
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.
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.
What Hitler thought is well covered in his private conversations with Finnish Leader Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.
POST 113 on this page
Also from Hitler’s speech in Berlin,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your ilk conveniently forgets the fate that awaited “liberated” Russian prisoners of war.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
The answer was probably: “get out of my country and you can have your prisoners back”
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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.
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?
And what fool would think that you are an objective critical thinker?
Bukovina?
What does it means?
Buk means oak.
Bukovina means Oak land
It means that land was inhabited by Slavs.
“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…
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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/
“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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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…
“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.
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?
Of course I believe war between Germany and the USSR was virtually inevitable.
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.
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/
… 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.
No one gives a fuck what you think about anything.
There are some fascinating articles and chapters of books by Mark Solonin available here:
http://www.solonin.org/en
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.
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.
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.
Was it Hitler who did this?
https://russia-insider.com/en/not-just-dresden-hamburg-kassel-berlin-and-dozens-more-half-million-german-civilians-burned-alive
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).
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.
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.
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.
British and French were salivating for German colonies of Africa.
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!
What are you talking about exactly? And what is my “ilk”?
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).
The USA today is a disaster. It will fall too, like the USSR.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Bankotsu, I was almost young when I started seeing your links to my site 🙂
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/cikkek/jch01.html
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/17.html
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
Was the USSR poised to strike Germany Jun 1941? Here’s what Manstein wrote:
“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.
What Bullshit.
“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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are a self-important, boring gasbag. Please go fuck yourself.
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 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.
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.
I was wondering when Mr. Copy-and-Paste was going to emerge from his mother’s basement.
Excellent historical overview!
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]
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.
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.
Even if there were exaggerations, it does not mean these were not based on truth.
Not true at all.
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.
He might have expected an easier victory but he was solely motivated by fears of Soviet invasion.
You are farting out bullshit.
.
Exactly!!!Bingo!!!
Nah, FDR as well as the British Govt was quite pro-Soviet leanings and forces.
\
Very doubtful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
–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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
‘…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.
‘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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 —
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/
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
Relocation of some Soviet industry may have begun in late 1940, but full-blown evacuation didn’t begin until after the German invasion.
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.
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!
What Bullshit.
You will have to admit that it’s fascinating bullshit.
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.
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.
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.)
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
another anti-white slander, created by a jew, of course
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.
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.
The next province is Bessarabia. What do you think that suggests?
Just ask the original peoples of Siberia how they never encountered a Russian aggressor.
You might ask some Alaskans as well.
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.)
Ron, are these Guyenot articles translations? Does he publish in France?
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope.
Manstein’s Lost Victories has been panned by just about every analytical military historian as self-serving bullshit.
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.
Erickson died in 2002.
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!”
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:
‘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:
—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!
—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?
—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?
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:
But I guess McMeekin knows more about military tactics than Feldmarchall von Manstein?
This hilarity is only exceeded by the clownish interpretation of Guyenot:
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:
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.
—Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’
—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;
Of sure. Except those who lived through that era tell a very different story:
—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.
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.
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.
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?
Still making sound and enlightened comments.
Similarly, Capitalism, founded in London in 1776, wanted the Americanization of the whole world, and it too had its primary goal of Berlin.
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’?
https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/104/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/108/mode/2up
“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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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…
I’m not going to quote it to you, you can read it for yourself in Irving’s Hitler’s War. Yes, attack coming.
that’s quite a debunking
or an unsupported assertion, one of the two
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.
“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…
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.
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 —
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” …
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting about Edward Rydz-Smigly.
In 1933 HG Wells ‘forecast’ WWII starting over Danzig in his novel The Shape of Things to Come.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
Hitler did not create this crisis ex nihilo.
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.
“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 ?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Umm…
Stalingrad is not (((cough))) a suburb of Rostov-on-Don.
Sort of like Birobidzhan being just south of NYC.
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.
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]
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 technologies.
At the same time, long before Pearl Harbor and the 3rd Reich’s official declaration of war on the USA, years before Barbarossa, the USA was unofficially already fully committed to war with the 3rd Reich. Not the general public, but the US elite and Roosevelt administration in particular. The big uncertainty was Britain, and for long it wasn’t clear if the pro-German or US (Zionist/pro-Communist/Jewish) side would win out internally. And with the British staying neutral or even allied against Bolshevism with the Reich, it would have been almost impossible for the USA to join the war in the way they did – certainly not over a border conflict with Poland – and thus to open the Western front and continue the lend-lease supply, which ultimately decided the war for the victors of Yalta.
On the other hand a conquest of the British Isles would have actually been the bloody war to grind the Wehrmacht to its knees, enabling the Red Army to swoop in and easily take all of Europe. Even relatively recently Dugin suggested Russia should conquer all of Europe. And there was simply no way to outproduce Britain, the Soviet Union and the USA. The fact we held out as long as we did, demonstrates German excellence and I think the superiority of National Socialism and Volksgemeinschaft compared to so called democracy/rule of money and an indomitable German spirit which was then successfully broken with meticulous work over more than seven decades. – Trapped is, I think, the better term than deceived.
So why then war? The USA wanted to, or even needed to become global hegemon. The USA isn’t really a nation-state, it went almost without transition from a Western frontier to a world empire and it is uncertain, if it will even continue to exist as a unified country, should its empire collapse, thus leading to secession as was the case for Czechoslovakia which was only held together as a German protectorate. Certainly a reason for the seemingly irrational hostility towards white nationalists and isolationists by the US establishment. Stalin, even if it wasn’t for the Marxist mandate, also played his cards right and expanded Russian territories much further than Imperial Russia. It is hardly surprising that he is so popular in Russia. Germany while trying to rebuild Mitteleuropa – a local power and never a threat to the USA – and as the quintessential crossroads nations, with or without Hitler, was crushed to dust between the West and the East. A fate that must be avoided this century at all costs! This is true for all of Europe today.
What would have been Germany without Hitler? Either a National Bolshevik client state of the Soviet Union and its Russian Jews, or a continuation of the Weimar Republic and a client state of the USA and its Jews – pretty much like it is today. Realistically speaking Napoleon was the imperfect, but last chance for Europe to have a truly sovereign and independent sphere of influence: I consider the German “independence wars for freedom against tyranny” with an almost identical and Germanic protestant ideology and self-understanding behind it as the official post WW 2 USA, a great mistake. Hitler (and Mussolini) were the very, very last chance. A German victory in WW 1 would have only postponed the conflict with Internationalist Marxism and Global Capitalism (and World Jewry). European monarchies were simply out-competed by the “masters of the universe”. It was either the restoration of the Roman Empire in a new shape or colonization by forces outside of Europe, there is no middle ground: the EU is living proof of that.
And today, because our matriarchy is as unwilling as incapable, to carve out a truly independent Europe, we can only choose if we want to be the court-Europeans of the USA or China. Educated Hellenes at best. And because I know that Europe will not survive two more decades with the USA as our supreme leader like this and because of the fanatical hatred of the Anglo-Sphere and its Jews for everything German, the choice is really not that hard for me. Even the switch from Anglo to Russian Jews was an improvement and gave us the emergence of the New Right: Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu, Likud, Putin, AfD, Sweden Democrats, Salvini, Viktor Orban, Trump and so on and on. – What alternatives do we have? There is no European Bismarck, no Napoleon, nothing. And our people are demoralized and colonized with Western Marxism and American liberalism, suicidal ideologies.
Sometimes I think saving Western Europe from Stalinism only for America and liberal capitalism, then Baizuo leftism to take it, wasn’t worth the blood of a single Wehrmacht soldier. That’s the contradiction Germans who lived through both systems have to wager today. But no one in the 1940s could foretell what a Soviet Union post Stalin would look like. Was Barbarossa worth it to save Germany from Stalinism and the realities of the Russian civil war? Absolutely. From the later realities of the DDR? Not as much. But if a Soviet soldier can say: “I didn’t fight for Stalin, but mother Russia.” then a Wehrmacht and SS (actually the 4th branch of the Wehrmacht anyway) soldier can say “I didn’t fight for Hitler, but for my country and the Europa of fatherlands”. And in this regard even de Gaulle, who is no friend of mine, left a better legacy than the Bundesrepublik. But much is easier when you are, at least officially, a winner of the 2nd world war and not occupied.
The ‘mental gymnastics’ is squarely the denial of evidence. “There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand”. The myth of ”defense of Western ‘values’ against ‘Russian aggression’ is constitutive of Westerners worldview and the crutches that sustain their delusions of superiority. They cannot see Russia but through their own eyes and they constantly misjudged her actions.
Just a few months before the non-aggression pact with the USSR the Spanish Civil War ended. Germany had saved Spain and Franco from Stalin’s Judeo-Masonic Communists. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had any illusions as to what the conflict was really about: Masonic control of the entire planet. Within a year after the non-aggression pact in 1939, and in contravention to it, Stalin had invaded every country on the USSR’s European borders. In April 1941, with the aid of Churchill, Stalin pulled off a Putsch in Yugoslavia. In the meantime Masonic England invaded Iceland and Norway.
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were all Freemasons, and WWII had been predicted and planned by the Freemasons for decades, Albert Pikes letter to Mazzini is just one piece of the puzzle. Freemasons were the real power behind the Spanish “Republicans”. The Mexican Revolution was another Masonic take over, as was the follow on Cristero war. The Russian Revolution was entirely Masonic, as is amply illustrated by Radovsky’s confessions in Red Symphony. In all of these wars the Judeo-Masonic lust for blood vengeance against Christians was made perfectly clear.
Franco, Petain, Hitler and Mussolini all banned Freemasonry. All of them also resisted and threatened Judeo-Masonic Finance Capitalism. This was the real struggle going on behind the scenes. On the “allied” side of the war, Freemasonry is what bound Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt together. Secret plans, secret strategies and secret agendas where all coordinated and agreed upon by secret societies, and they are NOT documented in the archives of either side in this unnecessary Judeo-Masonic war. Why did Churchill and Roosevelt hand over all of Eastern Europe to Stalin? It certainly wasn’t due to “trust” or “faith” in loyal allies. It was all part of a far bigger secret plan.
So it was the Freemasons who won WWII, and the Bretton-Woods post war order is entirely Masonic too. We can trace all the events since 1945 back to the Masonic take over. This is when they made their greatest creations: The UN, Israel and Red China. Today we can see their fingerprints all over “The Great Reset”, the Covid plandemic, the “Climate Crisis”, and the looming “Food Revolution”.
This is why Vaterland’s last sentence is so disturbing to me:
The “Forth Industrial Revolution” is merely the next phase in the masonic plan to take over and enslave the entire planet. If the Freemasons succeed in their “Forth Industrial Revolution” Vaterland will certainly NOT “at least die in a free Germany”
Below is a link to the movie “Occult Forces”:
Riche was executed after the war by the Freemason’s in de Gaulle’s “liberated” France for revealing Masonic secrets, especially for revealing how the Freemasons planned, started and executed WWII.
What a wonderful document, thanks for that Wally. It really shows in detail how all these jew-worshipping Stalin apologizing Russian trolls completely miss point about the NSDAP. This is why they have to so steadfastly refuse to recognize that the SS was the first true European army.
Well, I just finished McMeekin’s book, which runs over 800 pages, but goes quickly.
Absolutely excellent, one of the best histories I’ve read in several years. He’s obviously under certain constraints, but it’s remarkable how much “true history” he managed to get into a mainstream work.
Not only does he give proper attention to Operation Pike, perhaps the first history in 75 years that does, but numerous other important items stand out, not only including the American plans to assassinate China’s President Chiang, one of the supposed “Big Four” of the Allies. And most importantly, the Suvorov Hypothesis has now finally been smuggled into fully mainstream historiography after thirty years.
But what’s most astonishing is the absolutely glowing blurbs he received from prominent, absolutely mainstream historians, as seen on his jacket or the Amazon page:
“Sean McMeekin’s approach in Stalin’s War is both original and refreshing, written as it is with a wonderful clarity.”―Antony Beevor, author of Stalingrad
“Gripping, authoritative, accessible, and always bracingly revisionist.”―Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar
“Stalin’s War is above all about strategy: the failure of Roosevelt and Churchill to make shrewd choices as World War II played out. McMeekin brilliantly argues that instead of weighting the European and Pacific theaters to favor their own interests—and to weaken the inevitably antagonistic Soviet Union—FDR and Churchill left the most critical parts of Asia unguarded while they ground down the German army, a decision that favored Stalin’s interests far more than their own. Roosevelt’s ‘Germany first’ strategy and the trillion dollars of Lend Lease aid he poured into Stalin’s treasury would underwrite Soviet control of China and East Central Europe after 1945 and hatch a Cold War whose dire effects are with us still.”―Geoffrey Wawro, author of Sons of Freedom and director of the University of North Texas Military History Center
And very favorable reviews in The Financial Times and The Guardian.
Meanwhile, “Iffen” is one of our notorious ADL/AIPAC shills, probably paid by the comment rather than the word since his remarks usually tend to be so short.
Simple question: who owns The Financial Times and The Guardian? Because he, who pays the musicians, calls the tune.
Besides, it’s not “Suvorov hypothesis”, it’s what Hitler and Goebbels said in 1941.
Help me here. I am confused. Deposed Chilean President Salvador Allende was a Freemason (Maestro) and so many members and sympathizers of his Socialist government. Among them some who were even imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet, a suspected Freemason. The most notable, Air Force general Alberto Bachelet, father of future President Michelle Bachelet. So do Freemasons turn against each other, at least occasionally…? In that case this wouldn’t be such a solid and united kabbalah I guess. Mind you, Allende ended up under siege in his own presidential palace upon which the Chilean Air Force unloaded a number of missiles, enough to set it on fire. All this orchestrated, or at least applauded, by other Freemasons in the US and Europe.
Well of course, Hitler and Goebbels said it in 1941. That’s because it was true. They also probably said that London is north of Rome. But after WWII, the theory was totally suppressed, just like the British-French plan to unleash a massive strategic bombing campaign against the USSR in 1940.
The evidence of Stalin’s deployment was so totally overwhelming that even as a middle school student playing WWII wargames, I noticed it back in the mid-1970s, and it was often a topic of casual conversation. But it only reappeared in historiography with Suvorov’s seminal work three decades ago:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/
Suvorov was so totally blacklisted in the Anglosphere that his book was almost never reviewed anywhere or even reprinted for two decades. He’s still so extremely radioactive that McMeekin only dares mention his name in a single sentence of his 800 page book. But I think the cat is finally out of the bag.
Thanks, I will read it. One thing I am pretty certain and what you fail to state and what is misleading in Guyenot’s article is that McMeekin does not support Suvorov’s thesis of Stalin plans of attacking Germany in 1941, though he might have toyed with idea of taking even larger chunk of Romania (after Bessarabia) and thus cutting off Hitler from Romanian oil.
I suspect that the reason you like the book so much is not because of the case of Suvorov’s hypothesis that the author did not make but because McMeekin writes about Stalin’s penetration of close circles around Roosevelt and Churchill and how it impeded the West in doing the right thing and saying no to Stalin:
I wish I have learned about the book not from grossly misleading review by Hitler sympathizer Guyenot which only lead to the usual clashes between swarms of fanboys of Hitler and Stalin.
Albert Pike’s Letter to Mazzini is a hoax.
Soviet Tanks Were To Be The Spearhead In Stalin’s Plan To Attack & Conquer Europe
http://www.renegadetribune.com/soviet-tanks-spearhead-stalins-plan-attack-conquer-europe/
Wear’s War Editor’s Comment: Continuing from Germany’s Incredible Courage: How Hitler’s Invasion Surprised Stalin, this series of articles explores the staggering scale of preparations by the Soviet Union from 1927 to build the greatest offensive army ever known. The Soviet 5 Year Plans were effective for this purpose and implemented with barbaric cruelty. Under the terms of the Soviet universal military draft, ratified on September 1, 1939, the Soviet Army grew five-fold, from 1.1 million to 5.5 million. Stalin knew when he established the draft that in two years, in the summer of 1941, the Soviet Union must enter into a major war.
It is worth noting that far from being the conqueror of Europe, Adolf Hitler saved it from Stalin. Therefore it is unsurprising that the historical narrative was both intentionally and grossly distorted to portray Stalin and the Soviet Union as the victims of German aggression:
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, it had a total of 3,350 tanks on the Eastern Front, all of them inferior to the Soviet tanks and none of them amphibious. Yet historians called the Soviet amphibious tanks obsolete. The Soviet amphibious tanks in 1941 became unnecessary and played no role in the war. But the question remains: Why were the amphibious tanks developed and built? Why did Stalin need 4,000 amphibious tanks which could not be used in a defensive war? The obvious answer is that Stalin planned to use the amphibious tanks in a massive military invasion of Europe.
The problem is also that many slavs have embraced subhuman Bolshelvism as their heritage. Almost mummified Babushka marching on (((V-day))) with a painting of Jesus Christ our Savior right next to joseph “son of jew” stalin’s portrait, and having the gall to call the Great Adolf Hitler a kike.
Even Putin has publicly said Russia can’t touch this subject until after ALL of the red army rapists will have withered (and prefeeably going to hell). The problem is, with the red star on top of the Kremlin and fucking (((LENIN))) in a national tomb, the red hordes will never truly die. Some for marx’s ditch in england.
No, unless I seriously misunderstood what I read, that’s not correct.
McMeekin doesn’t say he’s absolutely sure that Stalin was about to launch a massive attack in the West, but he does seem to think it seemed pretty likely. In fact, Stalin became worried as he began to realize that his attack plans might be falling behind those of Hitler. Obviously, launching an attack to seize the Romanian oil fields that were absolutely vital to Germany meant an all-out war, and Suvorov had also emphasized that was going to be Stalin’s main thrust.
One major difference is that McMeekin doesn’t seem to think that Hitler was aware of Stalin’s looming attack, so it probably wasn’t responsible for Barbarossa. He thought Stalin would probably attack sooner or later, but didn’t realize that the enormous attack forces had already been concentrated on the border.
Since McMeekin covers the entire war period, the Suvorov Hypothesis is only one element of his account, basically a couple of chapters or so, but I’d say his verdict is pretty similar to what I said in my 2018 article, though vastly more thoroughly researched and documented:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/
[Too much linking and pasting. Comments are intended for commentary, and unless you start providing your own, fewer of your comments will be published.]
Germany’s Incredible Courage To Defend Europe: How Hitler’s Invasion of The Soviet Union Surprised Stalin
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/germanys-incredible-courage-to-defend-europe-how-hitlers-invasion-of-the-soviet-union-surprised-stalin/
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]
Soviet intelligence believed, with good reason, that a country needed serious preparations to fight the Soviet Union. One of the vital things Germany would need to fight the Soviet Union was sheepskin coats so that its troops could survive the Russian winter. All GRU agents in Europe gathered and analyzed information on sheep in Europe, and on the main sheep-breeding centers and slaughterhouses. As soon as Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, Soviet intelligence thought that Germany would order industry to begin producing millions of sheepskin coats. This would be reflected in rising sheepskin prices, and sheepskin coats would be delivered to German divisions. However, sheepskin coats were never delivered to any divisions of the German army.
Soviet intelligence also reasoned that the German army would have to use a new type of lubricating oil for its weaponry and motor fuel for its vehicles for the extremely cold Russian winters. The lubricating oil Germany usually used would congeal in the frost, component parts would freeze together, and the weapons would not work. The normal German motor fuel broke down into incombustible components in heavy frost. The quantities and type of liquid fuels possessed by Germany were not sufficient to conduct deep offensive operations in the Soviet Union. Germany was not even conducting research in the field of creating frost-resistant fuels and oils.
The GRU closely followed many other indicators for warning signals of a German invasion. German soldiers needed boots, warm underwear, sweaters, special tents, hats, heaters, skis, ski wax, masking robes, devices for heating water, and frost-resistant batteries. The German army also needed tanks with broad caterpillar tracks, thousands of cars that could drive in poor road conditions, and so on. The German army had none of these. Outside of a great buildup of German troops on the Soviet border, Germany had made no preparations for war against the Soviet Union. Since the German army had not taken reasonable actions to prepare for war, Stalin and his agents did not believe that Germany would invade the Soviet Union.[5]
However, Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union without making reasonable preparations. Hitler realized that he had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union. If Hitler had waited for Stalin to attack, all of Europe would have been lost.
Suvorov states in The Chief Culprit that both German and Soviet forces were positioned for attack on June 22, 1941. The position of the divisions of the Red Army and the German army on the border mirrored each other. The airfields of both armies were moved all the way up to the border. From the defensive point of view, this kind of deployment of troops and airfields by both armies was stupid and suicidal. Whichever army attacked first would be able to easily encircle the troops of the other army. Hitler attacked first to enable German troops to trap and encircle the best units of the Red Army.[6]
Stalin was tyrannical and Soviet Union was repressive.
However, it had one advantage. Even though Jews played an instrumental role in the Bolshevik Revolution, communism was bound to wear down Jewish Power. Jews thrive with capitalism and money-lending as Karl Marx said. Capitalism is the lifeblood of Jewish Power.
As communism favored moralism and mediocrity, it increasingly became a drag on Jewish Power.
It became one big Affirmative Action scheme for the ‘dumb polack’.
Indeed, notice how Jewish Power grew exponentially since the 1980s with increasing deregulation and decline of labor. The new elitism favored by the GOP was boon to Jews, and in time, the Democratic Party essentially became the GOP that’s for ‘gay marriage’.
So, had Stalin taken all of Europe, it would have been better for goyim in the long run.
Of course, there’s something better than global capitalism(that favors Jews) and communism(that suppresses market dynamics and innovation). It is fascism that utilizes capitalism and socialism in favor of nationalism. But the personality cults that came to define Italian Fascism and National Socialism doomed them to failure. Ego trumped Ethno. Had Mussolini and Hitler kept it nationalist, and if a more humanist and humble fascism(something like Ataturkism) had spread throughout Europe, things might have turned out great.
Suvorov’s “revisionism” was ever mainstream. His books were literally written on behalf of MI6 and, without any doubt, there is not a single point in them that wasn’t carefully vetted at high level. You can only become more mainstream when they start placing literal “Approved by ZOG” seals on the covers. It’s just that initially they were written as a part of demoralization campaign aimed at early post-Soviet population (they were given enormous, lavishly-funded print runs in Russian, in late 1991-early 1992). Projecting the message on the Westen audience was deemed unnecessary, as Russia was supposed to looted into oblivion, and the main WWII-related propaganda angle during 1990s was projecting treatment to which German population was subjected in the Western occupation zone on the Soviets, to pre-emptively silence any attempt by Germans to honestly compare notes and explain to the East Germany’s population that them being treated as conquered people right now is not actually so bad. Now Suvorov’s bullshit is getting dug out, because Russia is again the threat #1.
And bullshit is bullshit. Any adult man who cannot easily see through his pile of spin and outright lies should really consider either stopping spouting opinions about matters which he doesn’t understand, or stopping his politics from influencing his judgement to such degree.
Speaking of people who practice both, if anyone seriously thinks that this angle might conceivably allow him to whitewash his Daddy Adolf, he’s an even bigger cretin than being a Nazi in 2021 necessitates. “Stalin and Hitler were equally as bad” was and is the very mainstream of English historiography. The whole concept of “totalitarianism”, for example, was invented for the sole purpose of making this statement. You cannot conceivably make any inroads into justifying one of them by arguing that the other was bad. But, of course, you can play right into the hands of your puppet masters by adding your little voices to the mighty chorus of the anti-Russian propaganda raised by every mainstream media outlet right now. But, well, it is not like doing everything that Wall Street/Shadow Government/(((them)))) want is anything new for you. Hitler himself was the biggest example of that – had he aimed to handle world domination to Washington on a silver platter, there was almost no conceivable course of action to achieve that goal better than the one he took, with perhaps his only slight miscalculation being not weakening the blow against USSR – under the pretext of preparing for a long war against Anglo-Saxons on the sea and in the air – quite enough. (The fact that absolutely no one in German high command who wrote down anything in late 1940 to early 1941 saw the upcoming war against USSR as anything but cakewalk and there was no mention whatsoever of its urgently preventive character anywhere outside of propaganda for consumption by the masses alone is sufficient to disprove Suvorov’s bullshit. As is the fact, that after the conquest of France, and associated acquisition of new raw materials and manpower, German military industry indeed started gearing primarily for air and sea warfare, with aviation alone, IIRC not counting production of munitions for it, taking almost half of budget and strategic resource allocation.)
So what do you make of the fact that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (1925-26) that his plan was to invade the USSR for Lebensraum? Is that confession not enough to prove that Hitler started the war in the Eastern Frost out of his inmense hubris?
I had never looked into Brother Salvador, but you are right.
This little gem is also interesting…
Well the Commintern came about in 1919, so Allende would have been violating its dogma by being a Marxist and a Freemason. But clearly this is all for show.
I would remind you that Freemasons have fought on both sides of many wars, civil wars, and even revolutions. Just look at the US civil war as one example.
Remember also what Rakovsky said, in Red Symphony, during his interrogation in 1938 by Stalin’s sadistic jews:
I have ordered the book as well, it will cost me $60 in the country I live and will take over a week to arrive (I refuse to do business with the Masonic Amazon).
I went through some of the reviews on Amazon, and they shed some light on the book and the author. I believe both are a form of limited hangout. I am ordering the book to read about operation Pike, which I think was a ruse or feint. To me all these descriptions of incompetence and treason by the US and UK in the reviews look like the same old “plausible deniability” that we are continually being confronted with during our current ongoing “Great Reset“. Biden and Boris are poster boys for this. Clearly the issue with Biden, just like with FDR and Wilson before, and Churchill too, is that they are all merely following orders and hiding behind a veil of plausible deniability of incompetence. But we know from Major Jordon’s diaries that the FDR administration was actively funneling nuclear material and blue prints to Stalin throughout the war. This was not incompetence, it was a Masonic plan. Further, it clear that Victor Rothschild was one of the Cambridge five, and that Churchill was nothing more than a Masonic-Zionist stooge.
Below are some damning quotes from the Amazon book reviews about US and UK “incompetence”:
1) Germany’s attack on Poland was a SURPRISE attack, which shows that Hitler and the Germans were not so sure of their victory, despite the fact that they had a powerful ally – the USSR.
2) Even during the 1939 German-Polish war Germans urged the USSR several times to attack Poland as quickly as possible, which also shows that Hitler wasnt sure about Germany’s victory
3) Germans were not sure about the outcome of their attack on Poland and this was one of the reasons why they – Germans – nedeed the Pact and the secret protocol
4) On 24 August, 1939 German diplomat Hans von Herwarth, whose grandmother was Jewish, informed Italian diplomat Guido Relli and American chargé d’affaires Charles Bohlen of the secret protocol. The USA without delay informed about this the Britsh and Britain – France.
France and GB didnt want to fight both Germany and the USSR and thats why they didnt help Poland
So its clear that without the USSR, Hitler and Germany would have acted more cautiously and the
advance of the Wehrmacht woud have been significantly slower in Poland in 1939 Taking into account the fact that Germany consumed much of their anmmunition and no possibility of a quick supply existed then the war and history would have developed in a different dirction
There exist many sources that contain the fact that the Germans consumed much of their anmmunition and no possibility of a quick supply existed… for example Geman Guido Knopp’s book titled “Die Wehrmacht: Eine Bilanz”
(2007) Die Wehrmacht: Eine Bilanz. C. Bertelsmann Verlag. ISBN 978-3-570-00975-8
which caused thousands of Germans to starve to death
Did your heroes make sure that it was mostly the unnutze Esser that starved?
his remarks usually tend to be so short.
One reason being that I don’t have a word count fetish.
Imagine my shock when PCR sends one here to read what I tried to tell him many years ago on his blog and was banned from commenting.
Maybe an old dog can (FINALLY) learn that ‘Hitler was right’.
We know who the enemy is. It is time to make sure the world knows.
All these Mein Kampf arguments have always seemed pretty ridiculous to me. So while in prison as an obscure political activist twenty years earlier, Hitler wrote a few paragraphs in a book. So what?
Meanwhile, since the first day it came into power, the entire Soviet government had officially been loudly proclaiming it intended to Sovietize the entire world. Isn’t that 1000x stronger “proof” that Stalin was about to attack and conquer Europe?
To me, the stronger evidence is the deployment of forces and things like that. Over the past couple of years, Stalin had put his economy on an ultra-war-footing, while Hitler had partially demobilized his military after defeating France in 1940 because he thought the war was over.
Soviet tanks were comparable or far superior to German ones, and Stalin had several times as many tanks as the rest of the world combined. The same was substantially true for aircraft. And most of his forces had been moved right to the border, almost as if he were just about to attack. Gee, I wonder why…
You really should read McMeekin’s book, or at least my own 2018 article, since it’s so much shorter.
How about the theory that WW2 was the continuation of WW1? Never heard about it? There is an opinion that in WW1 Germany fought for territorial and economic dominance and its position as a world power…
And seems that you strongly underestimate the ideology – Mian Kampf – because ideology sets objectives: first ideology then war, which IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS (Clausewitz).
Your argument is risible. Of course what was the expressed ideology of the guy that decided to launch Barbarossa matters very much in interpreting what was the purpose of Barbarossa. The rest of your points about the display of forces have been well refuted by other commenters, including myself regarding the amount of forces put together by the Wehrmacht and her allies for Barbarossa.
I think you are too easily impressed by alternative takes on major historical events. Some major historical events are true as reported by mainstream historians. Not every major historical event require your alternative interpretation.
I’m grateful to Ron for publishing this review of McMeekin’s book, as I simply don’t read that many book reviews anymore. Props, also, to the commentariat here.
I like the title, Stalin’s War, because it implies Comrade Stalin’s “ownership” of WWII, his position as a moral agent in that cataclysm, rather than as a passive or foolish victim of Hitler. So much history of the period seems to me inadvertently lopsided by casting Herr Hitler flailing madly about in a world in which everyone else–the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, etc.–is assumed to be quietly engaged in peaceful pursuits.
I recall watching a fictionalized TV doc on the 1945 Potsdam Conference, and, startlingly, or so it seemed to me, the nearly defeated Hitler and the German armed forces were scarcely mentioned. The Gestalt I came away with, rightly or wrongly, was that the upsurge of German anger in the 1919-1945 period was simply less important than the masses of men and materiel that were brought to bear against it.
One big loser, in my opinion, is that we in the West simply can’t touch an uplifting politics of “national revival” for fear it would resemble too closely fascism/national socialism, and thereby threaten global capital, “commodification” of human relations, and so on. Too bad, I guess.
Well summarized!
FT , FP and The Guardian receiving information from this traitor https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko
He is famous to write historical articles against Russia
No,that’s something Goebbels’ministry pulled out from their collective rear ends.Stop worshiping Goebbels. No matter how many times you lie-it won’t become truth.
“Albert Pike’s Letter to Mazzini is a hoax.”
Just like the Georgia Guidestones. And of course the Protocols of Zion are a “Forgery” too. Kalergy did not want a European genocide either. And the Talmud doesn’t at all mean what it says, but every sentence in Mein Kampf was literally spliced into German DNA. And that magic bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the head. The 6 gorrillion, the gas vans, the masturbation death machines, the lamp shades and the soap bars are also so true they are sacred. Oh, and most importantly to this thread, what Stalin wanted most of all for all of Europe was peace, just like his second coming Vlad Putin.
If you want to refute someone’s statement, you will have to do better than spewing typical haughty Seraphim platitudes. Also, arrogantly listing books you claim to have read does not have any merit as a counter argument.
“…Some major historical events are true as reported by mainstream historians. …”
Agreed.
However, WWI & II and Germany are the exception to this rule and clearly lie outside the “some” inclusion.
I submit that what one reads/sees/hears in the main stream media, the opposite is much closer to the truth.
You may recall from just a few days ago we discussed this issue of Hitler’s lifelong quest for conquest in the east, where I pointed out that it was not just stated in Mein Kampf, but was the central theme of the Nazi project throughout its duration. I promised to look up the relevant material on the subject that was quoted chapter and verse from David Irving’s The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939.
So we see that Irving has got to the very core of Hitler’s career-long ambition and motivation, as an incisive historian should, and dug up literally mountains of evidence right from the horses mouth—and spanning the entire Nazi era, right up to the eve of war, which was of course the final denouement of those ambitions of conquest to the east.
Considering that Mr Unz has praised highly Irving’s books on many occasions, and has claimed to have carefully read them, perhaps you find it as remarkable as I do that he can now say ‘so what? and ‘ridiculous.?’
Perhaps it is merely a ‘misunderstanding’ as with the issue at hand here, whereby we are first told that McMeekin has now ‘confirmed’ the Rezun [Suvorov] ‘hypothesis?’
But on second thought:
Hmm? Perhaps even ‘highly likely?’ [to use a phrasing currently in vogue].
In any case, Irving is quite thorough and unequivocal on the issue of Hitler’s lifelong plan:
Stalin was simply trying to provoke and intimidate Hitler into making his foolish attack, but “most” of Stalin’s Red Army forces were not in fact “right to the border,” as several comments in this thread have noted.
In the past, as I recall, Russian military expert Andrei Martyanov has said that the Red Army was in no shape to conduct a massive offensive by 1941, which is my paraphrase of Martyanov’s remarks.
While it is true that the T-34 and KV were superior to all German tanks of the day, the Red Army had taken delivery of less than 2,000 of those types by the onset of Barbarossa.
Most of the Red Army’s tanks by mid-1941 were the T-26 – an obsolete light tank – and many of these were in poor condition. The idea of the Red Army’s worn-out T-26s racing across Europe is, frankly speaking, ludicrous, but when you’re playing with toy tanks, it makes little difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26
Similarly, in 1941 the Red Army’s VVS (Air Force) was equipped primarily with largely obsolete aircraft like the I-15 and I-16, which comprised the majority of the Red Army’s aircraft losses in the early stages of Barbarossa.
That traditional excuse is just nonsense. If you’ll read Suvorov, you’ll discover that by those exacting standards, nearly all the German tanks in Barbarossa were equally “obsolete.” The entire German military transportation corps relied upon something like 700,000 horses to pull carts. Can you imagine what people would be saying if a Soviet army of invasion had almost entirely relied upon horses?
That’s the key point. Both the T-34 and KV were *vastly* superior to any German tank. You say that the Soviets only had 2,000 of them. But the entire German invasion force only had 3,300 “obsolete” tanks. Meanwhile, the Soviets had an additional 13,000 tanks in the border area, all roughly as good as the German ones, plus another 8,000 tanks held in reserve elsewhere in the USSR. So the German tanks were outnumbers roughly 5-to-1 at the front, and also considerably inferior in average quality given the substantial number of T-34s and KV.
The relative imbalance in the quality and quantity of aircraft was nearly that extreme.
The traditional narrative is just a total hoax, a hoax almost as extreme as the contemporaneous claims by FDR that Nazi Germany was planning to invade and conquer Latin America…despite having almost no surface navy!
Very credible. Hitler and Goebbels are well-known founts of truth. Pretty much like NYT, WaPo, and CNN today. BTW, The Financial Times and The Guardian are on the same page.
Suffice it to mention that according to The Guardian “reporting” Syrian government and Russian air force bombed in Aleppo more hospitals than there are in the whole world. Strangely enough, according to the same source nothing was happening in Aleppo after Syrians kicked Islamic bandits out of it.
Another good example of The Guardian “truthfulness” is Darfur. Used to be on the front page for months. Interestingly, there was not a squeak about it after a certain date. Apparently, it mysteriously disappeared from Earth.
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..
Yes they were often met as liberators until they learned about what the Nazis had planned for them.
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,
Here we go again trying to ignore Generalplan Ost.
Even if you convinced Unz readers of this “Good Nazis” fantasy it will never work outside Unz. There is too much evidence that the Nazis planned on starving millions of Slavs. They had already started their plans with Leningrad and there are thousands of accounts of starving women and children that cannot be written off as Jewish conspiracy. The plan was to kill the Slavs and take their land. Hitler would have easily won if he instead made them allies against the USSR. But out of greed and racial hatred he believed he could take it all.
You are correct that the Communists were bloodthirsty and anti-Christian but that does not justify the Nazis. The Nazis only pretended to value Christianity for political reasons and by the 1940s were talking about removing it. Originally they were going to drop the old testament and make Jesus an Aryan but later they decided to slowly phase it out of German society.
I think it can be more useful to look at what did happen rather than to speculate about what might have eventually happened.
Without being explicitly revisionist, in Aspects of the Third Reich, H.W. Koch’s essay “Hitler’s Programme and the Genesis of Operation ‘Barbarossa’ ” covers the events between the French campaign and June 22nd, 1941. He paints a picture of Hitler being progressively forced to pay attention to the situation in the East, as Russia kept increasing its troop concentrations, making successive territorial demands on the various neutrals surrounding her, and threatening vital German interests — Finnish nickel and Romanian oil. The last straw was Molotov’s November visit to Berlin, in which Molotov made a series of outrageous demands, going so far as to demand land for a Soviet naval base on the North Sea (!).
As Koch describes it, it was only at this point that Hitler finally decided to attack Russia — not so much in foreknowledge of some specific Soviet plan to attack as in response to the general pattern of attempted intimidation, repeated bad faith, and obvious efforts to reduce Germany to dependency. Indeed, Hitler had privately made Molotov’s visit a test: his behavior would finally decide whether or not peaceful relations with the Soviet Union were feasible. Molotov failed the test, and Hitler began preparations for ‘Barbarossa’ in earnest.
Without demonstrating that there was in fact a planned Russian attack on Germany that ‘Barbarossa’ merely forestalled or on the other hand, that ‘Barbarossa’ was simply the fulfillment of Hitler’s theoretical programme, it is possible to clearly show that whatever might have happened otherwise, the decision to attack did occur against a background of steadily escalating Soviet expansionism at the expense of German interests.
Curiously, ‘Barbarossa’ even becomes analogous to the Franco-British decision to declare war on Germany when she invaded Poland. Critics of that choice often attempt to reduce the question to one of the merits of Germany’s demands on Poland. They ignore the general pattern of German expansionism and bad faith over the preceding year and a half, culminating in first, the guarantee of continued Czech sovereignty, and then second, the open flouting of that agreement. France and Britain came to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that German expansionism wasn’t going to be halted without resorting to war — and at the end of 1940, Hitler came to a similar conclusion regarding Russia.
I no longer believe the ‘well meaning bungling idiots’ routine in this regard either. No one is that consistently stupid without it being deliberate.
People in general, however, are too emotionally invested in the Capitalist/Communists, Right/Left, paradigm in place since 1776 and 1789 to think that it is anything else but ‘incompetence’. To think that there might be a manufactured and broadly controlled (crimethink, I know) Hegelian Dialectic at work from the beginning between Capitalism and Communism is too much for most, myself included at one time.
That’s the power of the Big Lie.
Anyhow, it’s part of the under emphasized open historic record that both Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, Founding Father’s of the Capitalist 1776 American Revolution, were also, in a very real sense, Founding Father’s of the 1789 embyonic Communist French Revolution as well.
Jefferson, as US Minister to France, had 1984 O’Brien like ‘collaborated in writing’ the French Revolution’s seminal document The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Paine actively served in the revolutionary French government.
According to the article excerpted and linked below from the outstanding Belcher Foundation website, both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson as US ministers during the 1780’s, fostered networks of revolutionary cells in France leading ultimately to the overthrow of the French government.
As the French Revolution is what Communism evolved from, it is a truism that the United States government has been supportive of Communism from its very beginnings. FDR was simply continuing in this pattern of support.
That same Belcher Foundation has geopolitical articles which strongly suggest that the 1776 American Revolution was a false split between the US and UK, ie that the Empire deliberately ‘threw’ (ie lost) the Revolution.
I think the idea originally was that once this broadly controlled Capitalist/Communist dialectic had run its full course, that the Brish Empire would (naturally) inherit the Earth.
https://www.belcherfoundation.org/trilateral_center.htm
‘…The relative imbalance in the quality and quantity of aircraft was nearly that extreme…’
You’re wrong there; Russian aircraft were numerous, but on the whole, inferior to German planes.
The difference was even greater than performance figures would suggest; German controls, gun sights, etc were vastly superior. Just to cite one example, somebody pointed out that while an Fw-190 required five control changes to go from ambling along to full, all-out, the-engine-will-last-ten-minutes-with-this-kind-of-treatment, combat mode, the equivalent Russian aircraft required thirteen adjustments.
So whilst your considerably better-trained German pilot has smoothly flown through few changes changes he has practiced until they’re second nature and is angling in for the kill, your barely-able-to-take-off Russian is still fumbling his way through the checklist.
It wouldn’t even be a contest. It usually wasn’t. In fact,I’ve read that the Germans briefly tried rotating pilots between Russia and the West — just to give everyone a turn at the easy pickings.
They had to give it up. Your average German East Front pilot was hopelessly spoiled. He’d go up to fight some Spitfires over France — and get shot down in five minutes. He just wasn’t prepared for competent opponents in genuinely comparable aircraft.
The traditional narrative is just a total hoax, a hoax almost as extreme as the contemporaneous claims by FDR that Nazi Germany was planning to invade and conquer Latin America…despite having almost no surface navy!
Why is there nothing from British intelligence records indicating that Nazis believed that an invasion was imminent?
The British had completely dominated the intelligence war and yet they had no belief that the USSR was going to attack.
Leaving Soviet tanks and planes on the border was a blunder by Stalin, not the makings of an planned offense. It doesn’t make sense that Stalin would be planning an offense only to leave so many planes in bombing range. His own generals had asked to move them back after there were rumors of a German offensive. Why did Stalin refuse? Because he trusted Hitler enough to believe that the war was years away.
But more importantly if the Soviets had been planning an offensive the British would have known about it. The British had spies everywhere and were monitoring everyone. Nothing was a surprise to them.
It was the Germans and Soviets that lived in the dark. The Soviets didn’t know that the British had cracked Enigma. In fact Stalin believed that the British were just trying to start a war between the two countries which is in fact what Churchhill wanted. Stalin correctly did not want a war with Germany unless there was a second front.
‘That traditional excuse is just nonsense. If you’ll read Suvorov, you’ll discover that by those exacting standards, nearly all the German tanks in Barbarossa were equally “obsolete.” The entire German military transportation corps relied upon something like 700,000 horses to pull carts. Can you imagine what people would be saying if a Soviet army of invasion had almost entirely relied upon horses?’
But it would have relied on horses. In fact, a shortage of trucks was one of the most egregious Russians shortcomings in 1941. When the Germans struck, the bulk of that vast artillery park had to simply be abandoned; there were no vehicles to tow the guns.
Beyond that, Russian equipment was horribly unreliable and poorly maintained; the result of frightened rabbits simply struggling to meet the ‘norm’ without regard to the actual state of the equipment in question.
So the ___ Mechanized Corps gets the order to move off on June 23rd. It’s got 477 tanks — so far, so good.
Only 311 actually start. Within fifty miles, two-thirds have broken down, and now there are only 119. By the time the ‘corps’ actually goes into action, it’s got 83 runners. Those are immediately ordered to mount an idiotic attack, and by the end of day one, the effective combat value of the unit is nil. Three Germans got hurt, one badly.
Otoh he was instructed in the text by a very senior intergalactic Lordship while flying on the return leg from Alpha Centauri via the Crab Nebula.
I became convinced of this while smoking a spliff an hour or so ago,
Sadly I do not have any references for this …
Just like you …
Well you got that bit right anyhow.
This article explains why Soviet military forces were deployed forwardly and aggressively on the German-Soviet border in June 1941:
Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941
by Cynthia A. Roberts
https://www.jstor.org/stable/153299
In summary, it was due to flawed Soviet military doctrine of aggressive counterattack.
The T-26 was a copy of a much older Vickers (owned by the Rothschilds) tank from the 1920’s. From your wiki article:
Far more relevant is the BT-7, based on the US Christie design and able to run on rubber wheels instead of tracks. This was purposefully created for the invasions of Poland and Germany and all of Western Europe where the high speeds allowed by running on rubber wheels and paved roads would have allowed a completely new kind of “blitzkreig”.
Soviet Union (1935) Fast tank- 4965 built
These high speed attack BT-7’s were created for offensive war. John Wear also discusses them in his book Wears War:
Wear also goes into the vast inventory of Soviet amphibious tanks, also designed for offensive war against Western Europe and certainly not for the defense of “Mother Russia”:
Of course the T-34 had already entered into production in 1939. The Wehrmacht was completely unprepared.
The Soviets also had over 500 brand new KV-1’s when Barbarossa started:
Germany, in terms of the quantity and quality of their tanks, was completely out classed by the USSR during Barbarossa, and the entire war.
The real issue that the Stalin lovers, Communists and Judaic racial supremacists reading these comments refuse to acknowledge here is that the Soviet army was crushed due to the superiority of German morale and dedication, and the fact that the Soviet soldiers knew that they were nothing more than cannon fodder to the jewish kommisars and barrier guards. This is why Stalin had to make being captured a capital offence. Even this was not sufficient to make the “brave” red army fight. In the end Stalin had to extend punishment to the families back home of any Russian soldier who surrendered rather that fight until death. Of course Stalin was also lucky to have Roosevelt and the Bronfams provide his troops with massive amounts of lend-lease Vodka to help make the “brave Russians” accept their own judaic blood sacrifice while facing their German liberators.
No, Hitler states explicitly in his May 23 memo that Danzig is not the issue and that the matter at stake was Germany’s drive for living space. You’re just rehashing public propaganda put out by Hitler. His explicitly stated intent going all the way back to Mein Kampf was to conquer a vast new domain of living space for Aryans. In the early years after he came to power he played upon British sympathies over the way certain territories with German inhabitants had been casually partitioned out to other countries at Versailles. But as he stated on May 23, 1939:
“It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space and making food supplies secure also solving the problem of the Baltic states. Food supplies can only be obtained from thinly populated areas. Over and above fertility, the thorough German cultivation will tremendously increase the produce.”
One should learn to take Hitler at his word in confidential memos, while distrusting the public propaganda. He was very explicit that it was “not Danzig” that was ta stake. This in turn led to his later summation of October 2, 1940:
“Once more the Fuehrer underlined that there must be but one master for the Poles, and this is the German: two masters could not and must not exist next to each other, hence all representatives of the Polish intelligentsia are to be killed. This may sound harsh, but it is the law of life. The Government General is a reservation for the Poles, one vast Polish labor camp.”
These were not just odd comments appearing from nowhere. They go back to the statements Hitler had published in Mein Kampf, long before he came to power, where he laid out in detail his view of living space in eastern Europe as the central goal. One must be completely ignorant of Hitler’s actual beliefs to imagine that he was just seeking a settlement over Danzig. He had claimed that over the Sudetenland, and then deliberately tore down Munich because he had always intended to seize Czechoslovakia and Poland on the way towards conquering Russia.
I just learned that McMeekin had published a short essay a few days ago on Military History Now, summarizing his views on the start of Barbarossa, so those who want to get them first-hand before reading the full 800 page book should take a look:
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/05/09/stalins-gambit-did-the-soviets-plan-for-a-1941-offensive-war-against-nazi-germany/
That’s a load of crap.
The Russian aviation incompetence was indeed a fact in the early part of the war, when the entire force structure was unprepared and very ramshackle [proving of course that no fantastical ‘invasion’ could be conceived].
But Russian aviation, like the ground forces, were completely transformed by 1943 when the Red Army had already broken the Wehrmacht and the Russian aviation played a big part in pounding the Germans into submission.
The Russians downed more German aircraft than the rest of the allies combined, over 60,000, according to German aviation historian Hans Seidl. See:
Stalin’s Eagles: An Illustrated Study of the Soviet Aces of World War II and Korea
Russian pilots were the top-scoring aces on the allied side. A full 19 of them topped the highest-scoring US ace, Richard Bong.
The early aircraft were mostly obsolete, and most were destroyed in the early part of the German blitz—but the newer Russian aircraft were very good. The French pilots flying in Russia [Normandie-Niémen] rated their Yaks very highly:
Genuine Yak-3 which was previously on display at the Museum of Flying in Santa Monica, CA. It is the machine flown by Hero of the Soviet Union Lt.General Yeremin and was part of the Central Russian AF museum at Monino, although it was loaned out to the Yakovlev museum at some point. It moved to the United States in 1991 but when the Santa Monica museum closed in 2005 the aeroplane moved to the CAF at Camarillo. It remained on display there until at least 2012. It is now on display at the Vadim Zadorozhny Technical Museum, Arkhangelskoye, Moscow Oblast, Russia.
The small French unit shot down 273 German aircraft, and Marcel Albert was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, rarely given to foreigners.
How about this:
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”
As far as i remember after Pilsudski death Goring continued his effort in this direction and visited
Warsaw about 5-7 times in order to persuade Polish politicians join a joint crusade against the USSR.
The overwhelming overconfidence and incompetence of the Judeo-Masonic communists is completely irrelevant in a discussion about what their true intentions were. We know that Jews, especially Jewish communists, do not like manual labor and consider goyim to be their slaves. The fact that the Kommisars were unable to force their Russian Red Army slaves to perform miracles is completely unrelated to the subject at hand. The fact that typical idiot know-it-all Jews had placed all their artillery and aircraft at the front with no means to defend it or of retreat is really proof of their own intention to wage aggressive war against Germany and Europe, not that Hitler wanted to enslave the slavs.
One important point concerning the loss of all those Soviet military aircraft that is important here is the Soviet doctrine concerning aerial warfare. In typical judaic thinking, that shows their complete disregard for the Russian pilots, Soviet plans were to overwhelm German and European defenses with massive swarms of attacking aircraft. These airplanes were made cheap because in effect Stalin and his Jewish Red Army had plans to use their airforce as one gigantic kamikazi assault swarm. This also applied to their paratroopers of which Stalin and his jews had somewhere around 1 million trained and ready to go in June 1941. Paratroopers are not required for defense, but Stalin and the Judeo-Masonic Communists were not planning for a defensive war, just as McMeekan has shown in his book. All those Russian paratroopers were nothing but cannon fodder, just like the pilots, just like the tank drivers, just like the entire Red Army. Cannon fodder set up to rape, murder and pillage all of Europe. Russians being the easy dupes that they have shown themselves to be throughout history, and are showing themselves to be now with their Putin worship, were the perfect platform for carrying it out.
This information is very revealing. Do you have any more details on how the Americans accomplished this?
I have strong suspicions that Mannerheim was a Freemason, if for no other reason than the way he double crossed Hitler. The fact that Finland was able to come out of the war without being invaded by Stalin is also a strong indication that there was some kind of a quid-pro-quo.
If Finland had cut off the Murmansk-Moscow railroad, then there is a strong chance that the Judeo-Communists would have been defeated. This critical failure on the part of Finland likely doomed all of Europe.
“Meanwhile, since the first day it came into power, the entire Soviet government had officially been loudly proclaiming it intended to Sovietize the entire world. Isn’t that 1000x stronger “proof” that Stalin was about to attack and conquer Europe?
To me, the stronger evidence is the deployment of forces and things like that”
Somebody may help me here, with this quote, but from all my readings about him and ww2 I distinctly remember Hitler having said to someone else, when the war was about to take a turn for the worse for him, that had he known the real capabilities of the Soviet union when it comes to tank production, he would have never invaded it. Frankly, this simple line would constitute for me the most compelling evidence that the invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941 was a decision he took freely, without any pressure or urgency, because he chose to do it. These are not the words of a man who sees him pushed against a corner and is forced to do something. If you say “Had I known that the driver of that bus was high as a kite and that he would crash it I would have never gotten aboard” you are implicitly meaning that you had the choice, to wait for the next one, get a taxi, walk. So, that single line proves to me that Hitler launched his June 1941 adventure been aware that he was completely free not to do it.
Thanks, Ron.
A useful article by McMeekin, not least for his view abt how the Suvorov debate was closed down in the west by Glantz and Gorodetsky … but not elsewhere …
Again an example of academic debate in the west being stifled by the strident voices repeating the “mainstream narrative”, as seen indeed on comments here .
Imho, this situation will not and cannot endure.
Well that’s a lot of lies packed in one. First of all, the “tens of millions” hoax. The population in the territory of the 1939 USSR was about 140.4 million. In 1939 it was about 168.5 million. Could it have grown more without a whole set of disasters since 1914, some of which the Soviet government was involved in? Sure, but this ridiculous claim about “tens of millions” has never had any supporting evidence. It was promoted by Cold War hucksters like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest. Solzhenitsyn’s ramblings actually show the lie very clearly. From Letter to the Soviet Leaders:
“In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost, as a result of civil strife and tumult alone–as a result of internal political and economic “class” extermination alone–66 million people!!!”
Before one even tries to evaluate such lunacy, the first thing to do is go right back to The Gulag Archipelago and check what Solzhenitsyn tells us there:
“Twenty years later we could think: Well, yes, we understood the sort of arrests that were being made at the time, and the fact that they were torturing people in prisons, and the slime they were trying to drag us into. But it isn’t true! After all, the Black Marias were going through the streets at night, and we were the same young people who were parading with banners during the day. How could we know anything about those arrests and why should we think about them? All the provincial leaders had been removed, but as far as we were concerned it didn’t matter. Two or three professors had been arrested, but after all they hadn’t been our dancing partners, and it might even be easier to pass our exams as a result. Twenty-year-olds, we marched in the ranks of those born the year the Revolution took place, and because we were the same age as the Revolution, the brightest of futures lay ahead.”
A rational person will now wonder how on earth Solzhenitsyn could have failed to notice anything if he was living in the midst of a cataclysm which cost 66 million lives (or even the slightly less ridiculous claim of 20 million which Robert Conquest promoted). Well, as we read with the Letter to the Soviet Leaders, we see that everything changes just a few lines later:
“But it’s true, a hundred million are no more (exactly a hundred, just as Dostoyevsky prophesized!) ..”
OK, now it’s obvious that Solzhenitsyn has simply lost his marbles. First he tells us 66 with repetition for emphasis, then in a blank of eye he changes this to 100 with again repetition for emphasis. But he cites the novel The Possessed where Dostoyevsky includes 3 scenes with references to “chopping off a hundred million heads” and we’re told that this was the prophecy of the 100 million. What happened the 66 million from a minute ago? For that matter, why he didn’t he notice anything like this during the 1930s when the purges were at their height? It’s clear that Solzhenitsyn is a hopeless liar.
In fact, all of the records show that the overall health of the Soviet population improved greatly up until the 1960s when the period of stagnation decisively set in. That’s obviously not a justification for the actual human rights abuses which were a real part of the Lubyanka, Gulag and what not. But these silly claims about “tens of millions” having died unnatural deaths in the peacetime USSR are so far out of line with every bit of historical evidence that rehashing such claptrap nullifies any serious argument.
I should also add for the record that the majority of Ukrainian collaborators who joined with Hitler West Ukrainians whose territory had been part of Poland until September 1939. There were obviously some individual exceptions like John Demjanjuk who joined with the Germans and was later railroaded for it. But the majority of East Ukrainians fought with the Soviet army and showed no signs of a mass-defection. Of course, one can plausibly argue that if Hitler had taken a completely towards eastern Europe then he could not only have won over the East Ukrainians, but even many Russians. Stalin’s position was not as weak as one would believe if we accept the claptrap which Solzhenitsyn spouted about “66 million .. 100 million.” But it was a lot weaker than he would have liked. Only Hitler’s arrogant insane notion of conquering living space and letting tens of millions of Slavs starve to death enabled Stalin to position himself as the man of the people.
Typical hogwash from that pompous ass FB. John Wear sheds some light:
Wiki also add some detail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-2
Wear explains:
Once again, the real problem facing the soviet slave army was lack of motivation, lack of morale, and a military created and designed to rape, murder and plunder its way across western Europe. Wear has some more important details here:
That’s quite a load of cut ‘n’ paste and boldface, but somehow the Wehrmacht managed to destroy over 44,000 T-34s during the course of WWII. As Nigel Askey puts it:
https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/
As for the BT-series tanks…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank
Once the Germans mounted a high-velocity 7.5 cm gun on their Panzer IIIs, and introduced the Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger, the earlier qaulitative advantage of the Soviet tanks evaporated, but the Germans were able to manufacture only a relatively small number of these generally excellent models, while some sources say the Soviets built over 80,000 T-34s in all its many variations.
The Soviets did have a qualitative advantage at the outset of the war, but both the T-34 and KV had their own suite of flaws. The original T-34, for example, had a small, cramped two-man turret with relatively poor optics (the real kind), resulting in an overworked tank commander with poor situational awareness.
Those T-37 and T-38 amphibious tanks were more dangerous to their Soviet crews than to the German enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-38_tank
The German success at the outset of WWII was due to the tactical superiority of the Wehrmacht against all foes, but Germany simply did not have the industrial muscle and abundant natural resources to defeat the Soviet Union in any protracted conflict.
As I already noted, Lviv was part of West Ukraine which belonged to Poland on September 1, 1939. There was no mass-support for Hitler in the East Ukraine, which was the region of Ukraine that formed part of the USSR on August 31, 1939. I still think that Hitler could have built support among East Ukrainians and Russians if he had junked the whole living space notion the way that people like Rosenberg and Ribbentrop wanted. Instead Hitler wasted the support that he initially got in the Baltic. After Stalin’s invasion the Baltic peoples were ready for Hitler. But he soured that too. See Prit Buttar, Between Giants.
What the mentally ill clown John Wear says is as connected to reality as your own mouth-foaming sputterings…
As I replied above to Colin Wright, the issue here is not the crass disregard of the Judeo-Communists for the survival of their Red Army slaves that is the issue. The issue is the purpose and design of the Red Army. I think that we are in agreement here, Stalin did not design and build all this incredible mass of various types of offensive tanks, as flawed as they may have been, for defensive purposes. It is also ironic how Hitler is blamed for not consolidating German armaments into a few lines of mass produced weapons systems when clearly Stalin was experimenting with all kinds of weapons platforms.
Your document refuting the superiority of the T-34 is of particular interest because it helps to illustrate the degree to which the Judeo-Communists went to after the war to sugar coat their callous disregard for the lives of the Russian soldiers serving as cannon fodder in the Red Army.
The narrative was transformed from the reality of careless and possibly deliberately poor planning, design and manufacturing into one of glorious brave Russian cannon fodder resisting the most eeeevil army of the most eeevil people in the history of the planet.
Russians and useful idiots like FB still fall for this easily debunked hogwash hook line and sinker.
Nonsens, because German industry at that time didnt work in 3 shifts. Instead due to the British- American bombardments, only 1 shift schedule was used in Germany and in some other countries that also experienced this bombardment, and do not forget about lend-lease. The USSR fought against 1/3 of the Germany industrial capacity
I think that you are underestimating or even disregarding the effects of Jewish and Communist terrorists after the Germans took over territory. By the Haig conventions in effect at that point in time reprisals were a legal response to terrorist attacks. With the massive superiority of allied propaganda and their ability to change history after they flattened and destroyed Germany, most of what they claimed about the behavior of the Wehrmacht and the SS can be disregarded.
Terrorism had to be dealt with, and many if not most of the terrorists were Jewish communists. Every time a terrorist and his associates were rounded up and executed of course it would have been transmorgrified and propagandized into German brutality and war crimes just as it was when Germany occupied Belgium in WWI. The main difference here is that Poland and West Ukraine were occupied for 50 years by the Judeo communists after the war, and the truth of what went on has still not reached the light of day.
This is why I discount all the blather on this blog about “Ukro-Nazis”. Until we have been given the chance to separate all the absurd propaganda of the “victorious Red Army” and their Jewish kommisars from the truth about what happened on the ground, we simply cannot believe a word coming from their mouths. Put another way, until about 50 years after the holocaust religion has been put to rest and free speech has been restored all across Europe, we will not be able to judge whether Hitler, the Wehrmacht or the SS really mistreated the Eastern Europeans.
Agree 100%. There is no subjunctive mode in history. Quite naturally, the losers prefer to talk about what could have happened rather than about what actually happened, simply because they have actually lost.
Stalin did not design and build all this incredible mass of various types of offensive tanks, as flawed as they may have been, for defensive purposes.
That’s absolutely no argument as it doesn’t prove anything. They only way you could say with certainty such a thing is that you had been able to get into Stalin’s head and read his real intentions, the things that he didn’t even tell to anyone else. If I get into martial arts to have a way to defend myself against possible aggressors when the time comes to face one of them, I will want to have too as many offensive moves as defensive ones as I can, to give them a good lesson and to make them forget about trying it again. That is true for me and for most of us, simply human nature. And the same goes for nations and states. Even if you are the most defense-minded people, nation, you will want to have strong offensive capabilities also, so in case you are attacked by a foreign power you will able not only to stave off their aggression but also to give them if possible a good beating and even take the fighting to their own territory, their capital, so they will think a million times before trying again. So it is entirely possible that Stalin had decide to give the Red Army strong capabilities for offensive operations also, along with defensive ones, to dissuade potential attackers. After all, it was the Soviet Union the one that was invaded in the late 1910s, not Germany or France or England or the U.S.
It’s Jewspiracies all the way down.
Stalin considered any Soviet soldiers who surrendered to be traitors to the USSR. That is why he refused Hitler’s offer to treat Red Army prisoners according to the Geneva Convention if he would do the same for German soldiers in Soviet captivity. Stalin did not want them to receive fair treatment because in his mind they had betrayed the Soviet Union by surrendering.
https://codoh.com/library/document/stalins-war-against-his-own-troops/en/
I did reference Max Domarus above. Maybe just not in the post you had looked at. Specifically I said Volume 3, but the whole series is worth going through. It’s 4 volumes entitled Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932-1945. Volume 3 is 1939-1940.
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
Unbelievable! You made my day! What an excellent clarification! They also incorrectly assumed that German weapons producers were also prone to easily adapt to local disruptions!
You do not realise how much of dim-witted braggadocio of a Mr Know-All permeates your entire comment. If you were consistent enough, you would have certainly found info on how Standard Oil and all its subsidiaries provided Germany with oil from Venezuela and other countries, till the very demise of the Third Reich.
Put another way, until about 50 years after the holocaust religion has been put to rest and free speech has been restored all across Europe, we will not be able to judge whether Hitler, the Wehrmacht or the SS really mistreated the Eastern Europeans.
Presuming that the Eastern Europeans themselves have nothing to say.
Some of your suggestions are quite plausible. What I would have to reiterate though us that Hitler gave the order to prepare Barbarossa in July 1940. I doubt very much that you will be able to find any evidence of Stalin going very far to take the Rumanian oilfields that early. As things went on and Hitler was preparing for Barbarossa a year in advance Stalin became visibly edgy and your suggestion that he might have wanted to extract more from Rumania is plausible. But this was not the basis for Hitler’s decision in July 1940.
Earlier you have already proved your extreme narrow mindedness, only one possibility is possible in your primitive world… When people don’t learn from their mistakes – do not explore other possibilities, such bright minds inflict unnecessary misfortunes on themselves and – whats much more important – on others, sure the sad outcome of ww2 resulting in 75 million killed and something like 25 million Soviet people lost is a great, great success to you… simply because the USSR was victorious and parade units and mechanized column are held on Moscow’s Red Square every year… “Winners are not judged” – sure this primitive assertion is a precious axiom for the likes of you. And Adolf Hitler added: “Nobody ever checks whether they lied or not “…
Of course, of course because Soviets share with Germany responsibility for the beginning of that war and helped the Germans to shape its course… its clear and very well known…
HUH?
What Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf was hardly relevant at this point (1939). The book constituted the very broad geopolitical outlook of an aspiring politician near the beginning of his career; it was not the “evil dictator’s user’s manual” that many have claimed it to be.
So many false quotes have been attributed to Hitler about “Lebensraum” ( a concept and term which came into being years before Hitler) and hatred of Poles and Slavs that it is hard to discern which are free inventions and which are genuine. Hitler was certainly an admirer of Pilsudski- we know that for a fact.
People are always attempting to read every single action of Hitler from the perspective of a set in stone Manichean historiography and the benefit of hindsight, i.e., “Hitler was a madman, Hitler wanted to conquer the world, abolish Christianity and replace the Bible with Mein Kampf”, etc. and ad nauseam.
An objective appraisal of the times certainly shows Hitler to be a gambling opportunist and a statesman willing to take risks, but also capable of acting quite reasonably within the framework of the Europe of nations. His non-acceptance of the Carthaginian Versailles peace regime was perfectly understandable, as were his attempts to correct it.
If Hitler did not want peace and his peace proposals to resolve the situation with respect to Danzig and the Corridor with a fair and reasonable set of proposals, why were these offers to Poland censored in the British press?
It is clear that the British war party- with the “active encouragement” of the FDR administration, wanted war with Germany. Why did the British promise to aid Poland when they knew that they could not honor that promise? Why did the Poles themselves act so arrogantly and recklessly and turn down Hitler’s relatively reasonable proposals?
How do you know that quote is genuine ? Can you provide a source as many statements attributed to Hitler are false.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/06/fake-hitler-quotes-in-a-u-s-army-film/
Not at all. The Soviet government was confident that the social forces in capitalism would create more revolutions, and they saw their own revolution as the starting point of this. They were also willing to use external force to Sovietize specific territories like Georgia. But that was never more than a useful adjunct to the broader aim of spreading revolutionary ideology. This was the Moscow/Peking split happened so easily later on. Because the Chinese Communist Party did not see as a mere satellite of Moscow but rather as a party which had learned its revolutionary ideology from Moscow.
Talk about living space was not some brief one-time thing made by Hitler in 1920s. It was a core aim for everything that Hitler sought to achieve. Hitler specifically invoked the image of the Teutonic Knights when talking about this in Mein Kampf because he knew this was an aim which could only be attained by military conquest. Whereas Soviet aims allowed for a very long-term view of history, the only Hitler ever have achieved his aim was by war. The only sense in which he downplayed the prospect of war was simply that he did not believe the USSR would offer any military challenge. Hitler’s main concern was over with Britain. He viewed the USSR as more akin to Panama and hence not much of a war.
Weirdo interviews McMeekin. It seems part of the reason why McMeekin is being promoted is his anti-Russian stance. He wrote a book on WWI blaming Russia. And now, he does something similar with WWII. Now, Russia was no innocent bystander in WWI and WWII, but it seems the powers-that-be are finding him useful as a Russia-basher.
Another weirdo interviews McMeekin… who seems open to speaking to young weirdos.
Here, McMeekin speaks with less weird folks.
Suprime congress of the USSR – parliament – or somethig like that condemned the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the protocol to the Pact. And despite Putins talk about the liberation of Europe by the USSR, the condemnation is still in force… Guess why…
But of course other major Europen countries share the responsibility, especially Britan and France… But see it was the Pact and the protocols that led to that war… In Austria and Czechoslovakia not a shot was fired…
This is true, of course, but the even bigger point about your defense-offense observation is that clowns like McMeekin [and his cheering section here] have zero technical knowledge about weapons technology and military tactics—so anything they may blather about how a certain formation supposedly ‘looks offensive’ carries about as much weight as my cat propounding on particle physics [which she often does do, and at the most inopportune moments, bless her little furry heart!]
A historian like Colonel David Glantz, who is in fact an academy-trained military professional, with 30 years of active service, is a different matter. When he talks about these matters, as he has in dismissing the Rezun nonsense, then we may indeed give his technical analysis, some weight.
Hitler: “[…] there must be but one master for the Poles, and this is the German: two masters could not and must not exist next to each other, hence all representatives of the Polish intelligentsia are to be killed. This may sound harsh, but it is the law of life. The Government General is a reservation for the Poles, one vast Polish labor camp.”
Hitler’s subhuman disregard for and hatred of Jews and Slavic peoples have been endlessly documented. It explains many, if not all, horrors inflicted on these people, whom the German Nazis treated as hardly more than animals to be exploited and/or slaughtered.
It also explains the horror of the Katyń massacre. I do not believe the official story that it was the NKVD that masterminded the massacre. But I also suspend my final judgment about what Prof. Grover Furr argues: that it was the German Nazis—not the Russian Bolsheviks—who organized the slaughter to eliminate the Polish intelligentsia, as one of the major goals of Hitler’s war against all Slavic peoples, particularly the Poles and the Russians. (As Hitler himself said.)
The Katyń massacre was just another example of what the Nazi Germans called Intelligenzaktion. (A genocidal policy to eliminate Polish elites.)
I am a perennial agnostic when it comes to political history. But perhaps one day, more evidence will surface about what really happened in the Katyń forest.
@FB
There is also the concept of the Blitzkrieg. Even if many or at least some of the military strategists and military officers in Europe and the USSR had thought about this novel form of war and even proposed to their High Commands to give it a try, recommending top priority to the development of mechanized and aerial forces, their military chiefs were still stuck in the trench wars of WW1 so they dismissed it. Yet, it was the German military chiefs who developed it and made it work like a clock, under Hitler’s command and why was this…? Because Hitler was not only fed up with trench wars but also because he and his generals understood that a nation deprived of natural riches as Germany was needed fast victories that would assure prompt access to the natural resources the Reich so sorely needed. And why is this so important in this debate…? Because, contrary to Stalin’s plans for massive building of his military forces, which could be used both ways, there is no doubt that the Blitzkrieg is a pure,unadulterated form of offensive war. If you build and prepare your military forces around this concept you can’t argue that you are just preparing to defend yourself, you are preparing to attack! period. So Germany was in no way preparing to defend herself under Hitler, specially in the late 1930s, but to attack. And no other European power followed her example, neither the USSR. That turns into dust the idea that all what Hitler did what to preempt a planned Soviet attack because even if Stalin was preparing to attack first, which he was not, even in that case his would have been a defensive move as he knew that Germany was preparing to attack anyway, no matter what.
My point in bringing up Operation Unthinkable was to properly clarify what Churchill’s response would have been to something as Stalin seizing Europe in 1941. Of course in 1945 Churchill was told by his generals to shut and forget it. Britain was at risk of bankruptcy and it would have been silly for his generals to endorse a new venture. But the point is that things would have been very different if Stalin had invaded Europe in 1941 when Britain had only been at war for less than 2 years and the USA had not even entered the war yet. In that context Churchill would have been raring for a war, and so would Roosevelt.
Of course I only mentioned White as one example. Conversely, there were no near as many agents as Elizabeth Dilling tried to claim. Dilling tended brand anyone who supported New Deal economics as a Soviet agent, which was absurd. The ability of the small core of bona fide agents working for the Soviet government within the US government to influence anything always depended upon Hitler and Hirohito being the more aggressive powers while Stalin stuck to the policy of “one step backward, two steps forward.” There is nothing which any of these agents would have been able to bury the issue if Stalin had suddenly gone all out for an invasion of Europe. More than that, however, Stalin was indeed the type of cautious player who understood this very well and would not have ignored it.
Hitler easily predicted that the USSR would collapse within 6 weeks to 3 months after Barbarossa was launched. He justified the planned invasion by insisting that it was simply a matter of knocking over a house of cards. Hitler was indeed a fool.
Karmic justice and divine will. Centuries of unapologetic materialism and all other modern kiked ideologies, and our era is the logical conclusion.
The Great Adolf Hitler was right that the West lost it’s future and the Eastern people will rise to the challenge. He probably didn’t think it was going to be the Chinese though.
This is EXACTLY what I mean. Not even the most rabid, foam at the mouth polacke nationalist would say the Germans did Katyn. Leave it to another low IQ westoid golem to puke more holohoax based propaganda everywhere.
Why would God want to save your kind?
One other thing the MSM doesn’t like to mention is that in WW2 France invaded German territory first when they sent an army into the Saar in September 1939.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=11241
Excellent point.
Funding Lenin with 40 million gold marks ($100 million) and injecting him into St-Petersburg 16 Apr 1917 was one of many Ludendorff/Hindenberg masterstrokes. Sure, their introduction of poison gas 31 Jan 1915 on Russian positions in Battle of Bolimov wasn’t a game changer, but it was promising. Chief of Staff Erich von Falkenhayn meanwhile banked on his Verdun meatgrinder 1916, but it killed as many Germans (±300,000) as French (±300,000) and gained nothing. How sad.
The twins ascendant replaced him 29 Aug 1916 (Erich dies age 60 in 1922). In addition to brilliantly empowering Lenin, they launch Unternehmen Alberich to shorten their defensive line 9 Feb-20 Mar 1917 and destroy thousands of farmland acres, all infrastructure (towns, bridges, roads, fruit trees, cropland, wells) all with the help of hundreds of thousands of Belgian and French civilians pressed into service to destroy their own property. A genuine ‘pan-European’ enterprise.
The twins didn’t stop there. They convinced Wilhelm II to resume unrestricted submarine warfare (9 Jan 1917) despite dire warnings from their own staff it would bring the USA into the war. They promised Mexico military alliance and inviting it to attack the USA to recover Texas, Arizona and New Mexico 19 Jan 1917 (Zimmermann Telegram).
No surprise Wilson asks Congress to declare war on Germany in order the world “be made safe for democracy” 2 April 1917.
As their own plans fail and their troops revolt, both twins advise Wilhelm II to seek an armistice 29 Sep 1918. Ludendorff resigns 26 Oct 1918, denies any responsibility, flees to Sweden in disguise. Wilhelm II abdicates 9 Nov 1918 and crosses to neutral Netherlands the following day; Germany proclaims a republic.
1914 German leaders thought themselves equal to 1870-71 Wilhelm I-Bismarck-von Moltke (ältere).
They weren’t.
The world paid the price (including millions of Germans).
The next chapter (WW2) was, of course, courtesy of Austrian geifreiter Hitler, an even nastier incompetent (all with the blessing of the same German leadership that launched/lost WW1. Go figure!
I already referred you in an earlier message to Volume 3 of Max Domarus, but it occurred to me to mention Volume 6 of Series D of Documents on German Foreign Policy. That volume also carries the May 23 memo. I really get the impression that a lot of people here have made no attempt to read any of the published documents.
Absolutely correct. That’s how stupid the invaders were – to spurn/kill/starve disaffected potential allies while suffering a labor shortage in the Vaterland.
Did I say the Germans “did Katyn”? I have written my post in English, a language with which you may not be familiar. (Of course, even a dead machine can puke out a few preprogrammed trite phrases of which the machine has no idea.)
Also one should never argue with a child, naturally naïve and stupid. Likewise, one doesn’t argue with a very unnaturally infantile, revolting, god-believing “Heeb.” Adios amigo!
Patrick Osborne argues in Operation Pike that Stalin ordered the Katyn massacre when he heard that the British and French intended to use Poles in Pike. That’s plausible. In Sudoplatov, Special Tasks, there is the text and a photocopy of Beria’s March 5, 1940, note to Stalin which led to the order of execution. No real reason to doubt that.
It was rational for people to have harbored doubts in 1943 when Goebbels miraculously discovered some Polish bodies just after Stalingrad was sinking in. The “cui bono?” argument would have made one naturally suspicious. But that’s easily accounted for Hitler’s pure arrogance. From the time when German forces penetrated the old east-Poland-turned-west-Ukraine it would have been easy for them to simply listen to rumors spread among the Poles and track down the Katyn graves. Roosevelt might have been faced with Katyn by August 1, 1941. That could have changed public debate in the US. Hitler didn’t do this because he was confident of an easy fast victory over the USSR and intended to colonize Poland to a degree vastly exceeding the later 45 years which Poland spent in the Soviet orbit. It was only when Paulus surrendered that Goebbels was able to motivate the effort to track down Katyn, and people were rightly suspicious of that. But there’s no reason to doubt the evidence today.
Strakosh
Strakosh is derivation from world Straka. Straka is a bird that likes to put shining objects (like wedding rings) in the nest. I think magpie in English.
Strakosh translation into English would mean “Thief like magpie”
Constantine Pleshakov is one author whose work has been made available in English.
https://codoh.com/library/document/hitler-spoils-stalins-surprise/en/
There is a little more to this really quite vast and interesting subject, but yes, your general outline supports the conclusion that the blitzkrieg is a purely offensive strategy.
Some historical and technological context is necessary. World War One was arguably closer to the Napoleonic era in terms of tactics than WW2—that’s how big the changes were. It mostly had to do with mobility and speed, which is to this day a key factor, and not just in land warfare but in other domains, including air and sea. In fact speed and mobility were the key even to Genghis Khan centuries ago and Attila the Hun long before him.
Heinz Guderian, arguably the most impactful theoretician on blitzkrieg warfare liked to say that the engine of the tank was as important a weapon as the gun it carried. His nickname was Schneller Heinz.
The other combatants were not lagging in technology—the French and Russian tanks were just as good and just as mobile, but it was coming up with the tactics, the optimum kinds of formations in terms of infantry and armor. I had mentioned previously how Stalin, after watching the formidable French get quickly rolled up, decided to completely reconstitute his formations. It should be mentioned that the Soviets developed their own very effective theory, the Deep Battle Concept, which had a lot to do with key victories like Kursk. It was equally a defensive and offensive strategy.
But there is no question that any amateur interpretations by the likes of McMeekin does not carry enough weight to counter the historical consensus for Hitler’s drive for conquest, and Stalin’s desire to avoid war. People like McMeekin are very much characteristic of the malleability of American scholarship, such as it is, to fit current political ideologies—in this case bashing Russia.
Grozniy means rather awesome threatening all powerful figure that should put fear in every persons heart.
You’re way off about Kaiser Wilhelm II. He waged a ruthless war against the Herero people in what is today Namibia. Bismarck was the one who had the sense to stay away from colonial campaigns and just stick to doing business in Deng Xiao-Ping style. Wilhelm II, by contrast, was an arrogant fool who created unnecessary conflicts and then got dragged down by them. The Kaiser’s behavior in Africa did a lot to generate sympathies for the British.
True. They had to justify themselves in ‘de-Nazification’. Many/most smelled of the charnel house they helped launch; few were prosecuted (many deserved it).
Manstein was a cut above. Never a sycophant. Brilliant in planning (France 1940) and execution. Lost a son am Ost.
Good Question. Who knows?
Of course the dirty little secret is Hitler bribed favorite (compliant) generals with monthly tax-exempt stipends and (for favorites) landed estates. Did Erich have cash burning a hole in his trousers?
‘Very credible. Hitler and Goebbels are well-known founts of truth. Pretty much like NYT, WaPo, and CNN today…’
Lol. Truer than you may have intended.
The Soviets were less in the dark as it is imagined. Their mastery in intelligence gathering, counter-intelligence, disinformation, deception is admitted by everyone (even exaggerated at times). They might not have cracked the Enigma code, but they indirectly used it. People are reluctant to talk about ‘Lucy’ (Rudolf Roessler), the ‘Rote Drei’, the ‘Cambridge Five’. The Anti-Fascist Resistance in Germany included high-ranking generals who fed the Soviets with the most detailed information about German plans. They gloss over the embarassing story of the infiltration of the British Intelligence Service by the famous ‘five’ (it was rather collaboration, which subsequently the British denied).
So, it is known that since May 1938, Rudolf Roessler was contacted in Switzerland by the Generals Fritz Thiele and Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, who would eventually become the officer in charge of the intelligence department of Army Group Centre in the Eastern Front. They provided Roessler with an Enigma machine and the latest shortwave transmitter and told to listen for messages from Thiele who was stationed in the Bendlerblock. The messages were to sent using the call-sign RAHS. A typical day for Rudolf Roessler was to receive transmissions via the Broadcasting Center during his work day, and rebroadcast this information to the Russian military after leaving work for the evening. But also to Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Stalin was prepared for war, but he would not have been the first to attack. Whatever people like to think about the international policy of the SU, at that time it was an advocate of international law. Under any circumstances it would not appear as the aggressor.
The Red Army was
Are there documents that support this as policy and doctrine for the Red Army? Did they produce training manuals on how to do this? Was this part of the basic training of of every Red Army soldier? If you failed the rape course were you sent to the Gulag?
What about the Jewish Machinations. Why did America agree to the Land Lease deal??? Why did we create our enemy? Who were the advisors of Franklin Roosevelt? Were they Jewish?
It is well known Churchill had wealthy Jewish elites funding him and pulling his strings.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html
Bolshevism was a Jewish Invention – They funded the Bolshevik Revolution which toppled Russia.
https://rielpolitik.com/2020/01/26/hidden-history-who-financed-bolshevik-revolution/
Communism was a Jewish invention. America was already under Jewish control in WWII.
I would love to see a detailed article on the Jewish Machinations of both WWI and WWII.
After the war, America was absolutely infested with Communist Jews. Senator Joseph McCarthy hunted them in the 1950s. Not soon enough, as those shitheads gave Russia our Nuclear Bomb.
To me, it seems Jews loved Mother Russia and did all they could do to preserve their failed social experiment. Even today, many Jews are still communists at heart.
Indeed (up to a point).
Thank you. I did indeed not see your reference to Domarus.
‘…There is no subjunctive mode in history. Quite naturally, the losers prefer to talk about what could have happened …’
Actually, I’m perfectly happy to discuss hypotheticals in history. The past really was a random walk at times, and things weren’t foreordained from the dawn of time.
At the same time, it’s silly to put the cart in front of the horse. When it comes to Barbarossa, people need to be clear about what did happen before going on about what would have happened if…
Personally, the model I’ve been most impressed by projects that given German passivity, no, Stalin was not going to attack Germany in 1941. He would have finished off Finland, then attacked Germany in 1942. That’s about when he would have perceived his armies to be reequipped, reorganized, and ready.
But of course Germany didn’t sit there passively awaiting the blow. Hitler certainly had no ideological objections to waging a war of conquest in the East, and as it happened, both the general situation and Stalin’s behavior made it a very good idea to do it when he did.
I think Hitler as warlord can be criticized on a number of points. However — unless your argument is that he really should have been hugging the bunnies and angling for the Nobel Peace Prize — I think his decision to attack Russia in 1941 was entirely correct. It represented his one best chance to win the war.
He muffed it, but that’s another subject.
Reason the allies, US, France Britain didn’t invade Russia in the summer and fall of 1945 is that the American government was full of Russian immigrant Jewish communists.
Sure, sure. Goebbels job title – minister of propaganda – says it all.
What is the source of this? What actually Hitler said, when and where? I am pretty sure you won’t find anything in which Hitler stated explicitly that “Polish intelligentsia are to be killed.” Later Polish intelligentsia was subjected to murderous AB-Aktion and Intelligenzaktion but there is no trail to Hitler.
I figured it out in basic high school American history class. Hitler and Stalin went to war with each other to divide Europe between Germany and Russia. It worked extremely well. Except America took over Western Europe instead of Germany.
America doesn’t seem to plan to remove its bases all over Europe. We’ll be in Europe for the foreseeable future. But Germany runs the EU, always has always will.
Hitler was nominated (ironically?) for Nobel Prize in 1939.
https://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/en/news/hitler-as-a-nobel-laureate
Gertrude Stein endorsed him in 1934.
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/marchapril/feature/the-strange-politics-gertrude-stein
I agree. Perfidious Albion from about 1100 AD just one invasion after another of European countries. Spain and England against the HR Empire. France and England against Spain and the Empire . On and on it went. Always meddling always fomenting wars.
The EU Remainers feared that once our if the EU the UK will revert to an irrelevant off shore island Probably it will.
Indeed, had Stalin attacked first Japan would have to intervene according to the Tripartite Pact, which was a defensive alliance. Since Germany attacked first Japan was under no obligation to intervene, the more that it concluded in April 1941 a Non-aggression Pact with Soviet Union.
‘Sure, sure. Goebbels job title – minister of propaganda – says it all.’
It does suggest a certain fundamental honesty as to what he was about that we cannot credit our current chattering classes with.
Who would you trust more? Someone who tells you he’s a used car salesman — or someone who tells you he’s a pastor and then tries to sell you a car?
‘Hitler was nominated (ironically?) for Nobel Prize in 1939.
https://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/en/news/hitler-as-a-nobel-laureate
‘Gertrude Stein endorsed him in 1934.
‘ https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/marchapril/feature/the-strange-politics-gertrude-stein
The nomination was obviously meant ironically, but how Hitler — and Nazism — were perceived before the outbreak of the war is an interesting subject.
A lot of people said things they subsequently had to hide as best they could. The Nazis were not universally perceived to be out to make it always winter and never Christmas.
The lies continue to collapse and ignoramuses like yourself will have to stop repeating them eventually. In Ukraine alone it is recognized that 8 million Ukrainians were killed by the USSR in the recognized genocide called the Holodomor. That is just Ukraine. This mass murder was known by the world and Nobel Prize winning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote of the mass incarceration of dissidents and brutality of the Soviet government in his books. In Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia and Russia too, large numbers of brutalized Soviet citizens welcomed the German army as liberators, aided them and hoped the Germans would liberate them from the mass murdering hell hole that took tens of millions of their lives.
The majority of Ukrainian collaborators did not live in Poland but they did live in the west. In the eastern part of Ukraine many (or even most) are not ethnic Ukrainians (and didn’t speak Ukrainian) but you will see from the book review below that many Russians also favored Germany over the mass murdering Bolsheviks.
This is a review of a new book from the Norwegian academic Johannes Due Enstad. Read the review and learn something. Eastern European authors are writing similar books.
Many Russians hoped that Hitler would free them from Stalin
https://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/news-and-events/news/2018/many-russians-hoped-that-hitler-would-free-them-fr.html
Unlike others, the Germans don’t “railroad” allies. Recently, there were complaints by some of Germany’s former enemies in a news report that Germany still sends pension checks to former Waffen SS soldiers in countries like Norway and Holland.
You will also have to forget your propaganda about Rosenberg and how Germany would have treated people in “living space”. I spend a lot of time in the Baltic countries and to this day, Estonians and Latvians favor the Germans by far over the Russians. Even after all the lies against the Germans I have heard some express open admiration for them. When I was correcting some misconceptions an eastern “Ukrainian” girl had in a discussion in Tallinn last year an Estonian asked what the discussion was about and when he heard a German was correcting the Russian girl he stood in front of me the next day and gave the “Sieg Heil” salute as act of friendship. I laughed but I liked it. This feeling is stronger among the older people.
But when the allies entered Germany they were perceived as the enemy mass murderers they were.
You have a point. Someone whose job title is “liar” does have an honest job title.
“I had mentioned previously how Stalin, after watching the formidable French get quickly rolled up, decided to completely reconstitute his formations. It should be mentioned that the Soviets developed their own very effective theory, the Deep Battle Concept, which had a lot to do with key victories like Kursk. It was equally a defensive and offensive strategy”
There is also a very important point that “Souvorovists” fail to knowledge: that you don’t develop and test (successfully) a military doctrine, strategy, even less one as revolutionary as the Blitzkrieg, in just a few months, even in a few years, especially in such a conflict prone land as the European continent, where everyone involved had a long experience on the matter and where wars and battles tend to be complex and massive, involving millions. Germans had been developing their Blitzkrieg for years already, even since WW1, when they carried out several military operations of penetration and envelopment that could be considered as primitive forms of Blitzkrieg. So by 1940 they were already extremely apt at it and they showed it to the world, when they had the occasion to test it big time face to “the biggest military power in Europe”, beating them (and the English Expeditionary force) in just a month. That must have been an extremely sobering experience for the Soviet dictator and one that must have convinced him that there was no way he could pull a fast one against the Germans. I am sure that, at the very latest by June of 1940, Stalin had become convinced, as I am myself, that had he launched a massive military attack against Germany, like one Germany launched against the USSR in 1941, he would have had his az handed to him in a silver platter. Souvorovists don’t simply understand that it was impossible for Stalin, the Red Army, his military strategists, to elaborate, put in practice and successfully test in the battlefield, a military strategy that could have been effective against the German Blitzkrieg–and then shape, organize and train and prepare the entire Soviet military to this purpose, all that in barely one year…! Absolutely impossible. At the end he did the only thing he could do, carry on a massive strategic retreat up to Moscow, and it worked, but barely. Had not been for Richard Sorge and General Zhukov coming in a hurry with this Siberian troops to save Moscow, the end of the story could have been quite different.
You must be miserable Ukrainian. Absolute BS. We have now detail info even about Politburo meetings. Read it if you are able to.
WW2 was the continuation of WW1, or rather the National-Socialist policy was the continuation of Imperial Germany’s ‘Griff nach der Weltmacht’.
The key phrases of Mein Kampf were: ”Germany will either be a world power [Weltmacht] or cease to exist. In order to become a world power, she needs the vastness that will give her the importance needed today and provide life to her citizens. So, we National-Socialists must scratch out the foreign policy practices of the prewar period. We will begin our work where it was left off six hundred years ago. We will stop the eternal Germanic migration to the south and west of Europe we have seen in the past and look toward the land in the east. We will finally end the colonial and trade policy of pre-war times and move forward into the land policy of the future. However, when we say territory and soil today in Europe, we can only think about Russia and the border-states under her control… Here, Fate seems to have given us a clue. By surrendering Russia to Bolshevism, it deprived the Russian people of that intelligent group responsible for creating the state and which guaranteed their existence as a state up to that time. The Russian State did not result from the political abilities of the Slavic race in Russia, but its creation was a wonderful example of the state-forming ability possessed by the Germanic element that still exists within an inferior race… the gigantic empire in the east is ripe for collapse. The end of Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of the Russian state.We have been selected by Fate to witness this catastrophe and it will be the strongest confirmation that the national race theory is true and correct. The mission of the National-Socialist movement is to give our people the political insight needed so they do not see their future aim in the romantic image of a new campaign by Alexander the Great, but they see their future working busily at the German plow for which the sword will provide the soil.”
It is not just a ‘paragraph’ of an ‘obscure political agitator’. It is a program. The gravest grudge against Versailles was that it deprived Germany of its conquests in the East.
The Fuehrer Directive 21 of 18.12.1940 reveals the intention of the campaign:
”The final objective of the operation is to erect a barrier against Asiatic Russia on the general line Volga-Archangel”…
”Only after the fulfilment of the first essential task, which must include the occupation of Leningrad and Kronstadt, will the attack be continued with the intention of occupying Moscow, an important center of communications and of the armaments industry.
”In the South the early capture of the Donets Basin, important for war industry”.
”All steps taken by Commanders-in-Chief on the basis of this directive must be phrased on the unambiguous assumption that they are precautionary measures undertaken in case Russia should alter its present attitude towards us. The number of officers employed on preliminary preparations will be kept as small as possible and further staffs will be designated as late as possible and only to the extent required for the duties of each individual. Otherwise there is a danger that premature knowledge of our preparations, whose execution cannot yet be timed with any certainty, might entail the gravest political and military disadvantages”.
No problem. Let’s change then Kaiser Wilhelm II for Chancellor Otto Bismarck.
The story of the Siberians riding in at the last moment to save Moscow is a myth. Nothing of the sort happened.
Neither would Stalin and Stavka denude the Soviet Union’s Far Eastern and/or Siberian defenses, nor was it needed.
In the second half of 1941 alone, the Soviet Union mobilized somewhere between 12 and 15 million reservists. That’s what “saved” Moscow.
Once again I call on Nigel Askey to debunk the myth:
https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/
I’ve posted this same information several times at UR, but the story of the hardened Siberians riding in at the last minute to save Moscow is a myth that seemingly will not die.
The myth no doubt sprang from Soviet propaganda designed to conceal the size and speed and success of the massive Red Army mobilization after the Germans attacked in June 1941.
The Soviets called it maskirovka
‘Detailed info.’, just hot off the presses.
Ukronazi crapola. The Balts favour Germans, but prefer Nazis.
The Schuetze troll is projecting, again.
Well, the ‘Protocols’ in the form we know were a forgery too. It was quickly established by a special investigation ordered by Stolypin in 1905. Neither Hitler nor Goebbels believed in their formal ‘authenticity’, although they used them for propaganda purposes.
Goebbels wrote in his diary in 1924: ”“I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery. That is not because the worldview of Jewish aspirations expressed therein are too utopian or fantastic—one sees today how one point after the other of The Protocols is being realized—but rather because I do not think the Jews are so completely stupid as not to keep such important protocols secret. I believe in the inner, but not the factual, truth of The Protocols.”
Kalergi exposed his theories under his name. He did not want ‘a European genocide’, this is pure bluster.
It is obvious that you and this guy Askey don’t know what they are talking about. Both of you gorge yourself with statistics and get your mouths all watered listing divisions, corps, armies, quantity of tanks, artillery pieces and troops moved from one side to another while being unable to grab the basics, what really matter, what is important in all this confusion. And what is really important in this case is that the addition of those “non-existent” Siberian troops (many of which weren’t even Asian but European, there goes a real myth down the drain) is what allowed Zhukov to launch the December offensive that stopped on its track the German juggernaut. The Red Army offensive of December 1941 is one of the most important milestones of WW2 not only because it marks the first Nazi Germany defeat of WW2, providing an evidence that the invincible Germans could be defeated after all (of course all the merit was denied in the West to the Red Army, granting it instead to General Winter; at the end the Germans had been defeated by the Russian Winter, just as Napoleon, not by the Red Army) but also, and as important, it created a schism between Hitler and his generals that would never be overcome and which lies at the roots of the many crucial error in the conduction of the war, that will result in the end of Hitler and his Third Reich. That “not so important, even insignificant” Siberian contribution to the Offensive of December 1941 was enough to sow confusion and dispute in the German High Command, to a point when a parting of the ways was made inevitable with one of best military commanders:
‘German units began to pull back in the face of the ferocity of the Soviet offensive. But Hitler ordered them to stand firm. One of his best commanders, Heinz Guderian, was so incensed by this order that he flew to Hitler’s military headquarters in East Prussia for what turned out to be a five hour confrontation.ii Guderian forcefully argued his case – German units must be allowed to retreat to a more defensible line. Hitler – typically – argued even more forcefully back. The very point of being a soldier, he made clear, was to die for your country when the situation demanded. ‘Do you think Frederick the Great’s grenadiers were anxious to die?’ he said. ‘They wanted to live, too, but the king was right in asking them to sacrifice themselves. I believe that I, too, am entitled to ask any German soldier to lay down his life.’ He then accused Guderian of becoming emotionally involved in the fate of his men and advised him to ‘stand back more’ in order to have clear judgment.
Guderian was sacked by Hitler on 26 December”.
The Soviet counteroffensive of Dec. 1941 had not only the consequence of depriving Adolf Hitler of one of the best military strategists and commanders he has ever had but also had another even more pernicious result. The positive result of having the German troops resisted the onslaught by keeping themselves firm and steady in their positions convinced Hitler that he was a military genius as the world has never seen before, that he could never ever be wrong, so setting him up for the series of bad decisions and mistakes that would send him back in three years time to a basement in Berlin, a similar place to the one where he had started his meteoric political career.
The problem with you and the author you mention is that you both think like people who don’t know what they are talking about. It is like someone analyzing an ongoing chess game saying things like: “Ouch, player A just took player’s B Queen. Things don’t look good for B”. Those puny in comparison Siberian troops that were brought to Moscow to make possible the Zhukov offensive of Dec. 1941 were in fact instrumental in deciding the course of the entire war if only because the cataclysm they caused in the rooms were the war was being conducted by Germany.
Bwaaaa. How can you even say that with a straight face. In 1938-40 the Soviets invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. Every one of these were aggressive war.
The proof is in the pudding:
https://archive.org/details/scm-476088-hellstorm-therealgenocideofna
I am far too familiar with your kind. You calling me a bot is hilarious. I have learned to spot and how to effectively deal with your lies after you pieces of shit have crashed every forum and every imageboards that exposed the ww2 narrative.
Eat shit and die. Nobody is going to buy that nazi this holohoax crap of yours except the lowest IQ subhuman boomers.
You think we are going to waste days to have you kill our time with thousands of hour mythbusting the Holohoax and “nazi crimes” so you can change the very topic and the definitions mid discourse, again?
Nah, no, no ,no. We will deal with you the only way anyone should have had.
“Adios, amigos”
Lol, from a Robert Konrad no less.
Mein Kampf was published in 1940? Was it a revision or a sequel? Most likely fan fiction.
….
And you boomercoons want me to seriously engage in any “honest debate” with these fucks?
Go suck on a tin .25
I don’t understand how you can write this, given that you know what was the result: Hitler blew his brains off in panic of the coming Russians, a wretched miserable loser with uncontrollable tremors in his left hand, Germany destroyed, humiliated and raped. Was that his best choice?
Not another subject, another universe, useless speculation of what ifs. The subject as it actually unfolded was reality, given all factors of reality, to attack Russia in 1941 was his worst choice.
Yes, quite likely and maybe already happening.
Perfidious Albion has hitched its star to the failing golem ZUSA after centuries of piracy and bad-faith dealings. Deceit/bad-faith consistently practiced up to/including the present (Skripal etc). With the cowboy mostly it’s just straight murder (bombing Israel’s enemies) incl the murder of its own citizens (9/11 etc)
Imposed also on dependencies like Oz, following slavishly the same protocols.
Amazing this judeo-masonic power can turn a once-thriving country like Oz away from sensible and advantageous trade simply for its own short-term policy. But to them countries even continents are expendable .. ~60 millions in WW2 …
But probably we are now at a point when all the deceit, war mongering, theft, bad faith etc are about to turn and bite the Money Power in the arse.
This force for evil has a few strong defenders on this forum. The standard narrative of evil Germany which is to be destroyed (ref “American businessman” T N Kaufman) must be maintained at all cost. They see the writing on the wall … unfortunately for them their bloodstained cause is long overdue to crash and burn.
Btw Freemasonry is by no means “free”, as meaning independent.
Are secret societies compatible with the best interests of any population ?
Interesting that “Kabbalism for goyim” was banned by NS on coming to power.
This link has a rather lurid layout but some useful quotes/history/banned vdo.
https://ww2truth.com/2021/05/07/hitlers-war-against-freemasonry-banned-in-40-countries-on-youtube/
There seems to be some belief among the weak-minded and in fatuous “new age” that the occult spiritual-satanist force of judeo-freemasonry is somehow invincible and its ascendancy to world power (“NWO”) is inevitable.
This carefully-fostered lie is just that — a lie.
To buttress one arguments by quoting one of the most evil man to ever live, leads only to debase one’s reality and reputation.
Hey “Shitze” please do entertain us how the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 – 1940.
LOL.
“Kill. In Germany, nothing is guiltless. Neither the living nor the yet unborn … Ravish them (the German women) as booty. Kill, you gallant Red soldiers.” Ilya Ehrenburg
“As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg’s writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of Soviet soldiers.” His articles appeared regularly in Pravda, Izvestia, the Soviet military daily Krasnaya Zvezda (“Red Star”), and in numerous leaflets distributed to troops at the front. (Canadian Jewish News)
https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p507_Weber.html
Excellent and fact-filled comment.
Bingo! In fact, this website [and the wider world in general] is brimful of nonsense written by clowns who have no idea what they’re talking about. The invention of the keyboard has truly empowered the hopelessly stupid!
You speak too much generalities in your comment. Zhukov did not stop German Juggernaut.
Zhukov encircled all Southern stream of German Army and stopped German Army from being resupplied.
Germans without ammunition without food, were finished. Field marshal Paulus with all his army did surrender. When Field marshal Paulus surrendered Hitler knew that his army lost the war.
Hitler ordered all radio stations to play Beethoven music and in the evening he told the public about the catastrophe.
Not another subject, another universe, useless speculation of what ifs. The subject as it actually unfolded was reality, given all factors of reality, to attack Russia in 1941 was his worst choice.
It probably would have worked if he stuck with the original plan.
I would say that getting into an ego war over Stalingrad was his worst choice.
All they had to do was disrupt traffic going up the Volga river. There was no reason to secure the city.
The Germans kept pouring in men to re-take the same destroyed buildings a dozen times.
It completely went against their successes in the West. Instead of using surprise attacks backed by air and artillery they were hunkered down in known locations. Then they got stuck and Hitler wouldn’t let them retreat. It was a horrible gamble and no doubt demoralized the German military and public.
I don’t think the Soviet system would have survived an attack on Moscow. I think it was one of his Generals that wanted to attack the city and destroy the rail system. If you look at a map of rail in Russia you will see that much of it goes through Moscow. Hitler talked about economics but really didn’t work to exploit the weaknesses of Communism. It’s a very bureaucratic system that depends on high level authority. It isn’t like capitalism where small towns can still function even if the main government is taken out.
But in all fairness every economist at the time expected the Soviet system to collapse from the stress of war within months if not weeks.
{” (of course all the merit was denied in the West to the Red Army, granting it instead to General Winter; at the end the Germans had been defeated by the Russian Winter, just as Napoleon, not by the Red Army)”}
‘General Winter ‘ was as true as the day is long and the Russian snow is white.
What neither Nazis nor US nor Brits knew at the time is that Russians had developed a secret technology which allowed the Russian/Slavic/Soviet soldiers to fight in balmy +50°F while the invaders had no choice but freeze stiff in -30°C. This ingenious microclimate technology was developed during the Napoleonic invasion, and was further perfected during WW2.
While Nazi tanks froze solid and couldn’t move a meter, Soviet T-34s glided over snow and ice like Alpine skis.
It is the most highly guarded secret of the Russian State.
Higher even than her nuclear secrets.
NATO has been trying to find out how it works since US became aware of it during WW2, but efforts to find out how it works have failed to date.
I learn a ton from comments as well as articles on this site.
Another thread is that apparently the Vichy Gov’t welcomed Hitler in part because he promised to end the syphilis plague raging in Western Europe since WWI…supposedly 200,000 French a year dying from it, with no cure in sight.
He is Goebbels worshiper but there is problem no matter how much he is lying it will not become truth
You are a perfect example of a Spanish proverb I grew up hearing back in the old country and that still, many years later, sounds wise and funny: despues de la guerra todos son generales. (After the war everyone is a general). You can be added also to the long list of clueless dorks who can’t never ever put themselves in the historic context because they overlook (something they will never come to understand it) that the historic figures you are analyzing, judging, criticizing, for their acts and decisions DIDN’T have the historic perspective you have themselves now And that for the simple reason that most events you are looking at hadn’t simply happened so from your own present, lame, myopic perspective, decisions were easy to make anyway!. Yeah, there is nothing genius about the Zhukov-Koniev plan to lure German forces to Stalingrad, keeping them there while bringing at the same time all Red Army troops available to trap them in a gigantic cauldron, nothing brilliant about it, it was so obvious, even a child could have come out with the same plan…! The fact is, if we situate ourselves in the context of what was happening then, and even more important in the things that those having to take the decisions knew or though at the moment, their decisions, good or bad, were in many cases a shot in the dark. Things could have gone either way, as they saw it. For example if we trust what Marshall Zhukov wrote in his own book about Stalingrad, the battle could have been at the end the result of a crucial misunderstanding between Stalin and Hitler. According to him, both dictators misinterpreted the other’s intentions, they weren’t with the result that even agreeing on what they were fighting for in Stalingrad…!
When in mid 1942 Hitler sent the Army Group B to grab the oilfields of the Caucasus and sent also Von Paulus’ VI Army to cover their exposed left flank, to protect them from a possible attack from the many Red Army units stationed between them and Moscow (forming by then a giant protective shield to the South West of the capital) for which they, the VI Army, had to take Stalingrad, Stalin completely misinterpreted this German move, or at least he rather focused his mind and his fears on what was still an obsession for him. the fate of Moscow. Stalin was still reeling about what had happened only a few months before and fearful of a new attack on Moscow by the German and so he became very suspicious of this “ride to the Caucasus” by the Germans, thinking it could be nothing more than a ruse and that they really were going to the south to bypass the giant defensive Red Army arc to the South West I was talking about and then turn left and gone straight to Moscow once again. That is what Stalin was fearing the most at this point, mid-1941, according to Zhukov. And Stalin thought his fears and suspicions confirmed when Hitler sent his best attack force, the VI Army, to take Stalingrad, move which he thought was meant to have the city to use it as springboard for that planned offensive towards Moscow. That is why he decided that the city had to be defended at all costs, not exactly to negate the oil of the Caucasus to the Germans but to prevent a new offensive on the capital. Also, later, when the VI Army surrendered, the Soviets were astonished seeing the giant number of troops and equipment they had been able to trap in Stalingrad and around, they had thought on numbers a fraction of it…! If Zhukov is telling as it is, it goes to show that when people are making History sometimes they don’t even know what they are exactly doing or what they are fighting against. But that hasn’t stopped these generals after the battle that crowd the internet; they know everything…!
If I “speak too many generalities” you babble like a mindless parrot. Hitler played Beethoven in the radio and told Germans what had happened. Trapped troops had no supplies and had to surrender Wow, thanks professors for telling us what everyone already knows.
It is funny when person that never seen tank in his life try to be expert on tanks lol
The T-34–85 was much better then Tiger 1 . The T-34–85 was lighter than the Tiger, meaning it could pass through more types of terrain and it was faster aswell. It’s turret was faster at turning too. The T-34–85 turret was electrically driven and could turn 360 degrees in 12 seconds, the Tiger had a hydraullic turret that could only be turned very slowly without the engine running at full power, and even then it was 70 seconds to turn 360 degrees.
The T-34–85 had decent armour, around 90mm for both hull and turret los vs the Tigers 100–110mm los.
The 88mm was contrary to popular belief, not really any better than the 85mm. The caliber is nearly the same, the velocity is nearly the same, the shell type is nearly the same. And well the Soviets actually made a side by side comparison, determining that the 88mm gun on the Tiger was infact, only 1–2% better performing, which makes very little difference. The Tiger tank could theoretically engage a T-34–85 at 2000m, but the chances of hitting at that range was laughably small. According to the German Tiger field manual you should consider 1200m to be an absolute maximum engagement range against tanks. And most advice is for 500m. The T-34–85 could penetrate Tiger tanks from the front at 1000m as well, so at the expected combat ranges both tanks could penetrate anyway. Also consider the picture in the top here, this tiger was taken out at Balaton after being hit twice by 85mm shells that did not penetrate, but the sheer force of the impacts still knocked a piece of the tiger off, and consider then that the impact area is very much not the ideal flat part of the Tiger.
Other advantages for the T-34–85 is the much longer operational range of the tank. Also the reliability of the T-34–85 was much higher, German tanks were very heavy and put a lot of strain on the engine, which meant the Tiger needed much more maintenance and were prone to failure.
Allegedly the Tiger enjoyed better optics and radios, not that i have seen any evidence or side by side comparisons of this, but it seems to be a commonly held belief so maybe there is something about it.
And of course the best point of the T-34–85, with more than 20.000 produced during ww2, and only 1,300 tigers made, you could have nearly 20 T-34–85 tanks per Tiger. And considering their actually armour was fairly close to each other, their guns nearly identical but the T-34 being faster, lighter and more mobile in general.
the T-34-85 vs the Panther
Overall, the Panther was the better tank at least in terms of armor and armor penetration. It’s ergonomics and overall design was also quite good.Weight
Panther: 44.8 t
T-34–85: 32 t
Speed
Panther: 46km/h
T-34–85: 53km/h
Hull armor
Panther: 85mm at 55 degrees from vertical = 148mm LOS
T-34–85: 45mm at 60 degrees from vertical = 90mm LOS
Turret armor
Panther: 100mm-110mm
T-34–85: 90mm
Now the armor is always a bit tricky, most of the front surface area of the turret of the T-34 is actually sloped heavily and the value of 90mm is only true for the bit of the turret which would be relatively flat. Same goes for the Panther where the 110mm mantle shield is rather rounded. The Panther overall has thicker armor. However, it should be noted that late German tanks had very brittle armor too. The 85mm gun according to Soviet data had an 80% chance to penetrate 102mm at 1000m range. However, this was enough power to penetrate the panther mantle at the same range despite it being 110mm. You can also see how brittle the armor is by the cracks left by the penetration.
In a duel between one T-34–85 and one Panther, I would probably put my money on the Panther every time. The high velocity gun of the Panther had superior armour piercing properties. However, there is more to a tank than it’s ability to duel, particularly since no tank is ever deployed alone.
In terms of ability to fight other targets the T-34–85 actually was at a slight advantage, the T-34–85 had a larger caliber gun, and thus also had an HE shell with more power than that of the panther. This made it better suited for engaging soft targets like buildings or infantry.
There is also the case of reliability, the Panther had a very unreliable engine, causing many Panthers to be knocked out by their own engines, at Kursk I believe 40% of the Panthers broke down before reaching the frontline. The early T-34s were not very reliable either, but by the T-34–85 most issues had been fixed, and the T-34–85 featured good air-filters which had been a problem with earlier T-34s.
Finally, availability is another great quality. It doesn’t matter how good a tank is, if there isn’t any around. And the reality is that around 5 T-34–85s were produced for every Panther. This meant that for every platoon of Panthers, the Soviets could put a company of T-34–85s.
In conclusion, the Panther in many ways is the better individual tank. It is however not 5 times better than the T-34–85. And it would need to be to justify it’s much larger cost. The T-34–85 was cost effective, and good enough to hurt anything on the battlefield at reasonable combat ranges. One of the interesting tactics when outnumbering the enemy that is often overlooked, is that you can have a tank for every one of his tanks, and still have tanks left to fight where he has no tanks.
One of the greatest shortfalls of the T-34 was that many lacked a radio in the beginning to mid of WW2. The T-34s without radios were very difficult to control, and were usually asked to stay behind and in a place where they could view the lead tanks with radios, and simply support them the best they could. Only in 1943, had Soviet industry sufficiently recovered to be able to equip all T-34s with radios. The order for total conversation of all T-34s was given shortly after the battle of Kursk.The combination of T-34s with radios, and also new T-34–85 models with a better larger turret, allowing a 5th crew member separating the role of commander and gunner, a bigger gun and better armour, made the T-34 an exceptionally good medium tank for its time.
Soviet doctrine and training were not really problematic, but ever evolving in the realm of tank warfare, the problem was that the Soviet Union didn’t have the materials to carry out their desired doctrine in the correct way. Additionally, large scale tank warfare was a new thing that everyone had to figure out, though the Soviet doctrine was significantly better and more apt than any of the western allied doctrines in the beginning of the war, it was still not as good as the German one in 1941–1942.
So in conclusion, the doctrine probably caused more casualties, there is little to suggest that Soviet tank crews were particularly poorly educated, in fact most things suggest otherwise. So between the two the doctrine was the larger culprit, but in my opinion not the main culprit of losses.
‘General Winter ‘ was as true as the day is long and the Russian snow is white.
As true as that Kursk was won by General Summer, professor. And Berlin by General Spring.
“That is what Stalin was fearing the most at this point, mid-1941, according to Zhukov”
Oops, that was mid-1942 of course.
As a conclusion I say that western historians saw the strong evidence of Stalins plan for attack and to deny it would have brought that information to the forefront so the best thing to do was to ignore the whole idea of Stalins plan and hope it goes away but for those that want to make a issue of it the cancel culture comes into play. Those days are past now and Suvorovs information is finally mainstream.
‘Not another subject, another universe, useless speculation of what ifs. The subject as it actually unfolded was reality, given all factors of reality, to attack Russia in 1941 was his worst choice.’
That’s to say the least debatable. Possibly if Stalin had been foolish enough to attack in 1941 whilst he was still unready (and he wasn’t ready, whatever he may have thought), the Germans could have dealt him a more serious blow than they did.
Possibly. There’s also the question of ‘we’re sitting here with the largest army we’ve ever mobilized in history because?’ The Germans couldn’t just mobilize and sit there waiting indefinitely.
Worse, if things get put off until 1942, Russia is definitely more ready to wage war. Now she has ten thousand or whatever T-34’s. Boy, will the Germans ever be surprised.
Finally, I seriously doubt war with Russia could have been averted indefinitely. Why would Stalin have ceased making aggressive moves?
So yeah. I’ll stick with striking first in 1941 as Hitler’s one best bet.
Good overview! There is a lot of lip flapping going on by people who are not qualified to understand these technical subjects.
For instance, ‘Sparkon’ relies exclusively on a single source, who is in fact an AMATEUR historian with zero credentials and no military experience whatsoever. ‘About Nigel Askey.’
Actual scholarship on the T34 shows that the tank did indeed suffer a large number of casualties, especially in the early going when the entire Red Army force structure was in a shambles.
—Zaloga & Grandsen 1984, page 127
Others ran out of fuel, with no provision for refueling, repair etc. Tanks were often just abandoned. This was a logistical problem and did plague the Soviet forces, especially in the early going. I’m not really widely read on the subject either, but I think the prevailing notion, even in the latter stages of the war was simply to not spend a lot of resources on repair and such since new tanks were being cranked out at such a prodigious rate.
But the fact remains that the T34 was a major advance in tank technology when it appeared and it got progressively better with the later, improved versions. But of course any equipment is only as good as the skill with which it is used, and the support structure behind it. I think it is fair to say that there were large gaps in those areas.
The sloped armor was a major technical advance, as were many other aspects. For instance the Panther as well as most of the other German tanks used gasoline engines, instead of the superior diesel used on the T34 and all modern tanks.
—Perrett, 1999
General Heinz Guderian, arguably the foremost tank warfare expert, used the term ‘vast superiority,’ to describe it in his book Panzer Leader. General Ewald von Kleist called it ‘the finest tank in the world.’
General Jodl, Chief of the Armed Forces high Command said this in his diary:
Yes, a lot of them were lost, but mostly to maintenance issues and not enemy action—and the quality of the manufacture left something to be desired. But engineering is always a trade-off, and knocking these off the assembly line in huge numbers, and treating them as disposable, obviously achieved the desired result in the end, which was victory.
This type of engineering tradeoff in military armament is still very relevant today. The so-called ‘Fighter Mafia’ that brought forth the F16 fighter was very much along this line of thought…a simple and lightweight aircraft that could be produced in great numbers—and it has become the most-produced, and arguably most successful US fighter jet.
Building a very complicated and over-engineered machine on the other hand, often brings not only extra cost and low volume, but also dangerous fragility and unwieldiness, as we see with the F35 turkey. [Which now seems to be on its way to being scrapped, as the Air Force has requested a new, simpler and less expensive design—and is even considering restarting F16 production. The F15 production has already been restarted.]
I’ll have to insert one small caveat here. Many people did feel like the USSR acted as an aggressor against Poland on September 17 and against Finland on November 30, 1939, as well as later in the Baltic states. But you certainly are correct that Stalin’s policy was to always remain a few steps behind. Once Hitler had begun the war in Poland, then Stalin could step in later. Comintern-apologists in the West could then rationalize this as just the need of the Soviet-peoples to protect themselves with a buffer zone (though most liberals were rather disgusted with Stalin’s move). But doing something as bungle-headed as invading Europe to Sovietize the continent is definitely out of line with Stalin’s policy. Even if his generals had persuaded him of a need to preempt Hitler’s strike by hitting in May, then you can be sure that his first priority would be to reach an agreement with Churchill on where in Central Europe the Allies and Soviets would divide the line.
Oh my goodness, you are right. The Red Russian Rapist Army didn’t invade Bohemia until 1944, and then Czechoslovakia again in 1968. Those Russians have gotten their sadistic rocks of by invading so many countries in the last 150 years its almost impossible to keep it all straight.
The biggest joke here, aside from Seraphim claiming that “SU, at that time it was an advocate of international law. Under any circumstances it would not appear as the aggressor“, is that it was the Russians themselves who were the biggest victims of their own sadistic blood lust. Stalin, god to all Russians even today, not only sentenced his own “brave” Russian soldiers to the death sentence for surrender, but also sentenced them to starvation while they were in German custody because he would not sign the Geneva conventions and sadistically abused German prisoners of war.
When the history of planet earth is finally written, Russia will surely get the gold medal for being the biggest and stupidest tools for Judea. Of course Australia will get the silver medal for sending the best of her men to die like idiot slaves fighting for England in Europe in two world wars.
Thank you for your comments.
Despite the obvious pitfalls of participating in such anonymous blog discussions as these in the Unz Review (consider, for example, the hideousness of the response of “HeebHunter”), I nevertheless try to participate in such discussions because, frankly, the comments are sometimes more educational or revealing than the article itself. In my search for the ultimate prize, the truth, I am willing to read through a lot of trash and toxin in the hope that I will find something, whatever, that will help me get closer to my goal.
I will check out Osborne and Sudoplatov, whom I have missed so far (even though my “Katyn file” is growing thicker by the hour). As I said, after reading almost all, I believe, publications by Prof. Grover Furr and selected articles on Russian (for instance, “ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ”) and other blogs, I am still not entirely convinced about the official version. I consider your post helpful. Thanks.
Or about to repel an attack. Nobody in the Soviet Union doubted that the war was coming, and the attack was coming from the Western border, not from Mars. So, that’s where the troops should be. Except they weren’t. Until May of 1941 less than 60% of all forces were in the Western military district. In May, the relocation of additional forces was initiated but by no means completed by June 22. Besides, 40 divisions were kept at the Far East border throughout the war in case of the Japanese attack. At the same time, the German force was fully mobilized and ready for action.
Of course, Stalin tried to make up for deficiencies that surfaced during the Winter War with Finland as fast as he could. Hitler “partially demobilized”, really? Germany assembled 4.5 million-strong army right at the border, the German forces plus allies, and committed altogether 7 million to the war with the USSR. That was way more than Stalin could master at the time. The Soviets had about 3 millions at the Western border, and the troops were only partially mobilized, without the proper structures of the rear and in places even without the proper command structures.
Precisely “the deployment of forces” shows beyond doubt which sides was ready for an attack and which wasn’t really ready for anything and had to get ready to defend itself in the process of fighting and at a great cost.
With all due disrespect for their vaudeville states, the Balts are somewhat different. In WWII, there were two Latvian Waffen SS divisions, one Estonian, and not a single Lithuanian. Even though the population of Lithuania is greater than the population of Latvia and Estonia combined.
I think this has deep historic roots. Lithuania existed as a state until it was absorbed by Polish Commonwealth (officially it was unification, but in reality it was like unification of Hawaii with the US). In contrast, Latvians and Estonians never created a state of their own. “Their” cities were founded and built by Germans, while local yokels lived in villages and hamlets, engaged in primitive agriculture. When Sweden was a local superpower, those territories belonged to it. After Peter the Great annihilated Swedish army near Poltava, Sweden sold these territories to the Russian Empire. Their statelets were created by external forces after 1917 Russian revolution.
Thus, it appears that the willingness to serve in Waffen SS was directly proportional to the severity of the inferiority complex. This hypothesis explains the existence (or lack thereof) of other aboriginal Waffen SS divisions in WWII.
‘…this simple line would constitute for me the most compelling evidence that the invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941 was a decision he took freely, without any pressure or urgency, because he chose to do it…’
I think one has to navigate carefully between the Scylla of compulsive revisionism and the Charybdis of ‘bad man Hitler’ orthodoxy.
On the one hand, it’s absurd to paint Hitler as a German Chamberlain, desperately seeking to avert war at all costs. All the evidence is that once Hitler came to the conclusion that his best option was to attack Russia, he was perfectly happy with the prospect.
On the other hand, had Soviet Russia remained a benevolent neutral, engaging in trade on terms Germany found congenial and avoiding threatening any German interests, I’m skeptical Hitler would have attacked Russia until he had finished his war with Britain — and possibly his war with the United States as well. My guess is he would have focussed on building up his fleet, forcing Spain to pick a side, driving Britain from the Mediterranean, etc.
He had a full plate. I don’t see why he would have jumped the gun and attacked a genuinely neutral Russia whilst he still had unfinished business elsewhere. And there were all his architectural fantasies too…
It could have taken him years to get around to attacking Russia. He might never have done it.
I found the second film linked to in that ww2truth article you linked to quite interesting.
It quotes (about 13:00) Degrelle saying “Besides eliminating the Jews, we will be nowhere if we don’t also eliminate the Freemasons”. I was unaware that Degrelle was so based.
The entire second video is quite interesting from about 8:00 when the narrator starts discussing how the NSDAP broke into the Freemason lodges across France after the defeat of the war mongering French aggressors in May 1940.
The overwhelming majority of Russians rebelled against the monarchy any serious account of how the uprisings broke it early 1905. An agent of the government led a march of people up to government buildings in what he thought would be a cordial procession. The government troops panicked and shot at the marchers and the rebellion subsequently exploded across the whole country. None of this was orchestrated by anyone.
During the years after the Russian Social Democratic Party split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions there was a wisecrack going around which Stalin picked up that the way for the Bolsheviks to fight the Mensheviks was to have a pogrom. It was clear that the Mensheviks had many more Jewish members. It’s an irony that the fellow who is most often cited as the quintessential Jewish Bolshevik (Leon Trotsky) only joined the Bolsheviks in July 1917. At the time of the Bolshevik/Menshevik split Trotsky had refused to join either faction because he had agreements and disagreements with both. He joined with Lenin in 1917 because at that point it was obvious that the whole country was rebelling and the Mensheviks didn’t really know to take advantage of it, whereas Lenin did.
In the midst of the Russian Civil War there numerous occasions when the Whites would capture a town and be welcomed by Jewish shopkeepers who were glad to rid of the Bolsheviks. Then the Whites would launch a wholesale pogrom against the Jews, who would subsequently welcome the Bolsheviks back they returned. It wasn’t much different among Gentiles. The biggest driving force for the Russian Revolution was the rebellion of peasants against the landed aristocracy. Left-wing parties such as the Social Revolutionaries had built there base of support around such demands. Of course, the Social Revolutionaries (like the Mensheviks) had many more Jewish members than did the Bolsheviks in early 1917. But their anarchist mode meant that they were not well-suited for setting a government.
What the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries would have needed would have been some competent military officer who realized that the Russian populace was demanding a revolution and chose to support them. None of the officers who formed the White leadership were of this type. They were all ideologically locked into supporting the older aristocracy of Russia. They massacred Russian peasants as freely as they did Jews. In this context both the Russian and Jewish populations were driven into temporarily aligning with the Bolsheviks to defeat the Whites. It wasn’t a stable long-term alliance, but it was strong enough to be decisive.
If one was going to compare and contrast the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars one of the first most outstanding distinctions would be in the way that land reforms between 1918 and 1936 had created a totally different environment in Spain. The basis of support for Franco came from sectors of the Spanish peasantry who now were able to adopt a conservative stance that the Russian peasantry did not have in 1918. In 1918 the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists and various Green anarchist groups were the only political alternative to the Bolsheviks. The Whites themselves destroyed this option and turned the Civil War into either Bolshevism or counter-revolution would win. When that happened the vast majority of Russians supported the revolution.
‘He is Goebbels worshiper but there is problem no matter how much he is lying it will not become truth’
You’re an idiot.
While it is plausible that Stalin might have decided to move against Germany in 1942 if he had had the chance, it remains absurd to claim ala Rezun that Stalin would have attempted to seize all of Europe. Hitler muffed things because he was not simply seeking to defeat Stalin but rather to conquer eastern Europe for living space. That is exactly the kind of over-reaching aim which Stalin would have rejected. If Stalin had launched an invasion of Germany in 1942 then he would have immediately begun contacting Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle and anyone else to work out an appropriate partition of Europe. Trying to do what Rezun suggests would have doomed the Soviet Union the same way that Hitler’s recklessness doomed the Third Reich.
The US public would not have gone along with a new war so soon, no matter who was in government. This was why Churchill’s attempts to advocate for such a war in Operation Unthinkable fell apart very quickly. If Stalin had tried invaded the whole of Europe in 1941 (or even 1942 as some suggest) then there would have been plenty of demands for action. Jewish groups themselves would quickly have calculated that their own best interests would be served by putting themselves at the head of a war against the USSR, now that Hitler was already buried by Soviet troops.
I must have missed that sidesplitter from Unz the first time around, lol.
A good discussion of the actual numbers of this pretend ‘demobilization’ here:
And on industrial ‘demobilization’:
We see in that discussion some speculation about the purpose of this faux ‘demobilization,’ including lulling the Soviet Union about Germany’s war aims. But also interesting info on the massive amount of Soviet goods supplied to Germany during this time:
And yet Stalin was delivering these GARGANTUAN supplies to a Germany he was at the same time planning to invade?
The mind truly boggles at the softheads we see on this thread.
Also it is good sign that Soviet Union was not ready but lot of idiots still believe Suvorov’s lies .From 1941, the Soviets had huge equipment shortages, even as the war broke out, the Soviet army was in the middle of a reform and lacked radios, telephones, modern tanks, artillery and modern aircraft. That they also lost tens of thousands pieces of equipment in the first month, much of it unmanned, didn’t help, as it only made the shortage bigger. Additionally, the Soviets had to evacuate the industry to east of the Ural mountains. This essentially, cut their military production to next to nothing for 1941, and severely reduced it for 1942. For example, less than 6,000 radios were made in the USSR in 1941, compared to over 40,000 in 1943, an over 600% increase in less than 2 years. Attacking in the middle of a reform is about the best time you can possibly attack. The Soviets gradually switched away from the mechanized corps, to the tank corps, which would later be dubbed tank division. It was very comparable to a US tank division, but eventually featured much heavier support units. Soviet armour units always received as much support as they could, particularly guards units and independent heavy tank brigades. I think Kursk is often depicted as hordes of T-34s. But in reality, the Germans probably had an equal number of medium tanks to the Soviets, the Soviets had strategic reserves of T-34s which could be used while damaged ones were repaired, allowing the Soviets to maintain a pretty high level of strength. The German however, got depleted rather quickly, and could not replace Panthers or Tigers. Soviet T-34s with 76mm guns along their ZiS-3 anti tank guns did however manage to knock out hundreds of Panthers during this battle. Kursk was actually one of the first battles where Soviet T-34s were the main fighting vehicle of the Soviet armored forces, and even so they had to fill in holes with T-70 light tanks, and Churchill tanks worked as gap filler while the army was fighting on KV-1s. The T-34 used in 1941 was of low quality in many aspects, starting in May 1942, T-34s were produced with superior air filters (cyclone), which fixed many of the reliability issues, it eventually got a reworked turret and ammunition. However, even in 1942, T-34s were not the standard tank of the Soviet armored forces. It was not until 1943, that the T-34 was the main tank in the Soviet inventory.
In short, the German didn’t really have to deal with T-34s very often in 1941, and even in 1942, the T-34 was the exception not the rule.
Oh I should also note, that many T-34s and especially KV-1s did not have enough 76mm ammunition. Only around 12.5% of the required ammunition for 76mm guns were delivered to the frontline units for interesting reasons, so the Germans encountered T-34s and KV-1s which were unable to fire armour piercing shells at German tanks at all. You can read about that here http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/pz38t-crewman-interrogation.html
Once again you are either too arrogant, too lazy, or both, to provide any URL’s to back up your opinions.
Even if your claim that Goebbels “believed” that the Protocols were a “forgery” was true, it still means nothing. Besides that the quote you used, without reference, is very contradictory when he says ” I believe in the inner, but not the factual, truth of The Protocols.”
Further, I will decline to waste my time splitting hairs with a European genocide denier over what Kalergi’s true intentions were, especially from someone who writes complete Communist drivel like
“Whatever people like to think about the international policy of the SU, at that time it was an advocate of international law.”
It’s even funnier when a person who’s never had an original thought in his life tries to gaslight a Cold War veteran, and does it in broken English.
But Stalin ordered the construction of numerous new airfields very close to the German border, and had all his planes based there. That made them extremely vulnerable to a German first strike, and most of the Soviet air force was destroyed in the first day or two. But that would have been the ideal location for a first strike against Germany while providing ground support for a huge invasion Soviet invasion. He also placed the bulk of his tanks right near the border, in vulnerable salients that were properly positioned to invade Germany on his command. His deployment was totally insane for defense and exactly suited for offense.
During the couple of years the Soviets were on that border, they constructed absolutely no defenses. Moreover, the massive Soviet armaments production was entirely for offensive weapons and very little for defensive ones. There was absolutely no defense in depth deployment. Either Stalin and all his generals were total lunatics, or he was positioning the Soviet army for an invasion of Germany.
The arguments most of you are making are roughly as logical as those ridiculous Foxtards who claimed that America attacked Iraq in 2003 for “defensive” reasons.
I mentioned above Volume 3 of Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations. How is this at all inconsistent with Mein Kampf? In that book Hitler talks openly about taking on the role of Teutonic Knights to conquer living space from the Slavs. The text of this memo is just a few degrees removed from Mein Kampf, but that shouldn’t be surprising. The conquest of living space in eastern Europe from the Slavic subhuman was one of the most pervasive motives in Hitler’s entire career.
I may have an unpopular opinion, because I stand in between those who wish to villify Hitler and those who wish to extol his virtues. It is based off of one simple act of Hitler which I believe exposes who Hitler was really loyal to, which is Zionist Bolshevism. Hitler tried to consolidate the Protestant denominations so that he could more easily control them in his “Reich Church”. This act alone means nothing, but what he tried to do to their “approved Bible” also dubbed “Hitler’s Bible” should leave everyone scratching their head. Hitler’s Bible eliminated 85% of the text or more. What did he leave out. Strangely Hitler’s Bible seems to align perfectly with what Judaism would wish upon the Christian Bible. Hitler eliminated the Old Testament out of the Christian Bible. Isn’t that also a Jewish goal? Christianity claims to be the true extension of the Hebrew faith whereas Talmudic Judaism is the bastardized satanic version of Judaism. Hitler also eliminated all of the apostle Paul’s writings. Why was this significant? Well, for one the vast majority of the New Testament was written by Paul. Paul was arguably the most important apostle because Paul was unique. Paul persecuted the early Christian church and was a Zealot who believed it was righteous to not only persecute those who deviated from Rabbinic intepretation of scripture and their oral law traditions, but also to murder them as an act of obedience to God. Not only that, but Paul was given the job of ushering in the gentile priesthood. All other apostles job was to go directly to the Jews before the AD70 judgment was ushered in. The Jews hate Paul because Paul declares that the exclusively Jewish priesthood was ending and now the priesthood of all believers in Jesus Christ as the Messiah foretold in Daniel 9 490 year prophecy was being fulfilled before their very eyes. The vision of Daniel’s statue and the final age of the exclusive priesthood was ending which was represented by the feet made of iron and clay. The feet of iron and clay was the Roman army which came to destroy Jerusalem in AD 70 which compromised not only the Roman armies, but also Persians. The Roman Empire almost fell under the antichrist Nero, and Vespasian resurrected the empire which appeared to have fallen. How is it that Hitler’s choices in altering the Christian Bible aligned so well with Jewish goals to destroy Christian doctrine????? I’ll leave that up to you to ponder.
True, but apart from the Pact this wouldn’t be a reluctant Japanese attack. If one reads through the booklet published by the State Department after the war entitled Nazi-Soviet Relations then it is clear that Japan was never happy with the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The Germans reassure the Japanese that they will take care of Stalin themselves, but the Japanese are obviously looking forward to Stalin being gone. Moreover this reassurance from Hitler obviously a role in Japan’s willingness to embark on a course that will eventually lead to Pearl Harbor. So Japan would undoubtedly have taken it very seriously if Stalin had preemptively struck.
I could not figure out what you were trying to say.
Just blabbing in my opinion.
Personalities what you trying to emphases did not win the war.
It were people who were willing to sacrifice their lives to chase out the invaders.
And on top of it there is no Marshal in Russian military ranks. And it never was.
I am watching the first “wierdo” interview now. McMeekin is doing a great job. A few important points:
– The League of Nations expelled the USSR after they invaded Finland in 1939. This completely debunks Seraphims contention that Stalin was assiduously following international law.
– When the Finn’s rejected Stalin’s demands for military bases in western Finland in 1939-40, the French and British are considering landing in Finland. Soviets almost reached the Nickel mines in Northern Finland. This is when Operation Pike came to fruition. Germany was receiving 1/3 of its oil from Baku. Stalin’s peace with Finland on March 12 is what stopped operation Pike.On March 5 stalin had committed the mass murder of Poles at Katyn because he was afraid that the Poles would rise up if the Allies had declared war on the USSR in March 1940. At the same time Polish pilots were in training by the RAF and other Polish special forces were also in training in the UK.
– Hitler tried to get Stalin to join the Tripartite pact, but Stalin demanded the Bosphorus and Dardenelles in return. This is exactly the Tsar wanted out of WWI and it is why WWI was started by the Russians.
– Russian Troops rode into Czechoslovakia in Harley Davidson motorcycles
– Britain stripped 200 Hawker Hurricanes from the defense of Singapore and gave them to Stalin during Barbarossa.
– Roosevelt was so obsessed with the Morgentau plan at Quebec that he turned over Poland and Eastern Europe to Stalin
– McMeekin’s entire narrative completely supports Major Jordan’s Diaries in his contention that Stalin got everything and anything that his heart desired. We know from Jordan that Stalin stripped the US of all its copper, but it turns out Stalin stripped England of all its Aluminium which was desperately needed for British airplane production. Of course Jordan’s primary revelation was all the nuclear material and blue prints that Roosevelt and his masonic brothers were shipping to the USSR. McMeekin does not mention this, he is a limited hangout.
– McMeekin grovels to the Holohoax religion
– Harry Hopkins is completely devoted to the Soviet “cause”, yet McMeekin cannot “figure out” why.
It was Khrushchev who organized the defense of Stalingrad and he was not even in the Army.
And Germans were not stopped at Stalingrad. It was battle at Kurks that finally did stop all German offensive actions.
You are just a moron who does try to rewrite the history.
Zhukov was a good and smart Jewish General, but that is beside the point.
Yes.
Interesting that the English commentator described Leon Degrelle’s Rexist in the old tired phrase “far right” … in fact it was the Walloon Catholic organisation Christus Rex (Christ the King). More information on Degrelle in his books/this lecture —
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/4/Degrelle441-468.html
Secondly, Reinhardt Heydrich a real out-and-out figure of hate, even to this day when his grave in Berlin was opened and defiled … Among other epithets he was/is called “The Butcher of Prague” … after he was assassinated on orders from Perfidious Albion (who got local gunmen to do the deed), there was a public funeral in Prague.
This British Pathe newsreel shows that he was so much hated there that huge crowds turned out to pay respects, floral tributes, long queues walk past …
This is exactly the Tsar wanted out of WWI and it is why WWI was started by the Russians.
Wow, that whopper of a lie absolutely and definitively discredits anything else you got to say. No need to go on reading your krap from that point on.
those ridiculous Foxtards who claimed that America attacked Iraq in 2003 for “defensive” reasons.
Fight and kill them there instead of here.
File this article and many of the comments here under the file:
We should have entered the War on Germany’s side.
Corollary being: Hitler was the good guy and Stalin was the bad guy.
There are several files in the folder.
Israelis attack the Liberty knowing it was American.
We must deny the Holocaust because that gives the Jews power.
(Why they would need more power when the were able to start WW I and WWII and induce America to join the Allies is beyond me.)
etc.
In any case you don’t contradict anything of what I wrote, you even confirm it when you write:
All the evidence is that once Hitler came to the conclusion that his best option was to attack Russia, he was perfectly happy with the prospect.
Exactly. having all his cards on the table, and having come to the conclusion that Great Britain would never be ready to come to an accommodation with him as long as the Soviet Union was still standing, he decided that the first thing he had to do next was to take her down.
Also:
“My guess is he would have focused on building up his fleet, forcing Spain to pick a side, driving Britain from the Mediterranean, etc.”
That would have been a pretty tough nut to crack, as Franco confided to his personal secretary after the Hendaya fiasco, of which Hitler came out fuming, that he was convinced that at the end the British would come out winners, that Hitler was doomed to lose the war, because Great Britain would never give up, that even if he invaded and took their isles they would keep fighting from their colonies. That is the motivation of the Spanish hombre to keep his country sitting on the fence.
Clearly Heydrich was targeted for assassination for many of the same reasons that Kennedy was.
The DeGrell lecture is very interesting. This bit says a lot:
What do you think of todays “Ukro-Nazis”. They are constantly disparaged by the Stalin worshippers here at UR. On the one hand I can certainly understand why they would despise any of the idiot Stalin apologists, but on the other hand I cannot understand why they simply cannot let the Donbas secede…
Looking at the map, I can’t find German border anywhere near that area. It was the border of German occupation zone, i.e., the land belonging to others that Germany occupied.
Sorry, you mixed things up. It is Hitler fanboys/girls who claim that Hitler attacked the USSR for “defensive” reasons.
Fight and kill them there instead of here.
What an idiocy. what an ignorant idiocy. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, it is not even in the list of usual suspects. At the time Saddam Hussein was the best pawn the West could have had in power in Iraq as he was doing an excellent job fighting Islamic extremism. I guess you believe also that Trumpists were “assaulting Congress” the 6th of January like the Bolsheviks were assaulting the Winter palace in October 1917, because it was part of their plan for taking absolute power in the U.S.
His-Story … is the victors account. It may take decades … no, centuries, to unravel the truth, but by then does it really matter? Of course it does, or it should. How else can we learn, and avoid making the same mistakes. But, what happened in the last 75 years? They conquered our souls … Fluoridation, continuous war, 24/7 fear porn, vaccinations and … autism. Previously rare and unheard of yet suddenly Autism is 1 in 32, and soon to be 1 in 2. Their prediction not mine. Can Autistics be trained to do simple tasks … maybe complex. It’s looking likely.
Today it all seems like such nonsense. The globalist/DAVOS crowd, those central bank puppets are right now putting the finishing touches on the death of Christianity. It’s called Secular Humanism … atheism … technocracy … greed and corruption are just another way to spell debauchery … slavery. Man is god, but not every man a god… just a few, certainly not I or you. Money is god, and not just any money … only theirs.
Vladadmir Rezun is of mixed Ukrainian and Russian heritage. He was also a Ukrainian nationalist. His dream was to become president of Ukraine. David Giantz’s work, as those of many others, utilized extensive documentation verifying that Stalin figured Hitler would fight it out with the West. Later, he would pick up the spoils.
In the 1920s Hitler advocated attacking the Soviet uUnion. In Mein Kampf he spoke along those lines. Victor’s analysis was more than dubious and based on Soviet military investments.
As for being prepared for war, from 1935 into 1938 Stalin had his purge and liquidated hundreds of thousands, including top military brass. Overall the Germans had the best military mechanism in the world. Even their aircraft could not be matched by the Soviets and this was acknowledged.
Hitler wanted to attack the Soviet Union years before Stalin organized his massive force. That’s simply an undeniable fact. Those denying this do so as a defense mechanism for their people or have simply not read the bureaucratic material. Some have been indoctrinated. Others have wishful thinking.
It is an absolute fact that Stalin didn’t believe what was occurring. It’s documented that, at the initial invasion, his generals were reprimanded for wanting to fight back. One individual, was murdered, executed, for disobeying orders during AH’s the initial invasion orders.
Prior to AH’s attack, Stalin had been notified of Nazi aircraft flying over Soviet airspace. He had ample warning that he was going to be attacked. Stalin disregarded all the early warning signs.
As for Viktor, he was born in 1947 and became a GRU officer. That speaks volumes. He was also a liar.
His hypothesis is that Hitler lost the war when he attacked Poland. It’s correct. There was no way he could defeat the United States unified with the allies. The war was insanity, to say the least. In the 1930s the WASPS still ruled the roost in La CessPool Grand and they would obviously stand by GB. The author is correct my noting that Roosevelt was in bed with Churchill.
Eurocide II cost tens of millions of European lives. Had Hitler not initiated warfare there’s an excellent chance that we would not have many of our Western problems. In fact, the Germans were the highest in technology. It’s possible that today they would be in happening the moon.
More Germans read newspapers than the combined readership of those in England, France and Italy. Those interesting in the actual data should consider reading the works of Professor David Giantz. He spent half his life going through Russian documents. The problem with Giantz is that he’s a dull writer, doesn’t have the ability to hold his readers and it’s difficult to plow through his labor. A suggestion would be to watch some of his lectures on YouTube.
As for WWII, AH started plans for invading Poland over a year before the war. Had Warsaw’s Beck not rejected H’s plans of joining in an invasion against Moscow, H would not have commenced conflict against Poland and his forces would have contained an additional 3 million men. It would not have made a difference because of the mighty American factor.
These next few lines childish. It was H’s idea to have a temporary treaty with Russia. This was after Beck and the Colonels in Wausau had rejected prods to join and an attack on Russia-
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.
Eurocide II was is the biggest tragedy for the European race in all of history. The article was a fun read. Thank you.
Sorry. I didn’t realize you are incapable of using the English language like an actual historian would.
And also, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1941? I missed that. My bad.
Fact: Over 500,000 served in H’s army. I knew many who were/are members of Pol-Am and German-Am cultural clubs. A large section of Polish speaking lands remained in Germany, after 1918 (Opola, etc).
satire
[ˈsaˌtī(ə)r]
NOUN
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms:
mockery · ridicule · derision · scorn · caricature · irony · sarcasm
You are absolutely correct. I read about that in either Polish or Russian, as a kid. It’s a great point and all about Mother Nature and Father Time. Keep engaging in these historical fun communiques.
From a new book (albeit in german), my translation:
If two opponents each have a strategically deep enough non-essential apron (200 km plus) in which you can deploy troops either defensively or offensively, a surprise attack is possible but makes sense only, if such an attack meets the offensively deployed mass of the opponent’s troops and has prospects of destroying them. If the opponent is defensively oriented with sufficient advance, a surprise attack is possible but pointless because it is counterproductive. However, if both parties position themselves offensively, any surprise strike is necessarily always a preemptive strike.
A surprise attack can only be identical to a preemptive strike in the absence of strategic depth of the apron, when defensive positioning is not possible at all.
German apron: Brest to Berlin about 700 km.
Russian apron: Brest to Moscow nearly 1000 km.
From: Nur ein Gigolo, Chapter 9.6: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08JQLW3Y3
His ancestry is neither here nor there. His Ukrainian nationalism and desire to become a president of Ukraine only attest to his inferior intelligence. Being dumb is unfortunate, but not a crime.
Two of his actions reveal his character: he joined GRU in 1947 and he was a traitor. Both prove him to be scum. ‘Nuf said.
I am 100% baffled by those Ukrainians … on the one hand memento’s of SS Galicia and on the other service to a corrupt Jewish govt and Jewish criminal Ihor Kolomoisk’y … total dissonance … attacking their fellow Ukies, killing children like the IDF …
No sympathy at all … those people are crazies.
Definitely they should let Donetz and Luhansk go.
After reading on modern day Ukraine post ww2 I believe it isn’t really a country since there are such big differences between east and west.
Maybe it will break up, although I understand the westies wanting to resurrect Galicia since Poland maybe wants to colonise, a bad experience for them in the past.
I have Campaign in Russia by Leon Degrelle (outstanding), now updated
Oh that was sarcasm. My bad.
How are things going to the east of the Vistula?
Perhaps it would be useful if you gave us several instances of the use of ‘subhuman’. I know only of one such instance from a publication of the propaganda ministry without the approval of Goebbels.
The ‘subhuman’ as well as the ‘master race’ topoi are favorites of Nuremberg-tribunal-as-is-apologists and yet they will not be able to produce instances that can be tied to actual policy (as, for example, Spaights bragging about the British introduction of deliberate bombing of civilians in Bombing Vindicated). To my knowledge, Hitler never used the ‘master race’ or ‘subhuman’ terms, yet, what would any of the countless denunciations of his person be without these words so precious to the apologists of the outbreak, conduct and continuation of the War after May 8, 1945.
I cannot look up what the reference you are making to is actually saying since I don’t have the Domarus volumes; they are quite expensive. If you are using an English translation of Hitler’s speeches and proclamations then I’d say: Caution! Translations are a tricky business, and translating is a tricky business, even for those with the best and most honorable intent; with translations of something from someone as constantly and maniacally vilified as Hitler, only the original will do, with a considerable spread of text from before and after the quote in question.
How magnanimous! Starting with losing the war he launched (no-brainer)? Killing tens of millions (including his own people)? Seems an easy point.
How about murdering hundreds off Germans in extrajudicial ‘Operation Hummingbird’ 1934? Snuffing helpless Aryans in Aktion T4 (state murder)? Imprisoning religious dissenters? Imprisoning/executing Jehovah Witnesses? Scape-goating and murdering millions in his sick Darwinian contest?
All while planning the great new world capital Germania with Speer; an authoritarian wasteland devoid of life and spontaneity, a throwback to pharaonic despotism? Or Linz, site of the new Adolf Hitler Art collection pilfered from conquered nations?
Fans should explain Adolf’s faith in Hermann Göring, one of the most corrupt individuals in history. Göring cost Germany the war. The failure to produce Wever’s ‘Ural bomber’. The Dunkirk fiasco. The failed Battle of Britain. The Hunger Plan. Promises to deliver supplies to Stalingrad. Promises to protect the Vaterland from Allied air raids (air-raid sirens were dubbed ‘Göring’s trumpets’). Promises Operation Bodenplatte would deliver success in the Ardennes 1 Jan 1945 (Hermann forgot to inform his own flak batteries, they shot down their own planes).
Yet Hitler faithfully empowered Göring to the end. Loyal party member, wounded in the ’23 Putsch. No matter incompetence and corruption. Gefreiter Hitler deep down was an insecure (suicidal) politician who forgave his few trusted allies the very thing that cost him victory.
“No ideological objections”? LOL! Hitler proposed war in the east and lebensraum from 1923. He was hot for it. Have food supply problems (unlike self-sufficient neighbor France)? Conquer your eastern neighbor and make them serfs. Don’t bother about morality. It’s all about strength and the unapologetic right to murder and enslave!
Except it didn’t. How sad.
About 2.6 million Ukrainians died in the famine that was caused by rustic plant disease in the harvest of 1932. The Ukrainian government indeed has spouted lies of the 8 million type (though some propagandists favor 10+ million). They also continue to use the old fake photographs that were used by Cold War propagandists such as James Mace. Most of those photos were taken from 1921-2 and reissued as if they were photos from 1933 or 1934. Douglas Tottle did a useful expose of the use of false photographs back in Fraud, Famine and Fascism which clearly traced the misuse of the old photos.
However it was Mark Tauger who got to the nitty-gritty of the manmade famine lie. A core falsehood spread by James Mace, Robert Conquest et al was the claim that the Soviet government had exported 1.8 million tons of grain during the time of famine. In fact, they exported 364,000 tons. Tauger pointed out how even Mace’s own source made it clear that most of that 1.8 million figure came from grain exports that occurred after the harvest of 1933 was in and the famine was over.
A key point which Tottle had noted was that the Hearst and Goebbels presses both continued spreading stories about an ongoing famine well into 1935, even though the actual famine ended in fall of 1933. This partly accounts for the inflated estimates which Ukrainian propaganda throws around because they are based on adding in more than a year of extra famine. The 2.6 million figure which I noted above comes from Population Studies, Volume 45, Number 3, and the piece given by Vallin, Pyrozhkov et al “A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses.” Robert Conquest apparently realized how ridiculous it sounded to cite the report published in summer 1935 (when the famine was long over) under the name “Thomas Walker” so instead he falsified the date and listed it as published in 1933 (at the tail end of the famine).
That usage of false reports from long after the end of the actual famine (along with the stolen photographs from 1921-2) is what accounts for the false rumor that Walter Duranty “denied” the famine. If you read Duranty’s actual reports from 1933 he clearly reports about a famine in Ukraine and estimates about 2.5 million deaths, very close to the 2.6 million number which the demographers today deduce. Duranty only began (quite justifiably) denying a famine after the fall of 1933 when for the next 2 years stories were still being put around in the Hearst press about an ongoing famine.
While all of Mark Tauger’s work on the famine is useful, the items which stand out the best are “Statistical Falsification in the Soviet Union” and “Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine.” These studies get down to the bones of how much grain was actually requisitioned from peasants, how much was exported, and what was the actual crop harvest. What is clear is that rustic plant disease resulted in grain stalks growing with fewer grains in them and hence created confusion. The crop might appear to be adequate if judged on the number of grain stalks, but failed to produce the expected grain. No one in either the Soviet government or among the populace understood what was happening.
The Ukrainian government will certainly continue to spread lies about this event for a long time. They are a corrupt government and it pisses them off to see how the Israeli government is able to shyster people and get away. Regardless, the lies spread by Conquest, Mace et al are all going to be slowly going on their way out. Because that’s what the historical evidence supports.
I made the comment that this was fascinating nonsense but I am rapidly losing my interest.
I went to my bookshelf and retrieved Absolute War by an obscure writer named Chris Bellamy which was published in 2007 by some fringe outfit called Alfred A. Knopf.
Chapter 5 is: Who planned to attack whom, and how? This Chapter devotes numerous paragraphs and pages naming Suvorov and referencing and discussing his thesis.
My question is: are we witness to unabashed ignorance or is this a clear example of deceitful, willful and dishonest propaganda?
What are you talking about? Of course Hitler’s decision to attack Russia was ‘entirely correct.’
Look how well it all turned out. Their living space in the east turned into the dying fields for millions of Nazis.
‘The ragged rabble of the reich…merciless and bestial in success, sullen and morbid in failure.’
The Japanese had just taken a beating from the Russians (Khalkin Gol) and their war with China was not progressing too well and were already heavily engaged in Indo-China. Soviet Union had already a Non-aggression Pact with China and was supplying arms and economic aid to the KMT. Mongolia would have gone all the way with Soviet Union in case of a Japanese attack. Japanese would have place themselves in an unenviable strategic position had they attack.
Occupation of Indonesia and Malaysia was vital for the building of the ‘Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, policy officially launched in August 1940.
I wonder what analyses and apologies will be written in some future equivalent of Unz Review. What the future commenters would argue about after USA and its allies launch a pre-emptive defensive strike against the aggressive Russia, who is about to atack any moment now, USA gets beaten to pulp and China (the clever monkey on the hill, watching the tiger and the bear fighting each other) becomes the new world hegemon. There will be a lot of would be-should be-could be in those comments.
The history does not teach anyone anything. Pitty.
Disagree about Spain, but that’s a long discussion. Briefly, see Stanley Payne’s Franco and Hitler.
‘While it is plausible that Stalin might have decided to move against Germany in 1942 if he had had the chance, it remains absurd to claim ala Rezun that Stalin would have attempted to seize all of Europe…’
As long as we’re on the subject, what has often struck me is that Stalin had a rather provincial outlook; he appears primarily to have been determined to recover all the lands Imperial Russia had ruled.
Hence Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Moldovia. And of course he had a decided interest in Finland. It even went to far as to try to extort those areas of what is now Eastern Turkey that Russia had ruled from 1877 to 1914. The Russians actually managed to put off evacuating Port Arthur until 1950. If Imperial Russia had ruled it, Stalin wanted it.
So looked at in that way, global hegemon Stalin is open to question. He doesn’t seem to have been very original.
On the other hand, in a lot of ways Hitler seems to have been a pretty nice guy.
Virtually all those who knew him personally proved remarkably reluctant to vilify him. Even when he was safe in the United States, his mother’s Jewish doctor refused to talk shit about him.
Let’s rephrase that question slightly: “Why would an army that was preparing to launch a major offensive be entirely lacking in defense in depth, with no fixed fortifications/ minefields/ etc., and with a whole lot of men, vehicles, and supplies stacked up right near/ in transit to the border, so that breakthroughs in a few points would lead to encirclements of large numbers of troops, be vulnerable to a sudden attack?”
Offense =/= defense.
1. What actual evidence can you cite in support of your ludicrously-ignorant claim that the judeo-bolsheviks were signatories to the Geneva Convention, and that Germany was not?
2. What was the death rate of non-Soviet POWs in German custody? Did this perhaps have any thing to do with the Geneva convention and reciprocal arrangements?
3. Did the judeo-bolsheviks allow Red Cross access to any of their POW camps/ gulags/ concentration camps? How about the Germans?
4. While you may feel “justified” in insisting that that the Germans “should” have taken extra-special care of Soviet prisoners that Stalin had written off (and whose families he starved), while the judeo-bolsheviks were busy massacring all of the German POWs that came their way — surely you realize that this is not a particularly reasonable expectation in an all-out war?
Please employ what passes for your “mind” in briefly attempting to ponder these simple questions — or you can continue spewing your nonsensical, hate-filled rants…
In a other words, how is it possible that someone who is so well prepared for the attack, who has been preparing for years, who has been gathering equipment, forces, resources during all that time just for this purpose, how is possible that such a gun-ho warrior could have been so ineffective and incompetent to the point of uselessness when it comes to the defense/protection of all these assets…? Not in this world.
Indeed. How could it be? The Soviet General Staff must have come up with an entirely new defensive strategy! Maybe “defense in shallowness.”
Not quite. It’s actually “We have to bomb them over there — so we can bring them over here.”
Just ask Bill Kristol or any other died-in-the wool neocon Israel Firster. Wars for Israel and open borders for “refugees” go together like… Purim and Haman’s ears.
You are definitely building a strong case for most entertaining commenter on the world wide web…😂
Of course, as there are at least two version of the story but anyway, the one I like the most is this one:
Franco saw no advantage for Spain, and even less for him personally, in getting into the war as Spain had had already her own war, out of which the country had come out bloodied and half destroyed, not to mention bitter and divided. But still he was indebted to Hitler and he knew Hitler would be coming to ask for payback. As the last thing Spaniards wanted was more war, Franco tried to do all in his power to satisfy this desire of his countrymen, while not enraging Hitler enough to provoke him into declaring war. Even someone who disagrees with the “he thought that Germany would lose the war” argument has to agree with this. The problem for Franco then, as said, was how to refuse entering in the war while not getting Hitler so mad that he would decide to invade his country and topple him and make of her another puppet state. The solution came by way of German intelligence, from Admiral Canaris, who conveniently provided him, through some opposition figures, with numbers and statistics of German wheat, steel, industrial, etc, production. That gave Franco the way out he was looking for so when Hitler came and asked him to join the war, Franco started crying that Spain was a ruined starving nation so if he was to get her in the war then Germany had to send them a lot of aid; for example, say, five million tons of wheat, a request Franco knew Hitler couldn’t possible fulfill because of the info given by him by the German opposition. And the same with other items. According to Franco collaborators that was pretty much what went on during the Hendaya meeting. At the end Hitler departed so infuriated that he raged on that he couldn’t understand how Spaniards had chosen as their leader such a thick headed peasant and that he would rather have all his teeth pulled than to go to another meeting with the Caudillo. Now, some official documents dug out from Allied and German archives would tell a different story but I don’t believe it. They claim for example that Franco performed badly in Hendaya and that later Spanish government officials wrote to Berlin complaining that Hitler hadn’t listened to their pleas, and so on. Which in not way disprove the Spanish version (what were the Spaniards supposed to do, send Berlin a happy face, a face with a mocking gesture…?) True or not, that is the version of events I find the most likely. After all, it was Hitler the one who came out fuming of that summit.
Wasn’t Stalin accused of reviving Tsarism and ‘Velikorussian nationalism’, of ‘counter-revolution’, of Fascism (”Stalinism is ‘Red Fascism”’), of (the gravest accusation) ‘anti-semitism’, by his ‘nemesis’ Trotsky and his spawn the neo-cons, and by the liberal ‘West’ alike? ”’Russia’ did it”- ‘Carthāgō dēlenda est’. But to their permanent dismay they find out that Russia is some orders of magnitude bigger than Carthage.
He had a full plate. I don’t see why he would have jumped the gun and attacked a genuinely neutral Russia whilst he still had unfinished business elsewhere. And there were all his architectural fantasies too…
The main reason for the attack was to isolate Chamberlain before the US got involved. Of course they planned on dividing up Eastern Europe eventually but Hitler was frustrated with the British and decided to take away their best hope which was a Soviet/British alliance.
Hitler believed the USSR would collapse under the stress of war and so did the rest of the world. This seemed pretty reasonable at the time given how sensitive the Soviet system was to supply and demand shocks.
The aggressive counter-attacks by the USSR were a surprise to everyone. Military experts had predicted a collapse similar to France. No one knew about the military that Stalin had been secretly building. That is what Hitler laments in table talk. He really didn’t think the US or British had anything to do with it. German intelligence was lousy and had no idea that there were so many tank factories. They also didn’t imagine that the Slavs could build something like the T-34 and the Soviets cranked out thousands.
The Germans also made some odd decisions like not investing in long range bombers and they were also dismissive of semi-automatic rifles for regular infantry.
I do know that you are a little bit sarcastic, but I do not mind. But you do not realize that all this reasoning here is for entertainment only. Some people here are trying to justify “Drang nacht osten”
(or something like that) that Hitler had no choice but attack is stupidity.
Shortly after Hitler issued the order to attack the consensus is that Hitler did fell ill.
I do not believe it. I do think that Hitler realizing that he made a mistake he had a nervous breakdown.
He was bed ridden for more than a month. There was never any explanation why Hitler was ill.
(maybe covid?) Anyway some claim that Hitler issued order for all German army to go on Moscow.
And what happened That it was army’s general staff that did split the Army into three streams.
In every case part of the army going on Leningrad does not make a sense even to retard.
What actual evidence can you cite in support of your ludicrously-ignorant claim that the judeo-bolsheviks were signatories to the Geneva Convention, and that Germany was not?
I haven’t made any claims regarding the Geneva Convention. Re-read every comment I have made here.
I think it is wrong to starve POWs along with women and children because you want their land.
That opinion is independent of the Geneva Convention.
The Unz Hitler Defense Squad wants to believe he was some savior of Whites* which requires taking a complete absence of history and ignoring his open war against the Slavs.
What was the death rate of non-Soviet POWs in German custody? Did this perhaps have any thing to do with the Geneva convention and reciprocal arrangements?
The better treatment of Americans and British had to do with the fact that the Nazis viewed the Slavs as racial enemies. That attitude is reflected in the Commissar Order.
Your entire line of thinking here is amoral and creepy.
It’s like saying that rape and murder are fine as long as there isn’t a governing authority or reciprocal agreement.
* Does not include Eastern Europeans according to Hitler
‘What is the source of this? What actually Hitler said, when and where? I am pretty sure you won’t find anything in which Hitler stated explicitly that “Polish intelligentsia are to be killed.” Later Polish intelligentsia was subjected to murderous AB-Aktion and Intelligenzaktion but there is no trail to Hitler.’
Actually, I’m still trying to find a reasonably good book on the Polish gentile experience under Nazi rule. The one text I did get turned out to rather drearily — if predictably — dwell on how the Poles really were very nice to the Jews.
Be that as it may — it wasn’t what I wanted to find out about.
‘…surely you realize that this is not a particularly reasonable expectation in an all-out war?’
Whatever else may be said, I think it is reasonable to expect a government to refrain from deliberately starving several million prisoners to death. The Germans demonstrated they were perfectly capable of this, too. Once they realized they might have a need for their labor, the death rate among Soviet P.O.W.’s fell precipitously. In fact, even during the worst of the extermination, there were individual camp commandants who demonstrated that it was perfectly possible to sharply reduce the death toll if one wished to.
The conventional position is to turn it all into a moral fable; Nazi Germans bad, their opponents therefore good.
Well, that doesn’t work. But reversing the polarity doesn’t either. Many German crimes were both real and indefensible. It is not okay to starve millions of helpless prisoners to death when in fact you have a choice in the matter.
How do I delete my last comment?
I find the idea of people who are repelled by historical revisionism somewhat silly. History is not written in stone. We all know how several people can give different accounts of some incident to the police. If they can’t even agree with what they saw how can anyone claim that historical events have any kind of reliability. We have to rely on constant revision as knew evidence comes to light, just as scientific theories were altered when new evidence would challenge the existing theory.(explanation)
Dealing with you Stalin fanbois is soooo tedious.
Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War
D&M also get into how the Tsar supported the Black Hand and the assassination of the Arch Duke that started the war. Then the Tsar gave a blank check to Serbia and it was the Russian mobilization that forced Germany to execute the Schlieffen plan.
This is why it is so interesting that Stalin demanded the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles as a precondition for joining the Tripartite Pact in 1940. It also completely contradicts Colin Wrights contention above that “[Stalin] appears primarily to have been determined to recover all the lands Imperial Russia had ruled”, as if Stalins invasion of Persia doesn’t suffice anyway.
So essentially you are saying that by launching Barbarossa in 1941 Hitler managed to postpone splattering his brains over the walls of his hole in the Chancellery to 1945, whereas if he had waited or not launch Barbarossa at all he would have had to splatter his brains over the walls of his hole in 1944. Fair enough.
You need to read: C. A. Roberts, 1995, “Planning for war: the Red Army and the catastrophe of 1941”. Europe-Asia Studies 47(8): 1293-1326. A JSTOR link was posted here by Bankotsu in comment 467.
There is another possible explanation. Just as Roosevelt deliberately left the entire US Pacific fleet (excepting the Aircraft carriers) sitting like ducks in Pearl Harbor as an enticement for Japanese preemptive strike, so could Stalin have deliberately have left his obsolete tanks and aircraft positioned right on the German border as an enticement for a German preemptive strike.
In fact, it is my suspicion that this was what Operation Pike was really about, indirectly if not directly. Stalin wanted Germany to exhaust herself in a protracted war in the west, while Churchill and Lebrun wanted Germany to exhaust herself in a protracted war in the east. The Freemasons (or Secret Elite) wanted war in the east first, but Stalin was not playing along with his masonic brothers. This could easily explain Stalin’s aggressive attack on Finland and his attempt to seize the Nickel mines, and it could easily explain operation Pike and the allied counter threat to the Baku oil fields. This would also explain why England and the US basically gave Stalin everything he wanted in Lend Lease even when it was clearly against the interest of the allies. It was all part of the bargain, negotiated and agreed upon by the secret elite and Stalin long before Barbarossa was even started.
Since a state of war already existed between the allies and Germany, once Hitler invaded the USSR the allies would not have needed an excuse to invade Germany from the West.
What the secret elites and Churchill and Stalin had not expected was that the Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht would prove themselves so vastly superior to both the Allied and the Soviet slave armies, and so quickly and easily conquer Paris and then march to the outskirts of Moscow.
LOL.
“John Johnson” appears to be the Hollywood correspondent to Unz forums.
S/he might refute the established history of Eisenhower’s Rhine Camps by reference to “Saving Pvt Ryan” or CNN on the “Far Right” nature of National Socialism …
And talking of references, perhaps you also have noticed a trend among a small number here to refer to tomes in a faux academic style viz —
” … of course as anyone knows, volume 9 of Bathhouse Barry’s groundbreaking study on this topic is the definitive word that puts to rest any dispute …”
Nb Anyone can write bullshit like this.
Without actual* quotes/ linked references to buttress, it is just opinion.
JJ is a prime example, as you say.
*Meaning = existing in fact or reality
Your denials don’t help you. As the Norwegian scholar noted, all across the USSR the Germans were often met as liberators from their own mass murdering government, an essentially foreign government led by Jews (same in the US now). At the same time, only oppressive censorship laws in “democratic” (is that supposed to be funny) Europe keeps the holohoax going. It has already been exposed as lies.
The next ten to twenty years could be very interesting. All signs point to a diminished role for the US in foreign affairs as it deals with its economic problems and racial strife. Russia has made a good comeback but it is a shadow of its former self. The blowhards in Britain were surpassed in economic strength by Germany is the late 1950’s or 60’s already. The victors of WW II no longer stand so tall. This will allow Europe, with Germany at its center, to rise again if the Europeans decide they want to prosper again. They will decide that and then the WW II narrative, already exposed as a mountain of lies by the mass murdering, corrupt allies will be finished.
I will correct myself before a Stalin fanboi does. Looking for a place to buy the book I came across this tidbit from the publisher in the UK:
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/311079/stalin-s-war/9780241366431.html
Major Jordan claimed that Roosevelt and Hopkins were actually shipping Uranium and blue prints to Stalin, but at least McMeekin mentions “details of atomic bomb”, again validating Major Jordan’s assertions.
The fact that Master Mason Franklin Roosevelt was shipping all this incredibly important strategic material to his masonic brother Joe Stalin is more proof that the secret elites were behind the entire war.
PS on this disgraceful (putting it mildly) criminality by Eisenhower/US Army to give a salute to an honourable US Serviceman, Martin Brech.
His testimony as one who was present begins —
A similar tribute to Pat Buchanan, who wrote in 1990 —
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Bacque/Brech2002.html
[You have been repeatedly spamming comment-threads with your off-topic Masonic nonsense, which is unacceptable behavior. Most of your future comments along those lines will probably be trashed.]
Speaking of which, you might find the links below of some interest, in particular under the ‘Hide More’ portion.
The ‘killing of the king’ is a major Masonic concept
https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/?showcomments#comment-4627424
https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/?showcomments#comment-4643345
Your comment goes to my main point, which has been misunderstood by a few replies who think I was arguing against the idea of a Soviet offensive in 1941.
Military history is quantitative (# men, tanks, artillery, area of deployment, etc).
Any discussion of what happened or could have happened or intentions, etc. if logical must be based on such quantitative analysis.
But, much of what I have read about the Soviet intention to invade the West in 1941 is based on ‘hear say’ quotations from non military people. This article a case in point.
Anyway this revision will be only temporary. Final revision will be written by American lesbian girls.
And that will be the truth.
Complete bullshit. Proven by the fact that all through the occupied territories the Partisan resistance was very strong, and supported by all the people.
As if Russian peasant folk that had all their food taken away and left to starve, or in many cases herded into the local school or church and set ablaze, would somehow ‘welcome’ these murderous animals.
Trial on the Road, 1971 Soviet film about Partisans trying to disrupt Nazi train shipments of seized food and livestock. The opening scene shows a German fuel truck dumping fuel on buried potatoes that the villagers have hidden.
Stalin was loved by the ordinary folks because he improved their life in a way that mankind had never before seen.
–Alexander Zinoviev, philospher, writer.
Zinoviev was hardly a communist apologist. He eventually ran afoul of the establishment for his free-thinking ways and was eventually exiled to the west. But he does speak the truth, something that clowns like you will never find because you are neither genuinely open to it, nor, in the final analysis, deserving of the liberation it brings.
You are condemned to pass your days in mediocrity, bitterness and grinding of teeth.
It strikes me that the obvious question in all this is: if Stalin planned an offensive that was foiled by Barbarossa how did he intend to sustain it? The Soviets were able to carry the fight into Germany in 1944-45 in large part thanks to the fleet of Studebaker trucks provided by the USA, but they had nothing like that in 1941. Maybe Stalin was just delusional, but if he was planning an attack then it probably would have behooved Hitler to have let him.
A basic summary of the thesis of that article can also be found in this paragraph:
“…In military doctrine, the concept of the operation in depth was replaced by a rigid insistence on frontier defence: invading forces must be met on the Soviet border and repulsed by an immediate Soviet counter-offensive; then the war must be carried onto enemy territory.
Thus Stalin, like Hitler, was preparing his country for a short war, and an offensive one.
By massing Soviet forces on Soviet frontiers and giving the appearance of an offensive deployment, Stalin hoped to deter German aggression.
In practice, the bluff worked badly; it calmed Soviet fears and stimulated Stalin’s own complacency, while German observers were not impressed…”
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/barbarossa1992.pdf
Soviet military doctrine in June 1941 was to mass huge military forces near the Soviet-German border in an offensive posture and once war broke out, it was expected that the initial invasion of German forces wouldn’t lead to much and would days to achieve any real result. In the meantime, Soviet forces would rapidly mobilise and launch an all out counter attack that would take the fight to enemy territory.
Under such a scenario, who attacked first wouldn’t be that important. Even if Germany attacked first, it wasn’t expected that it would lead to any real military advantage to Germany. Maybe this is why Stalin just didn’t care all that much about whether Germany was really going to attack first or not.
This Soviet offensive deployment of military forces and counter attack strategy would be interpreted by some as evidence of Soviet aggressive military designs on Germany.
Where there a point in all of that incoherent rambling?
Starving POWs isn’t justified by a lack of the Geneva convention anymore than raping German women. I’m not going to ignore atrocities by the Germans just because some here *want to believe* Hitler was some hero.
It was Hitler that could have created an alliance with the Slavs and turned them against the USSR. Instead his war against them provoked strong resistance as German rule was worse than the Soviets.
It was Hitler’s greed that lost the war which let Stalin take half of Europe. There were a dozen ways he could have won.
Oh but I’m the problem for ruining Unz Hitler parties by pointing out undisputed aspects of history.
Boo hoo cry more. Hitler is the one that messed everything up, not me.
I think Mr Unz must be sorely disappointed at the outcome of this discussion. Probably he had imagined that his crew of Hitler fanboys here would have a romp with silly ‘book review.’
Only to see all the nonsense shredded by actual facts from many commenters here, who quickly dismantled this ridiculous house of cards. So Mr. Unz keeps repeating, parrot-like, his line about ‘numerous new airfields very close to the German border.’
But not only were those airfields hundreds of miles from the actual German border, but the reader is left wondering, where are those maps that show just where those airfields were placed? Perhaps the clown McMeekin has produced such maps, since such information would certainly be necessary to argue about a strictly military-technical issue like offensive versus defensive aviation formations?
But McMeekin only says, vaguely, that these fields were placed in the ‘western military districts,’ where in fact they would need to be to support the short-range ground-attack aviation that would play a key role in defending against a tank and infantry invasion. I have already made this point in some detail, discussing even the flight range and fuel limitation of those Soviet aircraft designed specifically for the anti-tank role, not long-range bombing.
It amounts to nothing but layman handwaving, where in fact an incisive military-technical analysis is required to ascertain with any legitimacy the question of whether such aviation assets are positioned in an offensive or defensive purpose.
McMeekin has no such military-technical credentials, nor has even provided maps of these airfields and other data to support his handwaving, nor has discussed the technical particulars of Soviet aircraft deployed there, nor any other crucial military-technical data or analysis. Much less the even less qualified amateur historian Mr. Unz and the various clowns here.
Yet, we have seen just such military-technical analysis from bona-fide historian David Glantz, who is in fact a military officer with expert knowledge of these subjects and whose analysis is very clear and unambiguous—the Russian force disposition on the eve of Barbarossa was purely defensive, and in fact in the midst of hurried preparations and deployments, which of course did not complete on time.
We have seen the very same judgement from none other than Feldmarschall Erich Von Manstein, who pronounced the Soviet forces as strictly defensive. And from Feldmarschall Paulus and in fact many others.
We also know that Hitler approved the Soviet invasion a full year BEFORE the Russians even started mobilizing on the frontier, as per Defense Plan 1941.
We know that the Russians began evacuating industry from the western districts MONTHS before the invasion. Why would you move your war-producing factories thousands of miles away if you were planning to push in the other direction and TAKE territory?
We even know that Russia had provided to Germany gargantuan supplies of oil, iron ore, grain, and other strategic commodities right up to the invasion. Why on earth would they keep sending oil for German tanks if they were planing to invade Germany?
Really, this whole idea of a Russian invasion of Germany is so preposterous that one would have to take leave of one’s senses to even consider it for more than a fleeting moment. Of course the commentariat here is exactly of the sort who have either taken leave, or never had any sense to begin with.
The result is predictable, as the scorecard for this discussion shows. The childish and completely unsupported arguments [which really don’t even qualify as such] have convinced no one—other than the known fools who can be counted on for being completely out of touch with reality.
That is an incomplete analysis.
—Glantz, David [2010]; Barbarossa Derailed: The Battle for Smolensk, Volume 1; page 21-22.
The Soviets developed the Deep Battle doctrine in the 1930s, which could be seen in the echelon staging of the DP41:
—Clark [2012], page 55
That is the reason for that rear echelon, which you would not have in an offensive operation. Manstein specifically speaks of this disposition of forces:
—Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein; Lost Victories, page 181
There is a lot of amateur talk here about how the Soviet forces were disposed, and what that supposedly meant. Yet not one commenter here has addressed the analyses from actual military men and experts given above.
{“all across the USSR the Germans were often met as liberators from their own mass murdering government, an essentially foreign government led by Jews (same in the US now)”}
All across? Really?
How did you figure that?
It is true that in some parts of Western USSR some people greeted the Nazi invaders as “liberators”. But Nazi goons quickly disabused them of any notion that they, the Untermenschen, could expect anything other than to be enslaved subjects of the alleged Master Race.
There were about 500,000 Soviet partisans at the height of the war.
From a force less than 100,000 partisans in 1941, the force grew to more than 500,000: as the Nazi savages demonstrated to more and more peoples of the USSR their savagery.
A small number compared to the regular Red Army. But all were volunteers and were operating in the enemy rear. If Red Army troops were captured by the Nazis, they at least had some hope as POWs. But partisans knew they’d be shot the minute they were caught, if they were lucky. The unlucky ones suffered horrific tortures before death. Yet, there was no shortage of volunteers.
{“…foreign government led by Jews “}
Stalin, nee Jughashvili, was not a Jew: he was (Christian) Georgian. In fact Stalin previously had ruthlessly wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks in USSR in the 30s. Even sending his axmen to take out Trotsky (Bronstein) in Mexico.
Peoples of Soviet Union, overwhelmingly Russians/Slavic peoples, rose up en mass to fight the Nazi invaders because they knew what the genocidal Nazis had in mind for the ‘sub-human’ Slavic peoples. They rose up for their мать Родина.
{“This will allow Europe, with Germany at its center, to rise again …….”}
You wish: Western Europe is being flooded by Muslim foreigners, day in, day out.
France is 10% Muslim today: numbers going up every year.
London is now Londonistan, with a Muslim mayor.
Germany probably has more mosques now than churches.
At this rate in a few decades Germany’s national anthem will be:
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
über alles in der Welt,
islamisch Deutschland, islamisch Deutschland über alles,
über alles in der Welt!
ʾAllāhu ʾakbar
If the Red Army had rolled all the way to the Channel, Western Europe would be free of the SorosaVirus today, as Eastern European countries are. With all its faults, Communist indoctrination somehow immunized the people against Western decadence and their destructive viruses, such as the SorosoVirus. Western Europe would still be the nationalistic, proud, Christian, enlightened Europe it once was. Instead of the putrid GloboSwamp it has become.
Exhibit A.
[Subway In Western Europe VS Subway In Poland]
‘As the last thing Spaniards wanted was more war, Franco tried to do all in his power to satisfy this desire of his countrymen, while not enraging Hitler enough to provoke him into declaring war. ‘
But there you go. When Spain agreed to form the ‘Blue Division’ there were immediately forty thousand volunteers. Obviously,some Spaniards found the prospect of more war tolerable.
You’re right that Spain was in catastrophic condition, and obviously, many of those who had fought on the Republican side wouldn’t have been reconciled to Franco’s victory. However, I’m skeptical that Franco was acceding to popular pressure when he chose to avoid war.
Your remarks about Hendaye are interesting — but at the same time, one has to be wary of this sort of thing. Naturally, post-1945, there had to be the great make-over: Franco was never going to join Hitler. This may be coloring the spin various writers put on Hendaye in the days when Franco could never, never have been for Hitler. One is reminded of all those Frenchmen who were always with the Resistance — in spirit.
But at several junctures, Franco apparently almost did join hands with Hitler. In early June 1940, in the wake of Germany’s triumphs in the West, an emissary from Franco attempted to meet with Hitler; Hitler simply didn’t have time, but was the motive to broach the possibility of Spain entering the war in exchange for say, Gibraltar and more of Morocco?
Again, when Germany promptly overran the Balkans in April 1941, there was an upsurge of enthusiasm for the Nazi cause. And of course Operation Barbarossa was the final temptation. Franco had always been troubled by the Hitler-Stalin Pact — well, now that was out of the way.
Franco was probably saved by his native caution — he was never one for the bold thrust — and by the fact that if he was to join Hitler, Spain really would need some replacement for the fuel and food the British permitted to flow to Spain.
He was probably also saved by Hitler’s essential lack of interest. My feeling is that had Hitler seriously wanted Spain in the war — and had he been willing to do what he could to satisfy the genuine needs behind Franco’s demands — Spain would have wound up in the war.
Yes, Stalin had relations with Chiang, and that was what accounted for this:
“In the negotiations that Japan began with Germany immediately after the Changkufeng conflict(August 1938), Tokyo sought a military pact directed explicitly against the Soviet Union. Japanese army leaders were especially eager for such an alliance. In Berlin, meanwhile, the situation was developing along different lines.”
— Stuart Goldman, Nomonhan 1939, P. 53.
So the point is that the original Japanese initiative been for an alliance against the USSR, with the military especially favoring this. It was German influence which persuaded the Japanese to let this go and allow Hitler to handle Stalin. But if it actually looked like Stalin was on the verge of over-running Europe in the way that Rezun claims, then there’s good reason to think that Japan would reevaluate this. More important than that even, is that as I’ve said Stalin was a cagey enough person to seriously consider this. When Hitler struck and was moving towards Moscow, Stalin was confident from the Sorge report that he could move his forces away from the east. But if Stalin had struck in the way that Rezun suggests with the intent of swallowing Europe then all bets would be off about what would Japan really do.
I very much agree with your reality. Napoleon said Army march on its stomach.
As Germans were marching through villages they confiscated the livestock, grain and potatoes, and let the villagers starve to death. I do not think that villagers were to enthusiastic about their “liberators.” (There are too many idiots on this thread)
Burning the villages with their population in it started after partizan activities.
‘…The better treatment of Americans and British had to do with the fact that the Nazis viewed the Slavs as racial enemies. That attitude is reflected in the Commissar Order…”
I largely agree with the rest of your post, but I’ll query this.
I once asked someone about whether the Germans treated their Polish P.O.W.’s from 1939 properly.
Supposedly, they did; Poland had signed the Geneva Convention, you see.
So it would seem that racial theory notwithstanding, the Germans would treat Slavic prisoners properly if they felt legally obliged to.
I’ll also wonder if the Germans perceived the Commissars as Slavs — or as Jews? Was the Commissar Order an expression of animosity towards Slavs, or of Anti-Semitism? After all, a disproportionate number of the Commissars presumably were Jews. At least to the Nazi mind, it would be among the Commissars that the Jewish bacillus animating the naturally inert if inferior Slavic mass would be found.
I think the Germans did perceive Slavs as racial inferiors — but not necessarily as a threat. They were to be oppressed and enslaved, and of course no great concern needed be taken for their welfare. One is reminded of Himmler’s remark that if ten thousand Russian women collapsed from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch, the matter was of concern to him only insofar as whether or not the antitank ditch was completed.
But note that Himmler didn’t actually see the death of the Russian women as a good in and of itself. This contrasts sharply with the Nazi attitude towards Jews, who were necessarily and irremediably a threat, and had to be not merely enslaved but eliminated entirely.
If you simply are asking why did the Soviet defense prove to be so inept at the start, that has an easy answer which has already been touched on here. Up till the 19th century warfare followed a pattern which made it easier for an energetic defense to turn to the offense. This influenced the French after 1871 when they sought to indoctrinate their soldiers in the “fighting spirit.” When 1914 came, the French troops were urged to energetically charge machine-gun nests. They didn’t pay off so well. This led to the Maginot Line, which proved again to be a case of preparing for the wrong war.
Outside of France it was a bit better realized how new developments in offensive military techniques were going to change the face of war, the same way that the earlier development of defensive techniques (e.g. machine-guns) had changed it once before. But still, no one really grasped the full extent of the changes. The new motorized technology made it possible for German forces to sweep across huge swaths of territory in a way that was unthinkable not only in 1914, but in world history. The fact nobody fully understood this gave Hitler a temporary advantage.
Soviet strategy as developed by Tukhachevsky was much more like what the French had developed before 1914. The assumption was that after an enemy attack there would be some stiff battles fought close to the frontier in which the enemy would be halted. Then it would be possible for the Soviet army to take the offensive. This was not at all a unique strategy, it had plenty of working precedents. But the speed at which modern armies were able to move rendered it redundant overnight. Rezun is giving a needles conspiratorial spin to what can be easily accounted for as a bungling of military strategy.
So the judeo-bolsheviks invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Finland, Iran, Romania, etc…. because they feared that these countries would invade them?
And the Brits invaded Iceland and Iran… because they feared that these countries would invade them?
Yeah right.
France is a particularly ludicrous example of “muh evil aggressive Germans.” Are you seriously suggesting that, after France first declared war on Germany, then invaded Germany, the Germans should have just stood by and said “Please stop”?
Meanwhile, how many of the countries listed above had declared war on either the USSR or Britain before they were invaded? [Hint — ZERO]
The Germans invaded Norway for the same reason the Brits did — to control the entrance to the Baltic. The difference between the two invasions was not a “moral” one; it was simply that the German invasion was successful, and the British one failed.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmark_incident [Brits never had any intention of respecting Norwegian neutrality]
https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II/The-invasion-of-Norway
British plans for landings on the Norwegian coast in the third week of March 1940 were temporarily postponed. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, however, was by that time convinced that some aggressive action ought to be taken; and Paul Reynaud, who succeeded Édouard Daladier as France’s premier on March 21, was of the same opinion. (Reynaud had come into office on the surge of the French public’s demand for a more aggressive military policy and quicker offensive action against Germany.) It was agreed that mines should be laid in Norwegian waters and that the mining should be followed by the landing of troops at four Norwegian ports, Narvik, Trondheim, Bergen, and Stavanger.
Allied troops began to land at Narvik on April 14. Shortly afterward, British troops were landed also at Namsos and at Åndalsnes, to attack Trondheim from the north and from the south, respectively. The Germans, however, landed fresh troops in the rear of the British at Namsos and advanced up the Gudbrandsdal from Oslo against the force at Åndalsnes.
On the Japan thing — it’s interesting to note that Manchukuo is invariably portrayed as a Japanese “puppet state” in standard historiography of the era, while Mongolia is always portrayed as a “totally independent country and definitely not a judeo-bolshevik puppet state —honest!” — despite multiple Soviet invasions in the 1920s, ongoing Soviet occupation, and minor episodes like this [and the rest of the Red Terror in Mongolia].
And what was FDR’s response to the judeo-boshevik invasion of Xinjiang [complete with the extensive use of mustard gas by the Soviets]? Zip. Nada. Not even a nasty letter. In FDR’s eyes, commies could do no wrong.
Zhukov’s comment proves exactly my point. If Stalin had been following advance plans for an attack on Germany then Zhukov would have known about this all along (since he would be one of the main people tasked with carrying it out) and hence he would never recommended something like this. He would already be under orders to strike first! Why should he recommend that the USSR strike first if the plan for that is already set?
Stalin was building up forces near the border with the assumption that they would be able to fight close to the border if Hitler made a first move. But Stalin never gave any order for the Soviet Army to make the first move. He was playing a wait-and-see game right up until the end.
I’m not sure that’s the best example you could have cited.
The very comprehensive 800 page Bellamy book does devote several pages to the Suvorov Hypothesis, treating it respectfully, mentioning some of its strengths, but arguing that it is largely “circumstantial”, with no solid proof provided. I would tend to agree, though the circumstantial case seems overwhelming. Since Suvorov has been radioactive for three decades in the Anglosphere, Bellamy might have gotten into very serious trouble if he’d said anything stronger.
Bellamy’s work has been reasonably described as the “authoritative” account of Soviet Russia’s role in WWII, but anyone looking at it would notice the total absence of any mention of Operation Pike. In spring 1940, Britain and France were on the very verge of launching a major attack on the USSR, preparing to unleash the largest strategic bombing offensive in world history, until Hitler’s sudden attack on France forestalled it:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/
For obvious reasons, this momentous and thoroughly-documented plan, which would have completely altered the course of WWII has been almost totally “disappeared” from all Western history books for 75 years, and it’s far more “radioactive” than Suvorov’s theory. Bellamy’s massive book doesn’t provide even a hint of it, while McMeekin gives it the full attention it deserves, and argues that Stalin’s associated decision at the time was probably the most important he ever made. So should we give greater trust to Bellamy or McMeekin regarding other matters?
I’ve also noticed that most of the commenters ridiculing and denouncing the Suvorov Hypothesis are individuals who also claim that the Soviets never committed the Katyn Massacre, which was just a German propaganda-hoax. Readers should decide for themselves what that says about their historical judgment and credibility regarding the Soviet role in WWII.
Come to think about it Germans did plan their march right after harvest time in Russia.
Come to think about it some more I have seen a German movie about soldier walking all the way from Kurks to Berlin with cow. He was leading cow through pastures. he had a little pot and he survived on the milk from cow. Nobody bothered him all the way going home.
So the rational move on Stalin’s part would have been to deploy the troops in defense in depth, and not to dismantle parts of the Stalin Line, demine fields and bridges and bring a large paratroop/glider force close to the western frontier.
The Red Army troops could certainly put up a ferocious and effective defense when provided a viable position- as at Brest.
A defensive deployment of forward air forces would have involved either dispersing the aircraft and camouflaging them- or having them far enough to the rear of the possible line of contact to avoid instant engagement with an opposing force, not having them sitting on their airfields in plain view. Almost the entire front line air force was destroyed on the first day or so of the invasion.
“More than half the troops of the Western Special Military District were stationed around Bialystok and to the west, therefore in territory extending like a wedge deeply into that of the probable enemy. A troop arrangement of this kind would only have been justifiable… if these troops had been earmarked to launch a surprise attack. Otherwise, half of them would have been surrounded in a moment…”
Enormous numbers of troops were surrounded very soon after the commencement of Barbarossa.
Beyond that, in a practical sense it was one of the biggest blunders in world history. Joseph Stalin was essentially transformed into a man of the Slavic peoples by Hitler’s arrogance. If more sane people like Ribbentrop had been in charge then the German war campaign would have been cast as a liberation of Russia from Stalin. Hitler sunk that possibility and thereby doomed himself.
There were relatively strong Communist parties all over Europe. Stalin did not need to attack Europe.
Stalin was not stupid. He did realize that all he had to do is wait.
That France and England wanted to attack Russia is only intention and it cannot be proved.
It does not seems logical. It was considerably easier to liquidate communist parties in their countries.
And English still to this day let the statue of Marks still stand.
The Hasbara trolls have been dancing the jig on this entire thread. Just consider these comments from that pompous ass FB:
I can’t help but notice that one of the most pathetic “commenters ridiculing and denouncing the Suvorov Hypothesis” is AnonFromTN, who bears the Ron Unz yellow star of “commenter of merit”. I am certain that other readers besides myself would love to hear precisely who the rest of Ron Unz’s “crew of Hitler fanboys” is besides AnonFromTN.
But the speed at which modern armies were able to move rendered it redundant overnight.
That makes a lot of sense. Still, the onslaught on the Soviet air force at the beginning of the Nazi offensive plays heavily on the other side of the balance. Air forces are by nature the fastest force to mobilize and to get into action in any emergency (I am an ignorant on these matters and even I know that) and yet they were also taken by surprise. i don’t remember statistics but I think that the number of Soviet airplanes destroyed on the ground only at the beginning of the offensive counted into the hundreds or even thousands. How could that even be possible, even agreeing with everything you wrote? And simple ignorance on the Soviet side is not a reason, they had had already two years to learn about the German Blitzkrieg, they had to know by June 1941 that airfields would be the first targets the Germans to go after.
This photograph really helps to illustrate that WWII was a war of Christian genocide driven by the Hebrew. It is important to note that whereas all the allies had Jewish barrier guards, the Waffen-SS had none.
I have no doubt that Franco considered very favorably the possibility of joining Hitler in his war when this last was still on his winning streak, but I have no doubt also that by Hendaya he had already seen the writing on the wall and made up his mind. While the “The Brits will never give up” argument could be just a spin to please his new Anglo Saxon masters after the war, my point is above all how skillfully he managed to get out without any harm from an extremely difficult and dangerous position. He owed Hitler and Hitler wasn’t a man who gave something for nothing and he wanted Spain in the war only because he wanted free pass through the peninsula so he could take the Brits from behind in Gibraltar and so close the Mediterranean. Franco knew that he was skiing on very thin ice because Hitler could have simply discarded all his (phony) excuses and give him an ultimatum: “either you let us go through to Gibraltar, or else…France 1940”. No matter what spin people on every side could have given to the Hendaya meeting there is no doubt that Franco had to be extremely clever, and daring, to have let Hitler come out of that meeting raging, with empty hands, and at the time preserving his won country of any future harm. I am not even a fan of the Caudillo, quite the opposite, but I have to recognize that in the occasion the man was a tactical genius.
He was probably also saved by Hitler’s essential lack of interest. My feeling is that had Hitler seriously wanted Spain in the war
I think you are wrong in both. First, for Hitler a sealing of the Mediterranean would have been a great strategic victory, as if would have not only cut Great Britain off from North Africa, and its oil, but also from the Suez Canal. As for having Spain in the war, that could have been only because of the aforementioned, not because he considered the Spanish Armed Forces of any value in such a big scale conflict. Most likely the Germans considered the Spanish no better than the Italian, if even so, and I don’t see what benefit they could have seen in fighting along with people among which there were still many concealed Communists who were just waiting for a favorable occasion. Maybe the reason why Hitler didn’t try anything against Franco it was simply something that he had always showed. He was very loyal to people on his side who were loyal to him, above all his fellow Fascists all over Europe. Like Mussolini for example. So much so that Himmler had to lie to him when telling him that Eric Rohm was betraying him to finally force him to move against his former WW1 buddy. They knew him well, that he would only act against a fellow Fascist if this last was betraying him and he didn’t see in any moment at Franco as doing that.
As well as pronouncing the Holodomor as a “hoax”.
When Spain agreed to form the ‘Blue Division’ there were immediately forty thousand volunteers. Obviously,some Spaniards found the prospect of more war tolerable.
Funny that you say that. Following on with the argument by many that Franco managed to fool Hitler in their Hendaya meeting into accepting that he wouldn’t get Spain into the war by pretending to be an illiterate, thick head peasant who didn’t understand the great stakes of a a world war, the Blue Division was the pity prize he would give him in the end, to console him of the disappointment. The sending of the Blue Division, to Eastern Europe and Stalingrad I think, served two useful purposes for Franco. First, as said, showed Hitler that his Spanish pal was earnest to participate in the war effort and then, even better, allowed him to get rid of a lot of hard line Fascists who could have been used by the Germans to destabilize him or even murder or topple him. I have no doubt that when Franco was waving Good Bye to those 40.000 heroes he was rather seeing it as getting rid of 40.000 possible pro-German conspirators and back stabbers.
I read that the Germans tried to abrogate it on the grounds that there was no longer a Polish state. Even so, they never treated Polish POWs as badly as Soviet ones.
Serbia accepted most of the terms which Austria-Hungary laid down in a way which the Kaiser Wilhelm II described as “a capitulation of the most humiliating character.” But Austria-Hungary was already determined on war and the Kaiser chose to support this as a way of humiliating Russia. If Wilhelm II had not backed the Austro-Hungarian monarchy everyone would simply have recalled the incident as a great diplomatic triumph for Austria-Hungary and there would have been no war. It’s hilarious the way that some accuse Britain of giving Poland a blank check after Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939, but they have no qualms about Wilhelm II giving Austria-Hungary the blank check which unleashed WWI in 1914.
>Verso knows the numbers! No one else knows the numbers! His numbers are better numbers!
>Completely, utterly (and pathetically) fails to cite even a single verifiable, relevant number anywhere in his rant.
Does the term “self-refuting argument” mean anything to you?
Here, I’ll cite more numbers that you did — 1 million “defensive” paratroopers.
By the Verso standard… I win!
Pages and pages of movie-script blather from you, gato.
Do you have any references for any of this dream-time opinion ?
You’re exaggerating a partial truth. Within the regions that were annexed by Moscow as part of the Hitler-Stalin pact, there was an effusive welcome for the Germans. As far as people in the Baltics were concerned, their war began with a Soviet invasion. The German entry was like a liberation. Even here it should be mentioned that Hitler largely spoiled his welcome, as laid out in Prit Buttar, Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II. But certainly none of the Baltic peoples ever swung around to supporting Stalin.
In the east Ukraine and Russia there were also some signs of this, but much less and wasted much more quickly by Hitler and Himmler. It’s funny that people bring up Vlasov when Himmler scorned him at Posen. It was only in July 1944 that Himmler finally decided to try to work with Vlasov. On September 16, Himmler finally met with Vlasov and Vlasov began bringing up Himmler’s pamphlet “The Subhuman” where he had poured his scorn for Slavs. Himmler decided to withdraw the pamphlet from circulation, but everything here was too late. The time for Himmler to do this was 2 years earlier in 1942.
I’ll readily grant that if people like Ribbentrop, Rosenberg and Goebbels had been in charge of Germany then the war could have a very different outcome. There’s no need to accept the more inflated atrocity claims about either Hitler or Stalin in order to realize that each of them went overboard at key moments in ways which opened a likely benefit to their opponent. But in the end it was Hitler who wasted more opportunities.
Speaking of propaganda from the Third Reich, it’s worth listing here the old piece from March 2009:
web.archjve.org
/web/20111107151436/www.nr2.ru/crimea/223417.html–SBU caught on tampering: in the exhibition about the famine used photos of the “Great Depression” in the U.S. (PHOTOS)
These were the types of faked photos which Dana Dalrymple and James Mace used frequently during the Cold War, except the Ukrainian government went one further. Instead of just using photos from the Russian famine of 1921-2 they actually took pics from the Great Depression in the USA as “Holodomor photos.” That’s what the propaganda of the Ukrainian government is worth.
The bit about the Geneva convention is something of a red herring. Signatory powers like Germany were obliged to respect its regulations on treatment of pows even in wars against states that hadn’t signed it.
It does however seem to be true that Polish pows weren’t treated as badly as Soviet pows. I can’t vouch for it 100%, but I’ve even read that Jewish officers of the Polish army who had been captured in 1939 survived the war in Wehrmacht custody (whereas the SD had access to prison camps holding Soviet pows and could select those they wanted to murder for racial or political reasons).
Do you have any references for any of this dream-time opinion ?
Hitler himself, professor. Hitler himself. Inform yourself about what his own collaborators said later of his words and mood after coming out of that Hendaya meeting. i think that “I’d rather have all my teeth pulled than to go on a meeting with this man again” and “How do Spaniards could have chosen such a guy (or peasant) as their leader…’? are words that speak for themselves.
No stupid. Partisans (aka terrorists) killed German troops and when Germans took revenge against the partisans, they inevitably also killed innocents. Of course, that was the Bolsheviks intent. They knew by not wearing uniforms they could not be identified and they also knew the Germans would take revenge and when doing so innocents would be killed. The Bolsheviks wanted that to turn the population against the Germans. An occupying army can not let people gun down its soldiers and not do anything and of course they do not want to kill those friendly to them, but inevitably some people friendly to the occupiers will also be killed. The Bolshevik goons knew this and wanted it. I’m sure those goons killed many more Belarusians after the war.
Translated from the Russian, the title of this video says “Belarusians joyfully welcome German liberators” See the large crowds welcoming the Germans and the large photos of Hitler on display.
Translated into English, the description of the video says “The documentary video refutes the myth that all Belarusians without exception fought in partisan detachments. Most Belarusians hated the Soviet regime and the Stalinist regime, like the rest of the peoples of the USSR. ” That is from a Russian speaker.”
President Putin says 80 to 85% of the Soviet government were Jews and no doubt it was their idea to ban Christianity, burn down churches and have priests murdered and nuns raped. They played a huge role in the secret police, many being commissars and they were the murderers at the Gulags.
In my opinion, the evidence that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive is overwhelming. I have summarized this evidence in Chapter One of my book “Germany’s War.” You can read it here at https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/.
Der Untermensch actually has very little explicit content on Slavs or Russians (Russians are only mentioned twice in it, both times as victims of Bolshevism). It’s mostly an antisemitic presentation of Bolshevik crimes and living conditions in the Soviet Union, with heavy emphasis put on “Jewish commissars”. I wrote more about it here:
https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/hitler-vs-the-untermenschen/?showcomments#comment-3724120
Anyway, of course anti-Russian racism was a factor in Germany’s war, and there were quite sinister plans for mass expulsions (maybe mass killings too) in case of a German victory; and there was even an attempt at mass expulsions from the Crimea while the war was still in progress. I still think matters may have been less clear-cut than is often supposed though, there were internal dissensions even among the Nazi leadership (as can be seen in the conflicts over mass expulsions versus forced assimilation in the annexed parts of Poland) which were never really resolved until the end of the war.
In the 1930s Germany was highly respected around the globe. The German language was one of the major languages of the world. If AH had been assassinated in 1943. Millions of Germans and Europeans would not have lost their lives. She would have retained much of her potential. It is even possible that some sort of a minor deal could have been employed. Even if much in terms of negotiation was not obtained she would not have been destroyed in the same manner. Most important today there would be millions of more Europeans. He was the biggest disaster in the history of Germania, regardless what anyone may try to imply.
I once asked someone about whether the Germans treated their Polish P.O.W.’s from 1939 properly.
Supposedly, they did; Poland had signed the Geneva Convention, you see.
So it would seem that racial theory notwithstanding, the Germans would treat Slavic prisoners properly if they felt legally obliged to.
They only pretended to follow the GC for the first year or two. Once it was a world war they started sending Polish POWs to German factories as slaves. That is a violation of the GC.
But even in 1939 the Polish POWs were never treated as well as the French or British.
I’ll also wonder if the Germans perceived the Commissars as Slavs — or as Jews? Was the Commissar Order an expression of animosity towards Slavs, or of Anti-Semitism? After all, a disproportionate number of the Commissars presumably were Jews.
A disproportionate number would certainly have been Jews.
In fact I think that the Commissar implied that Jewish prisoners were to be shot. From personal accounts it is clear that regular soldiers could shoot Jews or Commissars without any repercussions.
But the order specifies that the battle in the east is different and international law will be ignored:
In this battle mercy or considerations of international law is false. They are a danger to our own safety and to the rapid pacification of the conquered territories.
Hitler openly spoke of the Eastern war as a racial war against both Slavs and Jews. Leningrad was just a preview of what they had planned for all the Russian cities. They were going to give their grain to the Wehrmacht and starve them all.
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan
Mr. Unz, you say:
“I’ve also noticed that most of the commenters ridiculing and denouncing the Suvorov Hypothesis are individuals who also claim that the Soviets never committed the Katyn Massacre, which was just a German propaganda-hoax. Readers should decide for themselves what that says about their historical judgment and credibility regarding the Soviet role in WWII.”
I don’t know whom exactly do you mean when you say “individuals who also claim that the Soviets never committed the Katyn Massacre’” Can you mention one of these individuals? You certainly don’t mean me, because although I don’t believe the official version that the Russians committed the crime, I have also stressed at least a couple of times that I also don’t believe the other version: that it was the German Nazis who masterminded the mass executions. Clearly, I don’t belong to either group that you mention.
Of course, the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis on your blog have instantly jumped at me for daring to express my doubt about the now widespread dogma about Katyn. But I am not going to engage ever again the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis on your Blog—or any Nazis. For one thing, they are incapable of using basic logic: for instance, they assume automatically that because I don’t believe the official version, then I must believe the other version. They just cannot get it into their closed minds what I mean by saying that in political history I am a perennial agnostic, or at least a skeptic. Maybe they don’t know what “agnostic” means, yet another reason it doesn’t make any sense to argue with them about politics. And arguing with them would also insult not only my intelligence but also my humanity.
I assume, of course, you are not a Nazi. Still, your concluding remark indicates that you know something about Katyn that I don’t, since I have suspended my judgment, and you haven’t.
Well, what DO YOU KNOW about Katyn, Mr. Unz? Other than maybe having read through a Wikipedia version of the events. Do you, just to give you one example, know that almost all bullets and casings found in the Katyn graves were German-made? Have you ever even considered reading any of the counter-evidence so meticulously presented by Prof. Furr? Have you ever checked out the Russian Blog “The Truth about Katyn”?
It was apparently President Gorbachev who said that truth doesn’t really matter in politics. Well, sure, I’d agree. And more: because, like Thoreau, I claim that politics is not concerned with truth but with expediency. However, I am not a politician, and politics to me is “the cigar-smoke of a man.” So I will continue to look for truth. And this is my final comment here.
This photograph really helps to illustrate that WWII was a war of Christian genocide driven by the Hebrew. It is important to note that whereas all the allies had Jewish barrier guards, the Waffen-SS had none.
It is important to note that Hitler aligned with the Japanese and they later massacred a bunch of 18 year olds in Hawaii.
Then Hitler declared war against the US even though he wasn’t required to by the Tripartite Pact. He only had to come to the aid of the Japanese if they were attacked.
Hitler loved Aryans so much that he signed a pact with the Japanese.
You do understand what “reference” means, don’t you gato ?
It means a verifiable link to a reputable academic source, preferably with the exact quote you desire to buttress your point.
So not eg wiki or not whatever you think or wish had actually happened; the word actually means what really happened (“en realidad”).
Nor whatever you dream up while smoking a joint, for example.
Also, and you may be genuinely shocked to hear this, but there are people posting on forums who are paid by outside interests to obfuscate and prevent truth from emerging … there are sayanim who do this for free to (as they think) “protect Jewry”.
{“No stupid. Partisans (aka terrorists) killed German troops “}
Yes: troglodyte Schweinehund
I didn’t insult you in my post, Nazi pig.
But since you, a vile Nazi pig, resorted to insulting me, then I am game.
{“Partisans (aka terrorists)”}
Soviet Partisans, the owners of the lands the Nazi terrorist scum had invaded, were exterminating invading terrorist vermin, like the sewer rats that they were.
{“killed German troops “}
Executed genocidal Nazi vermin.
Criminal invaders.
And here, you Schweinehund filth: have a gander of the Nazi pigs cut to chunks of pork, fertilizing the rich soil of Mother Russia. Enjoy.
Heil, mein Führer!
Sieg Heil!
[Nazi invader Schweinehund dead at Stalingrad]
Haven’t read Chris Bellamy, but reviews of ‘Absolute War’ seem impressive. Thanks for mentioning him.
What was Bellamy’s conclusion?
Göbbels conversations with Hitler and the latter’s press instructions (none mentioned Soviet invasion threat until weeks after campaign – and only then instructed by the Führer), along with battlefield accounts (Manstein et.al.) do not support the ‘Stalin was ready to invade’ thesis. Hitler’s 22 June 1941 “The Führer to the German People” nowhere mentions it.
Barbarossa was the fulfilment not only of Hitler’s well-documented ‘lebensraum’ agenda, but also of Hindenburg/Ludendorff’s Carthaginian Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 Mar 1918). Brest-Litovsk claimed 1 million acres populated by 50 million, 33% railroads, 73% of iron, 5,000 factories, 90% of coal mines, 6 billion marks, etc. Versailles was lenient in comparison.
Hitler’s promise to regain land lost by evil ‘Versailles’ included Russian spoils claimed in a lost war (which, of course, Hitler, Hindenburg, Ludendorff claimed they won, seducing a new generation of German cannon-fodder).
How to answer a manifold question?
‘Revisionism’ in my day was a scarlet label, likened to heresy (or Hester Prynne’s bastard child). It’s now in vogue, legitimizing (usually without proof) alternative theory as ‘history’. From this, outcasts leverage power and dispute fact. Anarchy?
Doubtless there are as many motives as ‘revisionists’. Many probably enjoy the titillation of tweaking established accounts without really having any expertise, definitive argument or (most important) responsibility. Kind of like little Senator Randy Paul, libertarian curmudgeon and self-styled bomb-throwing savior of the realm.
Donald J. Trump, with his Dolchstoßlegende, is, of course, currently the prime ‘revisionist’. A master at exciting cult following (most apt to swallow fringe conspiracy theories). All to assuage his ego and excuse abject failure.
I have no answer to your question iffen. Consolation:
Stay well iffen.
The Katyń massacre was just another example of what the Nazi Germans called Intelligenzaktion. (A genocidal policy to eliminate Polish elites.)
Why would the Nazis dig the bodies up and invite neutral pathologists from the Red Cross to investigate? Answer: To embarrass the allies over what they were certain was a Soviet war crime.
I am a perennial agnostic when it comes to political history. But perhaps one day, more evidence will surface about what really happened in the Katyń forest.
What more you do you need?
The personal belongings of the soldiers and decay of the bodies matched the timeline of the Soviet occupation and their disappearance.
The Soviet Union already took responsibility for it.
This is old news and was never a mystery. The US didn’t want to investigate immediately after the war which tells you everything.
As was his choice of a Walther PPK 7.65mm to exit the world (after poisoning his new frau and killing millions).
It’s a beautiful pistol. Remarkable Walther doesn’t advertise reliability citing the Führer blowing his brains out in the bunker. What are they thinking?
Laurent,
I do not see any first-hand accounts in your ref. list. The inflation of references to Meekin, or whatever his name is, makes the reading tedious. I would recommend reading Hitler’s order No. 21 cf.
https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1940/unternehmen-barbarossa-18-12-1949.php
if you can read german, which I doubt very much. In the text above, there is not a single sentence mentioning that Stalin or whoever plans an attack on Germany. This is odd, as it would have provided a logical step for a German attack and some justification for making the preparations for Unternehmen Barbarossa. May I recommend Mein Kampf, where you may find some answers to the conundrum?
{“I don’t know whom exactly do you mean when you say “individuals who also claim that the Soviets never committed the Katyn Massacre’” Can you mention one of these individuals? “}
I remember one particular post where gold-star poster [AnonFromTN] argued that Soviets could not have done Katyn, because supposedly the bullets recovered were of German make. I have read [AnonFromTN]’s posts for a long time, and he is well informed and usually very thoughtful.
So I don’t know the reason he said that about the bullets.
I don’t know either way, but know that President Putin acknowledged that Katyn was done by USSR, and blamed Stalin’s regime.
[Symbolic acknowledgment of culpability over Katyn murders in 1940 signals Russia’s willingness to face up to its past]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/26/russian-parliament-guilt-katyn-massacre
bronek, we don’t disagree at all.
I do try to distinguish Hitler the domestic politician from Hitler the disastrous foreign adventurer, Had he had the wisdom to step aside after, say, 1938, he might have earned a respectable place in history with, perhaps, cautions for his unsavory methods. His foreign affairs ineptitude and massive unwisdom keep him in memory.
It is even possible that some sort of a minor deal could have been employed.
I sort of sketchily recall reading a British essay that speculated on the possibility of a pact with Nazi Germany as late as May 1940, on the non-negotiable condition that Hitler remove himself, or be removed, from power. I don’t recall details, unfortunately. I think the idea was to strengthen the nationalist-conservative elements who were at least nominally in opposition to the chancellery popinjay.
The decadence of today bears strange and rather disgusting fruits. Soon we may learn from progressive historians that Hitler was a transvestite and his only dream was to appear as a dancer in the Kirov Leningrad Academic Opera and Ballet Theatre.
but anyone looking at it would notice the total absence of any mention of Operation Pike.
For whatever reasons you place a great significance on this. I would say that if it could be discovered that they did not have such a plan then that would be significant. It would mean that the planners then were as incompetent as the ones we have now.
You’re really quite the typical Nazi bonehead.
Resistors of an illegal occupation are not classified as ‘terrorists’ by anybody, and the WW2 resistance movements are seen by no country as illegitimate in any way. In fact they are heroes in every country across Europe where they bravely fought the Nazi swine.
Twenty-seven million Russians were killed by Nazis, most of them civilians. When the Red Army finally crushed the Nazi swine and the loony Gefreiter blew his silly brains out, nothing could have stopped the Soviets from destroying Germany completely—and nobody would have blamed them. In fact the US plan [see Morgenthau Plan] was exactly that, to completely deindustrialize the Ruhr and split the country into pieces.
Map of the 1944 Morgenthau Plan, which would have seen Germany totally demilitarised and divided into three areas: a Northern state, a Southern state, and a de-industrialised International Zone in the west, administered by ‘an international security organization, to be established by the United Nations.’
The International Zone included the Ruhr area, regarded as Germany’s industrial heartland, and the important naval port of Kiel. The intention was to prevent Germany from ever again being able to develop military industry or wage war. In addition, the Saar region and surrounding area was to be ceded to France; most of Silesia and southern East Prussia to Poland; northern East Prussia to the USSR; and northern Schleswig to Denmark.
It was Stalin who rejected the dismemberment of Germany. At the Potsdam Conference of July and August of 1945, he insisted:
Stalin insisted on a ‘central administrative apparatus for Germany.’ It was Stalin who insisted that the following statement be included in the final document, Potsdam Conference Resolution:
—Tehran – Yalta – Potsdam, Collection of documents, compiled by: W. P. Sanakoev, B. L. Cybulski. 1970; page 416
How very different from the bestial Nazi plan for ‘lebensraum’, exterminating or deporting ‘subhuman’ Slavs, or the Hunger Plan that was put into action and starved millions, as the Nazi swine carted off trainloads of foodstuffs and livestock back to Germany.
Yes, the Partisans had every right to cut those Nazi swine down wherever they could find them, and they managed to do just that quite often—not only in Russia, but in every other Nazi-occupied country in Europe.
The mountain of crimes committed by these mostly mentally-ill Nazi criminals is what prompted the harsh US retribution in the final days of the war, with the aerial bombing, the lengthy internment of prisoners postwar [I know one Messerschmidt pilot who spent SEVEN YEARS in a camp in France, after the war had ended], and the intention to dismember Germany.
Nobody but the mentally ill clowns on this website could even attempt to try to find any mitigating factors in favor of these criminals—history’s biggest losers.
Joseph Goebbels, his wife Magda, and their six children, all of them poisoned by Goebbels before his own and Magda’s suicide. Edited into the photo in the back is Goebbels’ stepson, Harald Quandt, who was the sole family member to survive the war.
I still think matters may have been less clear-cut than is often supposed though, there were internal dissensions even among the Nazi leadership (as can be seen in the conflicts over mass expulsions versus forced assimilation in the annexed parts of Poland) which were never really resolved until the end of the war.
Their plans for Poland were clear-cut.
They had already started the process of eliminating them as a state. They planned on turning Warsaw into a small German town (See Pabst Plan).
This was all planned before 1939. The Germans were insulted that Poland existed and planned to eliminate them. It was all to become Lebensraum. They had drawn up future maps of Germany where Poland didn’t exist.
Oh really?
Only a real sucker can believe what economists expect.
I didn’t deny that, read my comment.
I really should stop commenting on those idiotic WW2 threads on UR. Between the various pro-Nazi “Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong” loons (attracted to this site by the Holocaust denial and antisemitism) on the one hand, various Soviet chauvinists (attracted by the “Russia stronk” articles) and obsessively anti-German Anglos (who go on and on not just about WW2, but about WW1 too) on the other, this is a congregation of cretins. Total waste of time.
Stalin was a guileful statesman and it’s no wonder he’s so popular today with ‘tankies’. He had many attributes seen today as ‘conservative’. Though a Georgian, he was a resolute Russian nationalist and his litany of ‘crimes’ are not too dissimilar to those of other leaders who embarked on crash course industrialization programmes to prevent being colonized by the western european powers.
The German military leaders insisted after the war that they had found colossal stores of ammunition and stores they associated with offensive action.
However, the Glanz works stress the fact that the Soviets, after purging their top military leadership (it is an open question how effective Tukhahevsky might have been had he remained in command or had his doctrines been put into pratice) were training an entire new officer cadre unquestioningly loyal to the regime. They were very much not ready by summer of 1941 as can be readily seen. Also, the Soviets suffered from extreme shortages of equipment like radios. Glanz, though he is guilty for contributing to a historiographical over-correction, did a good job of demonstrating how the Soviet military managed to overcome a period of rampant mismanagement to hold off the German Army until the Americans could sufficiently distract them in other directions.
The German commanders like Guderian promoted the idea that the Soviets were mindless robots like Tolkien’s endless waves of filthy vicious and stupid orcs. Post Glasnost, the Soviets were suddenly geniuses and the Suvarov thesis is part of this historiographical tendency. Reading accounts of the Soviet German conflict post Glanz/Suvarov it is difficult to imagine the Germans being able to tie their shoes properly, so far ahead of them were Stalin and the Red Army. It’s not too dissimilar to American war movies were the Germans can’t shoot straight unless they are shooting civilians into a ditch. Stalin and Hitler both thought they were playing the other for a fool but they were both victimized by England and its big daddy across the sea.
No, you’re entirely mistaken. The massive archival evidence for Operation Pike is simply overwhelming. Just read Osborn’s 250 page monograph or the first 3,000 words of my own article:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/
The plans for a huge Allied attack against the USSR obviously constituted an “embarrassment” after they became wartime allies in 1941, so the facts were “disappeared” from virtually all Western history books for 75 years, with McMeekin being almost the first historian to finally mention them in three generations.
That demonstrates the remarkable lapses in the “standard narrative” of WWII, and greatly strengthens McMeekin’s credibility on all other matters.
Wow. Unz’s continuous harping about ‘Operation Pike’ which was never put into action only has to raise serious question about whether he understands the very first thing about military historiography.
If he did know that very first thing, he would know that the archives are literally full to the brim with all kinds of military plans—al of them contingencies, because that is what the military does: they prepare for ANY possible scenario.
How many people today know about War Plan Red?
The British likewise planned contingencies for a war with the US in the 1930s.
Even Canada, during this era had a formal plan for war with the US, Defence Scheme Number One.
The plan envisaged a surprise INVASION of the US:
There was also Operation Unthinkable, a hypothetical war against the Soviet Union in 1945.
This is just a drop in the bucket of such military plans that never came to be. Again, it is completely routine to plan for any possible contingency, when you are tasked with the nation’s security. It would be negligent not to.
But Mr Unz would have us believe McMeekin’s clownish ruminations about a run of the mill contingency plan, which are a dime a dozen, is setting our entire understanding of WW2 history on its ear. And that’s what makes Clown McMeekin so ‘special.’
‘Funny that you say that. Following on with the argument by many that Franco managed to fool Hitler in their Hendaya meeting into accepting that he wouldn’t get Spain into the war by pretending to be an illiterate, thick head peasant who didn’t understand the great stakes of a a world war, the Blue Division was the pity prize he would give him in the end, to console him of the disappointment. The sending of the Blue Division, to Eastern Europe and Stalingrad I think, served two useful purposes for Franco. First, as said, showed Hitler that his Spanish pal was earnest to participate in the war effort and then, even better, allowed him to get rid of a lot of hard line Fascists who could have been used by the Germans to destabilize him or even murder or topple him. I have no doubt that when Franco was waving Good Bye to those 40.000 heroes he was rather seeing it as getting rid of 40.000 possible pro-German conspirators and back stabbers…’
I think that behind your arguments is a certain anachronism.
You assume that, like you, Franco realized Hitler was the bad man, and that he was sure to lose.
I don’t think it looked that way in 1940-41 — and I’m even more skeptical it looked that way to Franco.
Franco’s behavior was rational, and it certainly worked out for the best, but I think you misunderstand his perspective. For example, in point of fact, he didn’t let all those volunteers go off to immolate themselves in Russia (something there was no reason to think would happen in the Summer of 1941). He slammed the brakes on the size of the contingent — hard — and allowed only about a third of them to go off. I would propose that whatever his sentiments, absent guarantees from Germany of adequate food and fuel deliveries, he didn’t want to provoke Britain and the United States any more than necessary. Some Machiavellian scheme to get rid of putatively undesirable anti-Communist militants had nothing to do with it.
Almost everything in this article is false.
Nothing but a script for a war movie.
Will we ever get the truth to the mainstream media and education system?
‘…They were going to give their grain to the Wehrmacht and starve them all.’
Meh. I’ve read this argument before. It seems to be a product of the rather repellant masochism of what passes for historiography in modern Germany.
Appealing as it might be to argue that the Germans sinisterly planned to starve all the Russians to death by forcing them to give all their grain to the Wehrmacht, it all doesn’t stand up to statistical analysis.
You’re going to starve over a hundred million people to death by forcing them to feed four million soldiers? Just how much were you going to make each soldier eat?
‘…I really should stop commenting on those idiotic WW2 threads on UR. Between the various pro-Nazi “Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong” loons (attracted to this site by the Holocaust denial and antisemitism) on the one hand, various Soviet chauvinists (attracted by the “Russia stronk” articles) and obsessively anti-German Anglos (who go on and on not just about WW2, but about WW1 too) on the other, this is a congregation of cretins. Total waste of time.’
I agree with you to a large extent –but be fair. It’s no worse than your average You-Tube video thread.
There are actually a lot of good comments. You just have to skip past the ones that are manifestly idiotic.
We’ve yet to come to terms with Hitler. It’s interesting. We can have a largely dispassionate, informed discussion of Genghis Khan or Napoleon. Even Stalin will only require a certain amount of filtering of the loons. Churchill? We could certainly have a balanced discussion of Churchill.
…but even the best of us have a hard time keeping our passions, prejudices, and inhibitions from governing what we have to say about Hitler. Seventy six years after his death, it’s still difficult to even get a clear look at the man.
By 1941, the Red Army was in no condition to conduct large-scale offensive operations. It had neither the training, equipment, mobility, nor the readiness to attack westward. It’s a fantasy.
The Katyn Massacre simply reaffirms that the Soviets lied, lied, and lied some more about WWII. Maskirovka. Finally, in 2010 Mr. Putin had the manliness and statesmanship to accept responsibility for the atrocity.
However, According to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group – probably not an entirely objective source – Russia has been stepping away from Putin’s earlier acknowledgement:
http://khpg.org/en/1588896084
It is only because the Katyn victims were Polish officers and intelligentsia that the world even learned about the slaughter.
By contrast, untold numbers of uncelebrated souls who were Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Kazakh and other Soviet nationalities met a similar fate at the hands of the Bolsheviks and the NKVD – a bullet in the back of the head.
You ignorant moron. You haven’t bothered reading any of the documentation.
Operation Pike wasn’t a “contingency plan.” The British and French were already illegally overflying Soviet airspace and selecting specific bombing targets. They were negotiating with Turkey to join in the attack against the USSR. They were preparing to use the Polish exile forces in part of the attack.
A few months earlier, they’d been about to ship several divisions to Scandinavia to fight the Soviets in Finland when Stalin quickly negotiated a peace to end the Winter War, presumably because his spies had informed him of the large scheduled military movement.
McMeekin makes the very interesting point that Stalin’s decision to quickly seek peace with Finland in early 1940 was probably the most important of his entire career. Otherwise, Britain and France would have been engaged in large-scale combat against the USSR, while still maintaining a “fake war” with Germany. The consequences for the course of WWII would have been enormous.
Maybe that’s a good idea. You don’t seem to know anything and all you do is spout stale propaganda that was already stupid 80 years ago, and even so you might “get into trouble” by your commenting.
For example, the former head of the German secret service was caught merely linking to an article on our website, and there’s now supposedly talk of prosecuting him:
“Link to Unz Review Causes Big Controversy in Germany – Because of Anti-Semitism – Hans-Georg Maaßen – Former Chief of the German Secret Service Accused of Linking to the Unz-Review”
https://www.welt.de/regionales/thueringen/article231110593/Neubauer-konkretisiert-Antisemitismus-Vorwuerfe-gegen-Maassen.html?cid=onsite.onsitesearch
(I don’t read German, so I can’t vouch for the contents of the article.)
Aren’t you the one constantly complaining “Germany ruined Europe” even when the majority of mass mass migration started decades earlier under British and French leadership?
“You do understand what “reference” means, don’t you gato ?
It means a , preferably with the exact quote you desire to buttress your point”.
Oh, you mean, say, some Doctor MacBride or some Emeritus professor McMillan from Yale, Oxford, Harvard of Cambridge or some other Anglo institution of high learning weaving the Official Anglo Saxon Spin on the Events of WW2. I don’t care much about eminences from any university, anyway, as when it comes to the story of WW2 told by Anglo Saxons I have already very good references in the works of such notable chroniclers as Anthony Beever, Ian Kershaw, John Toland, William Shirer, James P. O’Donnel and others that i don’t recall at this moment. I pretty much trust what they wrote and I don’t remember any of them having ever disputed the narrative I am giving about the Hendaya summit, and I may have even learned about it from one of them, but I can’t be sure of that. In any case the quote “I’d rather have my teeth pulled rather than go through that (the meeting with Franco) again” pops out more than a few times in my past reading. As I said before also, Hitler wanted Spain in the war and Franco denied him that, even when Hitler was at the height of his power, and the Caudillo got away with it. That could have only been because Franco refused at the end to get his country into the war. Facts and reality (the one you talk about) speak louder than the voices of academics and scholars.
About the Official Anglo Saxon Spin on WW2, at least when it comes to Spanish-German relations I tried to give it a chance, I really tried, but after having found some pieces of nonsense I had to give up, another reason not to take it seriously. See, according to some of your eggheads, Franco and his Foreign Minister were convinced until its the stages of the war that Hitler would win it and they really, really, really wanted to be part of it. According to another one, everything was ruined because Von Ribbentrop and Franco’s bro in law, Franco Ramón Serrano Súñer, hated so much each other that their mutual hatred ruined the entire enterprise. In any case I get you, what you mean by “verifiable link to a reputable academic source”, it means some Western egghead peddling the Official Anglo Saxon Spin on Events. After all, what is so wrong about making appear the Spanish dictator far more of a Hitler and Nazi enthusiast than he ever was…?
The Kaiser did only support the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia as long as it would cause a general European war; the Kaiser did not support war between Austria and Russia. On the contrary, he begged his cousin the Czar to end the general mobilization of the Imperial Russian army which had already begun before the Austrian declaration of war against Serbia. How does that fit in with your contention that he wanted to humiliate Russia? Where does this idea originate?
The initial support given to Austria was to strengthen Austria’s case against Servia, and the wording given in a time of outrage over the murder of the Austrian heir of the throne. Servia was a constant source of unrest, agitation and menace. At the time Austria declared war on Servia, Germany, recognizing the rapidly increasing risk of war, was vigorously attempting to restrain Austria and agree to negotiations.
Poincare, on the other hand, gave Russia a free hand with respect to the Svian crisis and promised full French support. Why was Russia involving herself in a crisis between Austria-Hungary and Servia over the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, and in which the Servian government was involved (at first strongly suspected, and strongly suggested by circumstance, and definitely proven later).
Harry Elmer Barnes writes in his booklet Who started the First World War? at the end of Chapter III: ” But a better analogy can be found by asking what the United States would have done if, about July 4, 1901, Mr. Roosevelt and his wife had been assassinated at El Paso, Texas, by Americans of Mexican blood who were members of a notorious Mexican secret society given over to plotting against the United States and whose murder of Mr. Roosevelt had been immediately proclaimed in the Mexican papers as a noble and laudable patriotic act? It is hoped that there is no reader naive enough to suspect that we would even have waited for any diplomatic exchanges whatever before racing our soldiers into Mexico!”
Are you, Patrick McNally, one such naive reader of history?
As an aside::
Had in 1939 Italy not leaked to England that in a possibly conflict between Germany and Poland she would stand aside, perhaps the war party in London would have informed Poland of Germany’s proposals to pacify the German-Polish border instead of keeping the Poles ignorant of these proposals and whipping them on in their dash to war.
Not sure how true your position on Franco’s ww2 stance.
Military History Visualized did a good video on this
‘have no doubt that Franco considered very favorably the possibility of joining Hitler in his war when this last was still on his winning streak, but I have no doubt also that by Hendaya he had already seen the writing on the wall and made up his mind…’
In this case, our difference is relatively minor.
You would put the change of heart in the Fall of 1940. I would place it in the winter of 1941 — after the US had entered the war and it had become clear that Barbarossa had failed.
However, Franco wasn’t prescient. As late as 1943, he was hoping for a negotiated peace. His great fear — understandably — was of a triumphant Communism. He didn’t think of Hitler as the bad man, and he didn’t want him to lose. It’s just that Spain’s interests came first.
You assume that, like you, Franco realized Hitler was the bad man, and that he was sure to lose.
Speaking of twisting things to feed and strengthen your own narrative, Anglo Saxon, I never wrote that “Franco realized at some point that Hitler was the bad man so he had to lose war”. War and the real world are not like some stupid war flick out of Hollywood. Franco may have seen Hitler as a saint and martyr at that point for all we know, but it is clear that he had already considered him as the loser of WW2. Don’t twist my words.
Some Machiavellian scheme to get rid of putatively undesirable anti-Communist militants had nothing to do with it.
And there you go against twisting the meaning of what I wrote, trying to feed your own narrative. Franco knew that many Spanish fascists were more Hitlerists than Franquists as Fascism (the same as Communism) was, and probably still is, an international cause and ideology, one that doesn’t recognize international borders so it would have been perfectly logical and rational for many of them Franquistas to topple El Caudillo if that was perceived by then in the interest of “la causa”. The same also for Communists. For example, when Germany defeated and occupied France in 1940 the French Communists were put in a difficult position, because on one hand Germany was now their national enemy yet Germany was also more or less ally of the Soviet Union. They solved this conundrum simply blaming the “British plutocrats in London” for having provoked this unpleasantness between both countries. Of course all that changed in June 22 1941, when the German occupiers became from one day to the next the “rabid Fascist dogs unleashed by the madman in Berlin” . This proves that for many at the time in Europe ideology and political identity were far more important than nationality and that is something I guess Franco knew far better than you.
In any case, the intellectual dishonesty I was talking about in your line lies in that such wasn’t the perspective from which Franco was seeing those departing Franquistas. He has rather seeing them as possible anti-Franquistas if things took a left turn in his relations with Hitler and Germany.
‘…Franco and his Foreign Minister were convinced until its the stages of the war that Hitler would win it and they really, really, really wanted to be part of it…’
Well, Franco and his foreign minister were two different folks.
As to being a part of it, I don’t think Franco had any objections to that in principle.
It’s just that he wasn’t prepared to risk it until he could be confident of the outcome, and being by nature an extremely cautious sort of fellow, that moment never came. However, I’ll insist that had Hitler offered more and pushed harder, that moment could have come.
Parenthetically, one of the obstacles from Hitler’s point of view was that French and Spanish interests clashed. Much of what Spain wanted would have to come at French expense. Hitler could only promise Spain what she wanted if he was prepared to alienate France.
Faced with this conundrum — and with the difficulty of negotiating with Franco — Hitler kind of wandered off and got involved in the planning for Barbarossa. But had Spain coming into the war been central to his plans, I think he would have been able to bring Spain into the war.
Also parenthetically, I think there’s a definite irony in Franco being so widely reviled in Spain. It’s hard to imagine who else could have brought Spain through the war without winding up joining one side or the other — with catastrophic results for Spain.
‘By 1941, the Red Army was in no condition to conduct large-scale offensive operations. It had neither the training, equipment, mobility, nor the readiness to attack westward. It’s a fantasy…
Yeah, but…
Is that what Stalin thought? As he demonstrated throughout the war, he was perfectly capable of demanding that unprepared troops carry out hopeless attacks. In my opinion, it was his specialty.
So sure, Russia was definitely not ready to roll in the Summer of 1941. That doesn’t prove Stalin wouldn’t have ordered it to try.
Personally, as I’ve said, I’ll put my money on der Tag coming in 1942 — but it could have happened in 1941. Stalin would have been perfectly capable of demanding that the attack take place then.
Your pathetic inability to even attempt an answer to a single one of my very simple, straightforward questions is very typical of ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists.
Your meaningless blabbering can be accurately summarized as “John Johnson doesn’t care about the truth because semitic supremacism ‘justifies’ any massacre of goyim.”
Sad!
Partizans almost exclusively concentrated on German supply lines. Railroads and Truck ways..
Partizans were very successful. German supply lines were very vulnerable and German army had to sacrifice considerable manpower for supply lines protection. Still the damage inflicted by Partizans was huge.
Whatever else may be said, I think it is reasonable to expect a government to refrain from deliberately starving several million prisoners to death.
Since you clearly believe that the judeobolsheviks were somehow “morally superior” to the Germans, what actual evidence can you cite to support your ludicrously-counterfactual claim that the bolsheviks did not massacre millions of Germans? If, as you claim, the judeobolsheviks fully intended to treat their POWs in a humane fashion… did they sign the Geneva convention? Did they allow Red Cross access to their death camps? Why or why not?
Your pathetic inability to even attempt an answer to my other simple, straightforward questions is also noted.
‘‘…all through the occupied territories the Partisan resistance was very strong, and supported by all the people…’
That’s not even related to the truth.
‘…Since you clearly believe that the judeobolsheviks were somehow “morally superior” to the Germans, what actual evidence can you cite to support your ludicrously-counterfactual claim that the bolsheviks did not massacre millions of Germans? ‘
? When did I ever claim that?
You seriously mistake my views.
Judeoboshevik apologists, like all semitic supremacists, are easily triggered when the goyim question their “moral judgment” — no matter how patently insane that “judgment” is.
Note also the clearly ludicrous– but strongly asserted — “I can read Hitler’s mind and (((psychoanalyze))) him from thousands of miles away and across 80 years of time!”
Delusions of mind-reading ability are, of course, characteristic of toxic semitism. Next he’s gonna tell us he’s literally God. I’m not kidding, by the way — extreme ethnonarcissism overlaps quite a bit with pathological narcissism/ delusions of grandeur on the individual level.
For example — was anyone surprised to find out that this ignorant, hate-filled individual with delusions of divinity turned out to be yet another genocidally anti-White, virulently Christophobic, fanatically Iran-hating neocon MOT? Not me.
“So not eg wiki or not whatever you think or wish had actually happened; the word actually means what really happened (“en realidad”).
Nor whatever you dream up while smoking a joint, for example”
Some of them dopeheads are nevertheless more honest and closer to the truth than any of your well paid eggheads that are there in academia to peddle an official narrative already written for them. I would be surprised if even one of those eggheads know something about Francisco Franco that every Latin american living in the 60s & 70s in the continent knew very well. That one of the best friends he had in Latin America in that era was none other than…Fidel Castro, Communist leader of Cuba. And one of the main reasons why he felt so close to Fidel Castro, other than they were both Jesuit-educated Gallegos, is that Franco admired the chutzpah and courage of the Cuban leader at having stolen back, under the very nose of the empire, the former Spanish colony first stolen at gunpoint by Theodore Roosevelt in 1989.
“Another reason for this Franco-Castro brotherhood was the United States. Both Franco and Fidel hated the North American country, the first because of the defeat of the Spanish army in 1898 at the hands of the Americans, in which Spain lost its last colonies: Cuba and the Philippines. And the second, because the Americans were besieging Cuba: an embargo on its exports, a failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs or the missile crisis.
Therefore, mutual hatred for the United States especially strengthened relations between Castro and Franco. And it is that Franco’s Spain was the only European country that did not support the economic embargo of the United States on Cuba…..Iberia lines came and went, Pegasus buses circulated through the streets of Cuba and even Spanish toys were not lacking on the island”
All that was well known in Latin America in those years, where Pegasus buses were a common sight in cities and towns so I don’t think I have to give any egghead as reference for it. Why is this of at least some importance…? Because it would prove right what many Franco fans have always argued, that he was a Nationalist rather than a Fascist, that for him the interest of Spain was above all. And if that was his priority in the 60s and 70s, the same should have been for the 30s and 40s.
Franco did understand that he does not own Hitler very much. He realized that Hitler have seen only good opportunity to test his Luftwaffe in actual combat. And on top of it giving Hitler some military units could result in Communist uprising again. I do not think that Hitler pressurized Franco too much.
It is amazing how the lie that Russian mobilization started before Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia is perpetuated. Austria declared war on 28 July 1914 and immediately bombarded Belgrade. Russia started mobilization on 30 July after the refusal of the suggestion of Tsar Nicholas that the ‘Austro-Serbian problem’ be handed over to the Hague conference and rejection of British proposals for mediation.
There are some other indications of what Germany was planning, drawn from Fritz Fischer’s studies on the ‘War Aims of Germany’:
”On July 28 Bethmann Hollweg had offered Turkey definitive terms for an alliance guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity vis-a-vis Russia if Turkey would place her army under German military command in case of war and would further bind herself to take Germany’s side if Russia entered the war as a belligerent. On July 30 the negotiations were resumed more intensively with the aim of making Turkey the base for a war of revolution in the grand style against Britain. The results of this turn of policy were the surprisingly quick conclusion of a German-Turkish alliance on August 2 and the despatch of the German cruisers Goeben and Breslau to Constantinople. On July 30 and 31 preparations began to stir up revolt in the Caucasus and especially Poland, and thus to initiate the revolution against the conservative imperial power of the Romanovs which ended in the revolutionising of east-central Europe….On August 2 Moltke sketched out to Bethmann Hollweg the outlines of Germany’s plans for revolution: Turkey was to be made the basis of operations in India, Egypt and Persia, Japan was to be supported and induced to ally herself with Germany in return for recognition of the Far East as a Japanese sphere of interest, the Union of South Africa was to be subverted and Scandinavia neutralised, if not drawn into alliance with the Central Powers; similarly, the situation in the Balkans, Belgium and Italy was to be clarified without delay…
‘…In any case, the intellectual dishonesty I was talking about in your line lies in that such wasn’t the perspective from which Franco was seeing those departing Franquistas. He has rather seeing them as possible anti-Franquistas if things took a left turn in his relations with Hitler and Germany.’
And this is why he limited how many could leave? You’re not making any sense.
‘…It is hoped that there is no reader naive enough to suspect that we would even have waited for any diplomatic exchanges whatever before racing our soldiers into Mexico!”’
It’s actually been suggested that if Austria had simply promptly attacked Serbia after the June 28th assassination rather than waiting a month while everyone took sides that the more general conflagration could have been avoided.
Welt.de is one of the official BRD mainstream media outlets, it is “authentic” enough to report what actually “happened”, as in who got arrested, who gets what, etc.
Yeah, between the Holohoax and the various one ball, niece fucking woman like gossip made by allies “men”, I wonder why?
Yes, yes, they should have been raped and tortured by bolshelvil mongol slav(e)ic subhumans instead. Facing justice like all huwhiteteys should in front of BLM.
Stalin was a guileful statesman and it’s no wonder he’s so popular today with ‘tankies’. He had many attributes seen today as ‘conservative’.
Killing people that questioned Communism.
Killing Christians.
Killing business owners.
Killing scientists that studied genetics.
Killing military officers.
Yea a real conservative.
You could say he was conservative just like you could say a duck is an astronaut.
Only a real sucker can believe what economists expect.
Well Hitler’s chief economist was right the entire time (and Hitler ignored him) so I guess it depends on which one you listen to.
Just a small thing. I don’t think that our host was really looking for an easy win and round of applause from “[his] crew of Hitler fanboys” when publishing Guyénot’s piece. He just tends to get carried away in his enthusiasm for revisionist history. But this stems from a healthy distrust of official accounts. It’s just that amongst so much propaganda passing from scholarship, it is not easy to separate valuable revisionims from BS. Our host must apply the same degree of scepticism to official accounts and to revisionists texts. The revisionist hypothesis that the USSR would have started WWII and invaded Europe to install the dictatorship of the proletariat from Vladivostok to Lisbon had Hitler not launched Barbarossa is not supported by the facts, or by the ideological milieu of the times and the main actors. Hitler invaded the USSR out of his inmense hubris and he and his nation, to this day, payed a heavy price for his imbecilic arrogance.
Your pathetic inability to even attempt an answer to a single one of my very simple, straightforward questions is very typical of ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists.
Which question did I not respond to? Repeat it.
Unlike Hitler I have never made a deal with a bloodthirsty Communist to split a Christian nation in half and enslave the inhabitants. Who are you to question me and not Hitler?
If a Communist came up the stairs to my doorstep I would promptly push him right back down and spit upon him before he dared speak.
I had left-wing professors cheat and lie in an attempt to dissuade me from continuing my studies. I had grad students make it a goal to get rid of me.
Unlike Hitler I am a true anti-globalist and not a war mongering fraud.
I am not a fraud like the Austrian Corporal messenger that you bow to.
P.S. in WW1 they would put annoying people into messenger positions to get rid of them.
Really? Please give the names of those commenters and if you have the time, quote the words they wrote to substantiate your claim.
“Behind the platform is a man who demonstrably denies the Holocaust.”
It looks to me like the ADL and their hit bimbos are sharpening their knives. I would suggest that it would be better if you cancelled all your European travel plans lest you end up like Irving or Zündel.
The focus of the article seems to be about how the term “globalist” is a dog whistle to “rightwing extremists”. This climate activist “Luisa Neubauer” appears to be quite a piece of globalist work, even worse than Greta the Retard. She is a scion of the Reemtsma cigarette clan, who apparently employed “slave” labor during the war and even had tobacco plantations in Crimea.
No it doesn’t. Each claim must be evaluated on its own merit.
Germany repeatedly jails elderly ladies for asking for a debate on alleged WW2 exterminations. Its supposed free press calls her “Nazi Grandma”.
Where the Polizei disperses peaceful demonstrators (cv-19, Palestine) with tear gas, water cannon and batons. And otherwise assaults and kills civilians.
Germany is a “soft terror” marxist-zio State.
Leftist AntiFA is allowed to rampage apparently without restraint.
Those employed pay approx 50% of their earnings in direct taxation (incl health, pension etc) to support the oppressive government monolith.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/12/germany-ursula-haverbeck-sent-back-to-prison/?doing_wp_cron=1621156875.8092710971832275390625
Right you are, gato.
Whatever you say.
That is indeed what you should beware of and distrust, gato.
“History” written by the victors and their agents called “Court Historians”.
Y ahora, vaya Vd con dios y buena suerte.
As you say, John.
Glad you’re beginning to see it, John.
Your contributions to this debate have been invaluable, John.
Although perhaps a return to Hollywood scriptwriting might be called for … ?
Good day to you.
Very disturbing, I had no idea.
Send a brief sign-off to JJ, had him figured as just another halfwit/tv watcher.
The other feature from those deranged people is their sheer delight at any bloodbath of Europeans, pictures of dead German soldiers, glee at reposts of “Hitler’s brains splattered all over the ceiling”, the gun he used, vile ad hominen as answers to others …
And ruses like very long walls of text, without references, and slip in a little line of total falsity, such as that the Uke Holodomor was a hoax …
“By deceit we make war”
Agree what you say about EEUU which has been a hyena since more or less it began.
Cuba had the highest standard of living in Las Americas, and higher than Austria post WW2 before Castro. This was before Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky came in from EEUU, which basically is nothing more than a Jewish Gangster Cartel and not really a country.
You do know the connection between Jesuit and Jewry ?
You do know that Fidel was of Jewish family ?
PS 1) I am not an “egghead” in academia.
2) Dopeheads do not know more than university profs.
Adios.
The long answer is a quote from his chapter five. “… the real longest day -22 June 1941- can only be explained in terms of Leo Tolstoy’s myriads of … diverse and complex causes.
Although he treats Suvorov’s thesis in a completely serious and scholarly manner, he concludes that the weight of evidence does not support Suvorov. (Particularly the idea that it would be the kick-off of a plan to conquer Europe.)
That said, he believes that there is no question that Stalin intended to attack no later than Spring 1942 and that events were moving this date forward to late 1941. Stalin was desperately playing for time. His fear of a German-British peace seems to have paralyzed him in some ways. There is no doubt that Soviet forces were deployed in an offensive manner and there was a “covert” mobilization underway. Germany’s attack, perhaps fatally, was delayed by the action in the Balkans. Stalin “knew” the attack was coming and was frantically trying to get the Red Army into a position of striking first, he just ran out of time.
These are general orders, not a speech or a diary entry. Hitler orders the Wehrmacht to prepare themselves, by May, 1941 so that that they have the ability to be ready within 8 weeks for an invasion of the USSR. These are not invasion orders, they are not even orders to prepare for a specific invasion. There is no mention of Stalins plans because they are not relevant.
These two sections of the general orders are very pertinent to the discussion of Barbarossa:
“The mass of the Russian army standing in western Russia is to be destroyed in daring operations under wide advance of armored wedges, the withdrawal of combat strenght parts into the width of the Russian area is to be prevented.”
The key word here is “Masse” which Leo.org translates as “Bulk, Mass”.
So Hitler is telling the Wehrmacht that they will have to destroy the bulk or mass of the Russian Army that is positioned in the west, and prevent their withdrawal. If the Red Army had had a strength in depth strategy as the Stalin fanbois assert, this order and the entire strategy would not have been possible. This alone confirms what McMeekin has written, that Stalin had positioned the “mass” of the Russian army far out west.
“In rapid pursuit, a line is then to be reached from which the Russian air force can no longer attack German territory.”
So Hitler is telling the Wehrmacht to destroy all those Russian airfields near the German border that FB and others insist did not exist, and are so busy insulting Ron Unz about.
“On the flanks of our operation, the active participation of Romania and Finland in the war against Soviet Russia is to be expected.”
These orders, written in Dec 1940, already are based on the participation of Finland and Romania. All the Stalin fanbois refuse to accept that Barbarossa was not just a German preemptive strike, but that that almost all of Europe participated in the event. All these other European countries certainly did not participate merely because they thought Germany needed more Lebensraum.
“The most important task of Group XXI remains the protection of Norway during the eastern operations. The forces available beyond that are to be used in the north (Mountain-Divisions) first to secure the Petsamo area and its ore mines as well as the Arctic Ocean Strait, and then to advance together with Finnish forces against the Murmansk Railway and to cut off supplies to the Murmansk area by land.“
Here we have Hitler confirming the importance of the Nickel mines that Stalin had a few months earlier almost conquered. This confirms McMeekin synopsis for why Stalin had to commit his mass murders at Katyn. Also important here is how critical it was for the Germans to cut off the Murmansk railway, and what a blow it was when Mannerheim failed to fulfill his orders.
It would be also interesting to know the brand of petrol used for the partial cremation of the body. My guess is that it certainly was not the biopetrol that we use today.
Also you are sick in the head.
Look you little Chinese troll…your broken record one-liners about ‘huwhiteys’ are occasionally amusing—and the fact that a slope has decided to larp a Nazi persona is rather funny. But you have never contributed one single comment of substance in all the nearly one thousand ‘comments’ you have barfed up here. Nor is that about to change anytime soon.
Here is what Alexander the Great did say to his worriers. (Who were afraid of fighters with horse drown carriages.) “Do not fight them! just back up to the sides and let them run through.
And this was recorded some 3 hundred years before Christ.
To all you Stalin apologists: Suvorov and McMeekin did thousands of hours research and years of writing so most of the statements I read on this site are like amateurs criticizing the pros. Many of the statements I read are just circumstantial evidence like someone stated that Stalin expected to be arrested after the German invasion. Simply gossip and no more. Like a criminal trial we need facts and not circumstantial evidence. Facts like Russian forces being in offensive formation. And one more thing: if war was inevitable then Hitler was right to attack and he saved western Europe no matter who attacked first.
You do know that Fidel was of Jewish family ?
Oh man, do you ever tire of lying and so blatantly on top of that…? Fidel Castro was of Jewish family, yeah right, Adolf. He was so Jewish that the Jews who were living in Cuba at the time of his revolution felt so comfortable with him and his policies that they started leaving in droves.
“Cuban Jews have lived on the island for centuries, some tracing their ancestry as far back as the late 15th century to “anusim” who fled the Spanish Inquisition. In a February 2007 story, The New York Times estimated that there were about 1,500 identified Jews living in Cuba, most of them (about 1,100) living in Havana. The article added, “This small Jewish presence [in 2007] is in stark contrast to the bustling community that existed before Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. In those days, there were 15,000 Jews and five synagogues in Havana alone.”
Also, the Jew or Not Jew website, run by Jews who will get out in the open whatever Jewish ancestor or family link you may have, so they may call you a Jew also, specially if your are famous, concluded that, even if Fidel Castro claims to have “marrano” (Spanish Jew converted to Christian) ancestry, he is definitively not a Jew.
His entry in this website makes also an interesting point, that ” if you go back, back, back,… back, back, back in Castro’s family tree, you might just find a Jew” which may be true for many if not most of us. Frankly, you sound like a SS recruitment officer. Maybe after all you have also a distant Jew in your past, better check on it, you never know.
This revisionism has been going on for quite a while, and the purpose is to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany, and Stalin to Hitler. And in fact, it’s picking up steam in recent years as the propaganda war against Russia and Putin has got more shrill and ridiculous.
Of course, the mainstream does not seek to rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis, like the losers here on this site—they just want to equate the ‘two evils.’ A corollary in this fake narrative is that the US was the ‘good guy’ that actually ‘won’ the war.
Of course to the Russian people, as well as to most other Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, this turning of history on its head is unacceptable—we see this on this thread with commenters of Eastern European ethnicity. It is only their comprador elites, who have very little legitimacy to begin with, that go along with this agenda.
If we were to see a true revisionism towards historical truth, instead of a turn to even richer fantasy, we would see scholarship working to counter the decades-long cold war indoctrination about the ‘evils’ of communism. Patrick McNally on this thread has contributed valuable material in this vein, dismissing the prime movers of this fake history, like Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, with actual facts.
One need only look at what the populations in the former Soviet bloc say: to this day many prefer the old system, in some cases a full majority. What does that say about the entire theme that is taken for granted in these WW2 discussions, where it is just assumed that it would have been a ‘tragedy’ had the Soviets taken more of Europe?
Avery’s subway videos above show what that US-guided western Europe looks like now, compared to Poland. Just think what the Polish, Hungarian and Czech people would say about ‘democracy’ and the EU if their societies looked like the west?
The fact is that the eastern bloc was a society of social conservatism, marked by strong family values, where education was a priority, and becoming a doctor or engineer or officer was what parents raised their kids to value. Things worked as they actually should.
The clowns we see yipping here about ‘Europe under communism’ have no conception about what that looked like because they never experienced it. I remember during my year at the Technische Universität Dresden, hearing the phrase ‘degenerate west’ from time to time. And that was way back then. Just think what they would say now! And that, my friend, is the TRUTH!
In one of the books written by Beever, i think that was Stalingrad, there is as an introduction a little scene he describes that won me over right away, (“this guy is good!”). He describes a red faced Red Army officer screaming his lungs out to at a bunch of German POWs being led out of the city after their surrender while showing them with his extended arm the ruins around them “This, this is how Berlin will look like after we are finished with you…!” Is that great reporting or what…? That is why I trust those guys, they are not trying to spin History to make it part of the narrative of their bosses like you and your “academic references”, your egghead mercenaries posturing as bona fida academic eminences usually do. You are the real Court Historians, not these guys who brings us the realities of war and History. I need them to know the real story, I don’t need you telling me what to think of it.
“And this is why he (Franco) limited how many could leave? You’re not making any sense.”
Please, make an effort. I don’t see the contradiction. It seems that you lack the ability to grasp the fine complexities and subtleties of high politics, specially when your own power or even your life may be at stake. Spanish volunteers were called to fill the ranks of the newly formed Blue Division (I guess that is how it happened) and once tens of thousands gathered, Franco and his acolytes, who had at the time a very good idea about where every Spaniard stood, specially his own Nationalists (that much he had learned from his German teachers of the Gestapo) he simply proceeded to give his “vamos” to those who had shown more pro-Nazi/pro-Hitler leanings than it was convenient. So there they go, to the Eastern Front, and the rest, the loyal Franquistas, he kept them in Spain in case he needed them to lend him a hand. Where is the “nonsense” in that…?
> German lost because their timing was messed up by the Yugoslavian coup.
Or… what exactly would they do, otherwise?
Considering that they had problems taking their half of Poland («help, friend Josef!»), and couldn’t take the entire France. They managed to get as far as they did only thanks to taking Soviet stockpiles. Which “for some reason” fortunately happened to be placed near the Western border.
The whole attempt reeked of delusion and/or desperation. Considering what the witnesses (like Bazhanov) said about it — both of those.
From a Jewish website —
https://momentmag.com/island-within-island-cubas-jewish-history/
Further —
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3266051,00.html
Raul
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1.5149892
You are obviously out of your depth on this website, my wee chileno dickhead.
Better stick with your cholo amigos, smoke some more dope, talk some more crap.
Since you are such an unpleasant wee shite, also your gross ignorance, your lack of any idea as to how to converse in an adult manner, you have the honour to be first on my RU forum ignore list.
Say hello to my esteemed relative, Bernardo O’Higgins, you worthless little turd.
His efforts were obviously wasted in Chile.
“This revisionism has been going on for quite a while, and the purpose is to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany, and Stalin to Hitler. And in fact, it’s picking up steam in recent years as the propaganda war against Russia and Putin has got more shrill and ridiculous.”
Right there you hit the nail on the head. This new revisionism of Stalin “true intentions at the eve of the German invasion of 1941” , all this newly glorified Suvorism, has little to do with Stalin himself, or with Hitler for that matter, but with Vladimir Putin and the Russia of 2021. It is all part of the West’s favorite occupation of the moment, the demonization of both China and Russia and Putin, above all the last two. It is simply trying to make Vladimir Putin guilty by association (The new Stalin, the new Hitler, right). We may wonder if anyone would be giving a hoot now about this Suvorov and his crazy theories of ww2 had Putin had just stood aside and let the US NATO crime family go after Basher el Assad and take over Syria during the 2010s, just as he had done before about Iraq and Libya.
What a typical communist buffoon FB is, and all his hasbara sycophants too. They parade around like the useful idiots that they are, even insulting our host. What typical hebrew behavior. They pollute every thread they land on like a shit covered flies.
Ron Unz sums it up about all you Hasbara Trolls:
To EugeneGur:
To Iffen:
To German_reader:
And to the pompous ass FB specifically:
lol. You insufferable idiots are living proof that there really is such a thing as Untermensch.
This system was much more obvious in the judeobolshevik army, where the vast majority of “political commissars” were MOTs. See also Bronshtein’s notorious “blocking units.”
An internet mind-reader (“reader-in-hearts”, for you XIX century types) didn’t read the book, but decisively condemns it. Again.
Let’s remember how diligently these “defended” USSR. And defended Russian Empire before that. With much the same result.
Hahahahaha. Good one. And the beacon of family values — little comrade P.Morozov.
So, did you hear that joke — «the husband returns from a duty journey…»
As opposed to… what?
Also, glad we agree on the status of simple workers and peasants in the “land of workers and peasants”. Aut bene aut nihil, amirite?
But Stalin, indeed, did push the country so far away from the madness that even after “an educated Marxist” stopped being used as an euphemism for “babbling moron” inside Kremlin (q.v.: Bazhanov’s memoirs, one of the juiciest books on the epoch), all subsequent clowning and senility couldn’t rot the place entirely. Purging the traces of Kollontai’s sexual revolution and other Freudosocialism must have helped. Hmm. The more strains of socialism are purged..?
It wasn’t pretty, however. Even according to then-enthusiastic people.
It’s quite simple actually. If Stalin had attacked Germany, there was no way Roosevelt could have justified Lend Lease, or sold it to the American public.
Lend Lease was the massive transfer of strategic materials and military secrets from the USA to the USSR during WWII.
In other words, Lend Lease was a enormous giveaway entirely contingent on Stalin, the Red Army, and the USSR in general appearing to be on the verge of defeat by the Germans, Adolf Hitler, and those evil Nazis.
Moron!
Next time you will go one step up.
You will be claiming that Hitler did attack Russia for solemn purpose to save the west.
Interesting thing is that nobody was asking.
Only British airmen were included in the commission to investigate the causes of the crash. An additional team member on the Polish side was not allowed to ask questions. No representatives of the aircraft manufacturer were admitted. After two weeks, the commission presented the official cause of the crash: jammed elevator control.
Such a rush…
Why did the controls of the ascending plane stuck in the diving position? Why, from the very beginning of the investigation, no one ( apart from Germans ) spoke the word “sabotage” ? Only the governor of Gibraltar, Noel Mason-Macfarlane, in a conversation with General Sikorski’s wife said “I do not believe in coincidences …”.
A few years ago, the British decided that the declassification of classified documents from World War II would not take place earlier than the mid-40s of the 21st century.
It contains a grain of truth, but the more extreme claims (made by historians like Christian Gerlach, popularized internationally by garbage like Snyder’s Bloodlands book, where it’s presented as an established fact) of a Hunger plan (as a coherent plan to starve dozens of millions to death, out of racial ideology) probably are a significant exaggeration.
It’s indisputably true that there were plans for the ruthless economic exploitation of occupied Soviet territory, to guarantee food security for Germany and occupied Europe, and it was expected by planners like Herbert Backe that the resulting food scarcity would probably lead to the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens. The mindset of those planners was certainly pretty evil. However it wasn’t quite the cartoon version of today’s popular imagination, where Nazi plans seem to get ever more fantastical with increasing distance in time from WW2.
Fate has its own Irony!
US is now goose stepping toward Communism. It is (and I can see it) inevitable. When Dollar will fall it will be totally accomplished.
US will be communist country. Naturally they will not call it Communism, because Communism is a dirty word, They will call it NEW DEAL REBUILDING.
But they will still fight Capitalist Russia.
Yeah, I thought so.
Maaßen is a pretty tedious boomer conservative, who probably had no idea about the content of your site and would be horrified by much of it (you certainly shouldn’t flatter yourself that it’s yet more evidence that important people secretly agree with you).
And there’s no talk of “prosecuting” him (though Germany has indeed become increasingly repressive in recent years regarding so-called “hate speech”). It’s about character assassination, making him a social pariah and preventing him from having a political career (he recently was nominated by an East German CDU section as a candidate for the next parliamentary elections, much to the dismay of the Merkelized CDU mainstream).
Anyway, obviously I disagree with your assessment that I know nothing and am merely spouting “stale propaganda”, but discussing that would be pointless.
Calling Soviet Union “Russia” was a thing promoted by the shills trying to downplay Soviet Union being, well, Soviet. Less publicly, the same team was talking like this: «we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union». Why repeat after them?
As to the question… At this point it was a great big non-issue.
1. Why would they do this now? Stalin is going to take “his” half of Poland, sure, but with lots of good posturing. Even offered to “protect” Poland! Now they are very concerned with Germany gathering resources to pay them back. Soviet Union… does not look like an immediate threat to them.
2. It would be unwise for either country to pick another war without finishing the previous one. Germany fought on two fronts in WWI, how this ended?
3. France is on the other side of Germany, and soon will be… very busy. Even if those Germans screw up their Blitzkrieg (which they didn’t — good students!). Not a problem.
England may or may not throw a tantrum (Churchill knows Stalin is dangerous, but they are likely to coordinate with France and USA, and allies will talk them out of this). Once this starts, no problem: they’ll likely to wind up “besieged” by submarines right away, and dependent on the outside supply at the same time, with all this entails. Soon they will beg Stalin to backstab Germany, and agree to give strategical materials to Soviet Union.
Oh yeah…here we go with the lend lease bedtime story.
So Britain got THREE times as much as Russia? And how many Wehrmacht divisions did Britain take out?
And then there is the TIMING of the deliveries:
Notice that practically nothing came until after 1943, when the Red Army had already crushed the Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk and the outcome was no longer in any doubt. Eighty percent of German losses of men equipment came at the hands of the Russians—and lend lease accounted for about 5 percent of total Russian production.
Most historians note that Soviet industrial production far outstripped that of Germany plus its Axis partnered combined, and only kept growing throughout the war. The numbers from lend lease are insignificant in comparison.
But lend lease did have a major impact on the US aim to kill off the British Empire, which was FDR’s main goal. Britain didn’t pay off lend lease until 1996.
The US strategy was to stay out of the fighting as long as possible, to let Germany and Russia bludgeon each other, while burdening Britain down with huge debt, so the US could waltz in at the last minute and take all the spoils.
Churchill begged FDR to enter the war right from the get-go, but FDR replied that the US would be ‘the arsenal of democracy’ and supply the armaments to Britain and other allies [including Russia].
This was in fact a vital strategy for the US domestically, as industrial output multiplied hugely as the economy was requisitioned for war production. This was just what the US needed to build itself up, coming off a decade of the 1930s that saw a demographic catastrophe—a population shortfall of 10 million, and huge dislocation of the population caused by massive internal migration.
FDR’s programs of the 1930s to electrify the country and build up basic infrastructure had a good effect and did stanch the bleeding of the ‘dirty thirties’…but it was the war-footing of the economy at the start of the 1940s that turned the US into the world’s industrial powerhouse.
Lend lease was a big part of that, and it was the US that benefited most from it.
The first thing which stuck out to me in the pamphlet was Himmler insulting the Slavic women in comparison to the Aryan women. It’s hard to imagine a less diplomatic measure in a campaign where you may wish to win the Slavic men over to your side. Of course the stuff about the Jews is also about Slavs too. The central ideological core of much of Hitler’s and Himmler’s racial theories was that Slavs were just putty who would be made over in either Aryan or Jewish hands. A terrible message.
But the part which made me laugh was way at the very end of the pamphlet where I quickly figured out (despite little elaboration from Himmler) that these last few pages were pictures of prisoners who had been massacred by the NKVD as the Soviets retreated. From Himmler’s actual written text all that you would really glean is that the photos of these are bodies are more proof of Slavic inferiority vis a vis Aryans. One wouldn’t even really know that these were dead prisoners from NXVD-jails unless you had supplementary information. A sane person interested in making propaganda directed at a Slavic audience would have cut out everything from before those pictures and then elaborated on them ala Amnesty International. But again, Himmler’s contempt for Slavs was why he did the opposite.
Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve there, didn’t I…? Pathetic. And your reference source for Cholos is as shaky as the rest. Cholos are peasants from Peru and they keep to themselves, specially abroad, so no “cholo amigos” for me professor. Anyway, I seemed to have touched some aching nerve there, as everyone could hear that Ouch!
Wait, you’ve spent this entire thread incoherently blabbering about how Stalin and the judeobolsheviks were allegedly “good guys who could do no wrong” and “innocent victims of that evil goy Hitler”… and now you’re openly admitting that they were evil bloodthirsty judeobolsheviks after all? Make up your “mind” already.
If you wish to make another pathetic, confused, failed attempt to answer my simple, straightforward, reasonable questions — just go back to the post where I first asked them and read them again. It’s not hard… for anyone with an IQ significantly above room temperature, that is.
‘The decadence of today bears strange and rather disgusting fruits. Soon we may learn from progressive historians that Hitler was a transvestite and his only dream was to appear as a dancer in the Kirov Leningrad Academic Opera and Ballet Theatre.’
You’ve got it exactly backwards. Hitler is generally accused of whatever the greatest sin of the day is.
Back when he was alive, he was accused of being a ‘housepainter’ — i.e., of being a plebian. In texts dating from the Fifties, he’s guilty of various forms of sexual degeneracy: homosexuality, coprophilia, whatever.
Then he became successively racist, sexist, and homophobic. Want to know what the bete noir of the day is? Look up what Hitler is accused of.
It’s kind of related to ‘to know who your masters are, ask who you are not permitted to criticize.’ To know what the great sin du jour is, look up what Hitler is up to at the moment.
There actually is very good circumstantial evidence that Hitler was a homosexual. That is covered in the book entitled The Hidden Hitler by Lothar Machtan. The case is circumstantial by necessity and not iron-tight, but compelling. Under this interpretation Hitler would have stopped all such homosexual activity after 1923 when his political significance began to rise. It could explain a number of things about Hitler’s character, but one should be very wary of getting drawn off into overstating the importance of this thesis.
Hitler’s main ideological/political influences came from George Schoenerer and Karl Lueger and this didn’t have anything much to do with his sexual tastes. Hitler also derived a lot of lessons from Ernst Roehm, who was an open homosexual. But Machtan is explicit about rejecting the idea that Hitler ever had trysts with Roehm. The latter’s influence would have been important simply because Roehm showed Hitler how to maintain a manly persona in public, while the ideological basis for Hitler’s thought came from Schoenerer and his ability for crafting a message to present to the public derived from Lueger. None of that really hinges on whether or not Hitler was homosexual up until 1923, though he may well have been.
Here is a presentation about WWI by McMeekin. He confirms that the Black Hand was under control and finance of the Tsar. He also explains why Russia and the Tsar were so obsessed with getting control of the Bosporus: because Turkey had closed the Bosporus to all traffic during the previous Balkan wars, and this had really harmed Russia. He also talks about Turkey’s obsession with getting the two Dreadnoughts from England that were supposed to arrive in July 1914, but were later held back by London thus forcing Turkey into Germany’s hands. It all meshes nicely into the history explained by D&M in WWI Hidden History
A bizarre interpretation imo – and it’s actually explicitly stated in the text that the corpses are of people who had been killed by the Soviet secret police (called by its old name GPU) before their retreat in 1941 – Furchtbar in ihrer Anklage entrollen die Schreckenskeller von Lemberg, Riga, Dubnow das Grauen der GPU (In a terrible accusation the dungeons of terror in Lemberg, Riga, Dubnow are revealing the GPU’s horror…)
Anyway, of course Nazi anti-Polish and anti-Russian racism existed. I just think that it was more complicated and ambiguous (especially compared to Nazi antisemitism) than is sometimes allowed for today. And Der Untermensch imo just isn’t what most people today would imagine from the title.
Good point. It really helps to have an “innocent victim of unprovoked attack” incident to serve as the core of any decent pro-war narrative [Maine, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Tonkin Gulf, etc.]. Even better than “those evil foreigners are occupying territory that’s rightfully ours!” Whether — and to what extent — a particular alleged incident actually occurred in anything like the manner that it’s presented by the media is entirely another question…
See also the Winter War. Not just the notorious Mainila false flag that the judeobolsheviks used to try to “justify” their initial attack. The overall course of the war demonstrates the risks of losing “good guy” status in the dominant narrative. The communists took heavy losses initially, but there’s no question that they were winning their unprovoked war of imperialist aggression at the time of the Moscow Treaty — Mannheim’s forces likely would have collapsed in another couple of weeks of fighting. Yet the judeobolsheviks agreed to what was for them a relatively “generous” peace treaty, “only” stealing 11% of Finnish territory, and dropping their insistence on installing a bolshevik puppet government in Finland.
Why? Western populations largely [and correctly] saw Stalin’s sneak attack on Finland as an unprovoked war of imperialist aggression by a large totalitarian state against a small, peaceful democracy. You can make a good argument that the communists decided that the gain of yet another vassal state by their boundless aggression simply wasn’t worth the propaganda negatives of clearly defining themselves as the “bad guys.”
FDR already had an uphill battle to convince Americans that they “needed” to join in yet another European war that had nothing to do with them, and that the vast majority of them opposed. Trying to convince Americans that the judeobolsheviks were the “good guys”… while they were actively engaged in crushing Finland would be yet another obstacle.
While your claim that the American goyim benefited greatly by giving many billions of dollars worth of stuff to the judeobolsheviks for free is… an interesting one, you forgot to mention its current year corollary — that it’s also the American goyim who benefit the most [and the Tribe not at all] from the billions in welfare payments that they send to the Zionist settler-colonialists in Palestine.
Very important. Gotta stick to the script.
lol
Demonstrating yet again that shameless mendacity is a characteristic feature of toxic semitism…
Operation Pike is evidence against the Rezun-thesis, not for it. The obvious issue which any sensible person has to entertain with the Rezun-thesis is simply “was Stalin stupid enough to imagine that he would be allowed to conquer Europe without becoming the brunt of a global war that would align the UK, US and probably Japan against the USSR, and that in such war the USSR would inescapably be destroyed?” Operation Pike is further evidence of how silly that is.
Stalin obviously knew about Operation Pike which means that he wasn’t just thinking to himself “Oh, heck, after I’ve invaded and conquered the whole of Europe I’ll just have Kim Philby and Lauchlin Currie cover my tracks for me.” No, if Stalin had done something as dumb as Rezun claims, then the USSR would have become the brunt of a much bigger war campaign than Operation Pike. It wouldn’t have happened all at once. There would be the chance at the beginning for Stalin to show “Look, I just wanted to stop Hitler before he attacked me, but I’m pulling my troops back right now!” But if he did not do this rapidly (although possibly after exhuming the Katyn bodies and planting them somewhere that was German-occupied in 1940) then he would be in big trouble. And Stalin was smart enough to know this. Pike is just more evidence against Rezun, not for him.
“The US strategy was to stay out of the fighting as long as possible, to let Germany and Russia bludgeon each other, while burdening Britain down with huge debt, so the US could waltz in at the last minute and take all the spoils”
While I wouldn’t argue against the fact that the Soviets kept the majority of the German forces occupied (and did the bulk of the fighting and sacrifice), you seem to think that FDR could just decide when to go to war with Germany for his buddies the communists. This just wasn’t so, as he faced pressure on both the political and public fronts to stay out of the war. In fact, he did what he could to provoke the Germans so he would have an excuse… not the work of someone who has the choice to get involved in a war or not.
It is no mere coincidence that Neubauer, a 26 year old “environmental activist” vagina made the accusation, and then went on to link usage of the term “globalism” to rightwing extremism and antisemitism. The merger of globalism and environmentalism is a part of the great reset and is in effect 4th generation marxism. Their crude attempts at tying the holocaust religion to the environment in effect stifles any resistance to this Gleichschaltung of Green tyranny.
You, as a German who openly links his nationality to his Unz commenter handle, have close to zero credibility when it comes to discussing any of this. Your national overton window as far freedom of speech goes is roughly as big as the head of a pin used to biblically measure the number of angels that can dance on it.
Whether you are a holocaust denier denier out of fear, brainwashing, race or religion is largely irrelevant. The mere fact that you identify yourself as “German_reader” renders anything you write, unless it is bold and risky, as irrelevant. This is what Ron Unz was alluding to when he said
“all you do is spout stale propaganda that was already stupid 80 years ago, and even so you might “get into trouble” by your commenting.”.
Even Vaterland clearly has to hold his punches and dares not write openly or frequently for fear of being Haverbecked. I suspect that Heebhunter is German, but at least his willingness to confront the narrative is laudable. But any Ja-nicker who claims a deep concern for environmental, gender, or historical issues is about as credible as an Eunuch claiming to be a father.
You are Polish, by your name.
WS Churchill, the alcoholic mass-murderer, was not your friend. A truly disgusting person, his only friends were the zionists who bribed him to wage war on Germany.
The London govt, also called Perfidious Albion, used your country to start WW2.
Here is a link to David Irving’s investigation into the murder of Gen Sikorski.
It’s a free download in English, also auf deutsch.
Hope it is useful for you.
http://fpp.co.uk/books/Accident/index.html
The German plans made before the war anticipated a drop in that Soviet population by about 30 million. Obviously part of this would derive from just the natural consequences of war, so that should not be misconstrued as a plan to stuff 30 million people into “gas chambers” or whatever have you. Rather the idea of seizing significant portions of the food supply was just one important part of the picture, albeit a crucial one. See Alex Kay, Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder. I certainly do not recollect a figure of “100 million” ever being mentioned by him, although the 30 million is discussed with reference to documents.
A jump from 2% to 14% in 1942 is nothing, and you said it started to matter from 1943.
This is why I don’t feel the need to have any respect for you fucks.
People here need to start learning lessons about shills like you ASAP before this place gets irrevocably ruined like many places before.
Fuck kikes, fuck commies, fuck bolshelviks and all the subhumans who contributed to their victory over Europe.
Oh, and 1943 was when SHTF for the Axis. Kursk and Minsk, remember? But it doesnt matter because you are here to make noises, not to debate.
Thankfully, it seems that Mr.Unz is likely starting to see through your lame techniques.
I have never been able to figure out people who keep calling Stalin a tool of the international Jewry. If that is so, then the entire Cold War had to be a giant make-believe scam, the biggest show on Earth, in History. The Missile Crisis of October 1962 had to be a pretense also, Vietnam and Korea fake wars and so on. It would mean also that Churchill and Patton never ever toyed with the idea of carrying on the war all they way to Moscow. It would mean also that the plans of the Pentagon to nuke out of existence the whole of the Soviet Union in the aftermath of ww2 never happened…! Why would they have done all those things if they were all obeying to the same masters…!?
In my book, inspired from the real world, the Cold War started when Stalin refused to get aboard the Plan Marshall scam which would have turned the Soviet Union into another client state, another poor country controlled by the money lenders of Wall Street and the “American” MIC. In my book also, Stalin had previously pulled the rug under any excessive or improper influence Jews could have had in his regime, and in the Soviet Union herself, when he declared open season on Troskyists and started eliminating them physically one by one, specially within the now Communist Party, and by doing so achieved the feat of making of the country a truly free and independent one. That is what my book says.
I’ve been looking for a source like this. Thanks.
Made it through the third video. There are loads of interesting tidbits by McMeekin, especially about all the material being shipped to Stalin by Roosevelt that was essentially gifted. Roosevelt had already completely opened the spigots to Stalin before even Congress was informed.
Here at 48m40s McMeekin confirms what Major Jordan had said in his diaries, that Roosevelt, and later Truman, were shipping enriched uranium to Stalin.
Actually, it was only because of Stalingrad that the world ever heard of Katyn. While Soviet documents about Katyn were released long before 2010 (I mentioned somewhere here Sudoplatov, Special Tasks) there was a valid basis for skepticism in 1943. Anyone who watched the events where Goebbels suddenly came up with the Polish bodies right after Paulus would have smelled something funny. When publishing Russia Since 1917 in 1957 Frederick Schuman stated clearly that “the weight of currently available testimony suggests that the Polish officers were slain in 1940 by agents of Beria’s NKVD.” But he mentions below “My own original conclusion on Katyn was based in part on analyses of the original Nazi propaganda treatment…” It’s clear that he changed his mind about the incident over time and this was perfectly reasonable.
The way that Goebbels popped up with the Katyn bodies right after Stalingrad should have aroused suspicion from anyone. Only in retrospect was it clear that the German-occupation forces could have found the Katyn bodies anytime after June 22, 1941, if only they had bothered to interview Polish peasants with the intent of investigating. But Hitler didn’t care about that when it looked like he was about to win.
Kollontai was certainly a factor, but let’s see what a more prominent individual had to say — good ol’ Lev Bronstein. In particular, his notorious 1936 tract “The (((Revolution))) Betrayed.” I recommend Chapter 7 in particular, where he points out that:
“the revolution made a ‘heroic’ effort to destroy the so-called ‘family hearth’…”
but then whines that “It proved impossible to take the old family by storm,” and that because
“The rural family, bound up not only with home industry but with agriculture, is infinitely more stable and conservative than that of the town,” they should have worked harder to crush it completely, but what did that evil goy Stalin do instead?
“the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.”
Oy vey.
And “the (((revolutionary power))) gave women the right to abortion” — but then what happened?
“The draft of the law forbidding abortion was submitted to so-called universal popular discussion… and on June 27th the Central Executive Committee converted the ‘shameful’ draft into a thrice ‘shameful’ law.”
What do current year commies have to say about the “social conservatism” issue?
In 1934 homosexuality, which had been legalized after the revolution, was once again criminalized, and in 1936 legal access to abortion was restricted. In the course of the Stalinist political counterrevolution, women were once again relegated to the nuclear family…
Despite the legacy of sixty-five years of Stalinist rule, the early years of the Soviet state still stand as a guide-post to the future for “women’s liberation”
So there was some important difference between the “early years” of communism and the “Stalinist” period. What might that difference be?
FB makes a lot of references to “Slavic peoples,” “Eastern European ethnicity,” “Russian people,” etc. I forget — was Trotsky one of these “Eastern European Slavic people of Russian ethnicity?” Or was his ethnic background more similar to that of… Kamenev and Zinoviev? Perhaps the relevant factor here with respect to “social conservatism” vs. the poz is not so much “communism” or “capitalism” or “Eastern European Slavicism,” but toxic semitism? Hmm…
popularized internationally by garbage like Snyder’s Bloodlands book
This is my reading queue.
FWIW I’m pleased that you decided to continue to comment.
I can’t quite grasp the distinction that you make between:
of a Hunger plan (as a coherent plan to starve dozens of millions to death
it was expected by planners like Herbert Backe that the resulting food scarcity would probably lead to the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens.
Well, there is a Green activist, Luisa Neubauer (belongs to the Reemtsma family), uusalley untainted by serious knowledge of what she talks about who accused Maaßen on popular TV talkshow to be an antisemite. She got a lot of flak for that even from moronic German main stream politicians and was challenged to provide evidence for her claim. That alleged link by Maaßen was the best she could come up with.
It’s hardly surprising that a guy who literally believes in time-traveling, rubber-raiding battleships would make this sort of confused, desperate, failed attempt to deny judeobolshevik responsibility for the Katyn massacres:
Ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists are getting dumber and more delusional daily….
You’re the one showing the naivete here. The German Foreign Office fed Harry Elmer Barnes a pilfered chain of select documents and he fell for it. After the Bolsheviks had taken power they proceeded to release every document they could find to make the previous governments come out looking dirty from the war. Since Russia had been aligned with the Allies, and the Allied nations were on the liberal side of things (not like Antifa today) this led to demands in the West for the release of documents there too.
In Weimar Germany, Social Democrats like Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein tried to urge that similar documentary releases should be made by the German side. The German Army and Foreign Office were adamant against this. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Fritz Fischer began coming out with documents which had been concealed by the German administration during the interwar period. In fact, the Serbian government submitted to so many terms set down by the Austro-Hungarians that the whole could have been settled as a great diplomatic victory for Austria-Hungary. On top of that, everyone knew that the Austro-Hungarian Right was happy to see Ferdinand off because of his liberal multi-culturalism. The war happened because Austria-Hungary had resolved in advance to crush Serbia and Wilhelm II had chosen to use as a trick for embarrassing Russia. Anything which Barnes contrary to that is simply the result of him having been fed specially selected documents.
As far as Poland in 1939, the British had nothing to do with the Polish decision. The Poles had seen how easily Hitler shredded the Munich Agreement and they knew that any agreement reached over Danzig would be worthless. No matter what London said, Poland would not have gone along a rehash of Munich. Similarly, the Poles rejected the suggestion by Stalin that in the event of a German invasion of Poland the Soviet Army should be allowed to cross Poland. That was a stumbling block for Chamberlain because it prevented him from reaching an agreement with Moscow (and hence led to the Hitler-Stalin pact). But Chamberlain could never have changed Polish policy on this.
The subhumans have no real legacy and a shitty life, that’s why they stick with the rose tinted version of a bunch of kike commies who turned “their countries” into gas stations with nukes.
I pity them. They have the same fundemental problems as the (((West))), they will burn the same way.
Hitler’s claim that Bolshevism is almost exclusively Jewish is factually TRUE.
Well, admittedly it’s a bit of an academic distinction which wouldn’t have mattered to Soviet civilians who starved to death because of Germans confiscating their food.
Basically the question is whether the primary motivation was economic exploitation (maybe with a “weakening of Russian demography” seen as a positive side effect). Or whether it was primarily motivated by racial ideology (“Let’s starve a few dozen million subhumans to death, so there’ll be room for our settlers”), with the economic justifications being merely a self-exculpatory pretense.
The latter interpretation is what Christian Gerlach, Alex Kay etc. seem to be proposing and which has spread widely in today’s popular consciousness, but is actually far from a consensus position among historians. It seems quite fantastical to me.
The first interpretation makes more sense imo. Obviously it’s still pretty evil and revealing of an extreme mindset unconstrained by any moral scruples. But it’s way less irrational than if one lays the emphasis on racial ideology determining everything.
(of course the distinctions can’t alway be drawn so neatly, to some extent it’s a matter of perspective).
I probably can’t dissuade you from that, but be aware that Snyder presents his views on several issues as uncontroversial facts, when they’re actually far from the consensus even among mainstream historians. This includes not just German crimes, but also something like the Ukrainian famine in the early 1930s. He may have managed the difficult feat of accusing both Nazis and Soviets of crimes they weren’t guilty of (at least not as described in his book).
In 1949, Montgomery Belgion could write in his book Victor’s Justice, page 74, “…but if he changed his mind (he = Prof. Markov of Bulgaria), another signatory of the report (the German Katyn report of 1943) did not change his. As I have said, there was among the twelve experts an exception, one who was from a country neither allied with Germany nor in German occupation. He was a neutral. He was a Swiss. He was Dr. F. Naville, who was then and, as I write, is still, professor of forensic medicine in the University of Geneva. Unlike Professor Markov, he is still free to exactly say as he believes to be true. Owing to his having signed the report (reminder: the German Katyn report of 1943), he was threatened in 1945 with proceedings, but he was not to be intimidated. He stood his ground. And of course the threat proved empty. I have questioned him.
He tells me that he stands by every word of the unanimous report to which he put his signature at Smolensk on 30 April 1943 In his mind there is no doubt whatever regarding who executed the Polish prisoners of war.
If we really wish to understand the meaning of the Nuremberg Trials, we must bear in mind that he was not called as a witness at that Trial.”
….
….
I want to put especial emphasis on the fact that at that time of the near-universal total control of perceived reality by years of unrelenting hate propaganda against Germany, there were people who were unaffected by it and were simply sticking with the facts; the facts as they could uncover them; the facts as they put them together from not becoming feverish-psychotic upon hearing yet more fever-hot reports from the people who make and distribute the news; the facts as they could deem possible based on their understanding of human psychology. These people are the hope for the future.
I consider you, McNally, indeed as an unusually naive individual. Whether you play this act or whether you are the real thing, I’ll leave you the choice between this Scylla and Charybdis.
Most welcome and hope you find it useful.
The website has never been very slick but contains excellent material.
His books are now becoming classics.
When first accessing the site there was a lot of LOLs reading about the tactics of “Court Historians” copying from each other, making a few rewordings to produce the latest “groundbreaking new study of WW2” … also details of his research, people he interviewed etc … amazing stuff.
The breakthrough started with “Dresden”, serialised in UK Times newspaper in days before truth became politically incorrect …
http://fpp.co.uk/
In Soviet times there was a joke:
– Name four factors that prevent the success of Soviet agriculture.
– Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter.
Apparently, the same four factors prevented the success of German armies.
If by Der Tag one simply means a possible attempt by Stalin to crush Hitler before he could go ahead with a future campaign for living space, then that is plausible that he might have tried something in 1942 if such had been possible. Even here it would be insane for him to do something like Rezun claims with an attempt at wholesale Sovietization of Europe. No way on that. But there are still problems with the 1942-thesis even when we allow that would have aimed to hold a meeting in Potsdam in 1942 with Churchill and Roosevelt rather than foolishly inviting a war against the USSR by all of the remaining world powers.
The obvious question which one has to start with if we’re going to contemplate the 1942-thesis is “would there have ever been any Pearl Harbor?” The events of 1941 acted in accumulation with Hitler Barbarossa, scoring huge initial victories, Roosevelt promising Lend-Lease, and then the sanctions imposed on Japan which drove things towards Pearl Harbor. If one alters the historical scenario so that Hitler cancels Barbarossa on the night of June 21, then it opens up a lot of variables which can’t be predicted exactly. Maybe the remainder of the year would have turned into something like the Phony War of 1939-40. If it did, then maybe Roosevelt would have found it more difficult to justify cranking up the measures which spurred Japan towards Pearl Harbor.
In that case, this would introduce a whole new variable which Stalin would have had take into account. Under these conditions to simply strike at Germany would place all of the world’s attention on Stalin at a time when the other fronts in the war might be very lackluster. That really is not the type of measure which Stalin would ever be likely to take.
It’s misleading (although somewhat true) to say that Stalin was afraid of a German-British peace. According to David Murphy, What Stalin Knew, the communications which Hitler sent to Stalin offered a reassurance that the massive build-up of German forces on the Soviet frontier were actually just a preparation for an invasion of Britain. It’s easy to see why Hitler would have passed this hokum along. The amount of German forces showing up there right by the Soviet frontier would raised some query of “hey, what’s going on?”
So Hitler’s cover-story was that he was preparing a massive invasion of Britain. During the summer there would be a very sudden rapid movement of German forces, which Stalin should in no way be worried about. The German forces have only been placed next to the Soviet frontier because it’s easier to build them up here away from the British, before they turn towards Britain.
Under those circumstances, you can bet that Stalin was pissing his pants hoping that Hitler really meant to attack Britain. Because if not, then the only plausible explanation was that Hitler was preparing a gigantic attack on the USSR. This was the conundrum which Stalin struggled with on the eve of Barbarossa. Did Hitler really mean to commit himself to a 2-front war? Or was he really planning to attack Britain? Obviously if the latter were true then the smart thing for Stalin to do would be sit back longer and watch how things play out. But if the former were true then the USSR was facing a real emergency.
What has to always be kept in mind here is that the build-up of Hitler’s forces for Barbarossa made it obvious that some kind of great escalation of the war was about to happen. Stalin was of the type who could willingly carry out a major build-up on the frontier and still sit and wait. Hitler was the impatient type that when you saw him building up forces like he did for Barbarossa, you knew that he was going to do something big.
About the intent of the Hunger Plan and your two hypotheses as to motivation—purely economic and strategic to supply the food that the Reich needed, with the inevitable consequence of millions starving as ‘collateral damage’…or the idea that getting rid of those people by starvation was the main motivation.
Well, the simple answer is it was both. Germany did need the food and was vulnerable to a blockade that would starve them as in WW1.
But also, the lebensraum plan envisaged the Germans moving into the depopulated cities, their residents having starved due to Hunger Plan, while the rural folk would toil as serfs to produce food for the ruling Aryans. All that was quite implicit in Backe’s plan.
I have never been able to figure out why ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists insist on beating up on obvious strawmen. On the other hand, you are — no matter how incompetently and disingenuously — bringing up an important issue.
If you look over this thread, it’s filled with judeobolshevik apologists twist themselves into knots fanatically screeching: “Good ol’ Uncle Joe was the BEST GOY EVAR!!! He could do no wrong… at least from 1933 or so until 1945, that is. ”
But if you asked those same shifty semitic shills about Stalin’s post-war years, beginning with when he first showed a marked lack of enthusiasm for — no, not the Marshal Plan — the Baruch Plan*, he suddenly morphed into a Very Bad Goy™!” And his rejection of a jewish homeland in Crimea [look it up] didn’t help either.
In reality, of course, Stalin didn’t change — but his usefulness to the hegemonic semitic narrative did.
For anyone who doubts the suddenness and completeness of this semitic narrative reversal on the SQ [Stalin Question], just compare the fanatically sycophantic pro-Stalin bleating of the judeobolshevik apologists in this thread to the results of this search:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=purim+1953&ia=answer
Huh. Very interesting. When was warfarin invented again?
Of course, this narrative is somewhat context-dependent in how it’s applied. If they’re talking about judeobolshevik imperialist/ expansionist aggression in the 1920s and 30s, then Stalin was a 100% Grade A, OU-Certified Good Goy™ during those years. If it’s an issue of muh “show trials”** and being mean to the (((Old Bolsheviks))), then Stalin’s allegedly inadequate levels of shabbos goyosity can be mentioned in the context of the 1930s, especially for J-Right takes.
But it’s an interesting example of a radical narrative shift without an accompanying complete retcon — whether the narrative shift is applied in a specific instance depends on both the era and the specific context. Cognitive dissonance [and its suppression] is an interesting phenomenon.
*”Wait, he was serious about that “socialism in one country” thing? Oy vey!”
**Fun fact — the head judge at the 1935-36 Moscow “show trials,” Iola Nikitchenko, was also the head Soviet judge at the Nuremberg “totally objective models of fair and just jurisprudence and not at all show trials” in 1945-46. At first glance, this kinda looks like a narrative shift in the opposite direction from Jughashvili’s. But only a cynic would suggest that the relevant difference between the two trials was that only White goyim were on trial for their alleged “crimes” at Nuremberg, while the Moscow trials also targeted people like “Kamenev” [ Rosenfeld ] and “Zinoviev” [ Apfelbaum ]. But what actually happened was that Nikitchenko magically morphed from a BAD goy into a GOOD goy. Please remember that.
I have been focused on Hitler for years and I do not believe that he was a homosexual.
the emphasis on racial ideology determining everything.
Thanks for your comment. I am pretty sure that I understand the distinction now.
Because of your comment and some other reading, I am going to pay closer attention to what is attributed to “racial ideology” in the future with regard to the 3rd Reich. I guess I fall into the camp of thinking that “exactly why did they kill those people” is an important distinction.
You got me. I ought not to have posted that. Though I think the subject matter being labeled ‘Masonic nonsense’ is certainly debatable, and suggests a sensitivity about it being discussed in any manner, I’ll lay off the subject.
As far as know, the settlement plans by the SS (Generalplan Ost) were only drawn up after the start of Barbarossa. I’m unaware that there is anything explicit about settlement in statements by Backe or other economic planners before the start of Barbarossa (if there is, correct me). So combining these elements from different time periods may give a misleading impression of a coherent plan which never existed like that.
And while it’s true that there eventually were plans for settlement of parts of the Soviet Union (and an abortive attempt at mass expulsions from Crimea was actually started), where would all those settlers replacing dozens of millions have come from? Even if one included other “Germanic settlers” like Dutch, Scandinavians, English etc., where would the manpower for such a massive undertaking have come from?
There’s no question that the German war against the Soviet Union was in many ways deeply criminal and can be justified neither in goals nor methods. But it really seems to me that some of the interpretations of Nazi plans, while partially based in reality, have crossed over into the realm of the fantastical.
Great post.
I think only the pilot survived.
To the powers that be, anyone who sincerely represents the actual interest of an organic people and is outside the approved Capitalist/Communist dialectic, whether it be a Sikorski who actively fought National Socialist Germany, or, an American Indian who actually cares about his tribe, in their view they are all ultimately ‘Nazis!’, and thus expendable.
No.
I don’t know of anyone except you who thinks that.
And, nonsense.
where would all those settlers replacing dozens of millions have come from?
I think that they had major problems from the get-go with finding enough settlers. Not to mention the fact that they had even more problems with the settlements and settlers that they did put in place.
Since you so highly praise the historian David Irving, who is indeed the definitive Hitler biographer, perhaps you missed my earlier comment where I give a number of Irving citations:
—David Irving, The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939.
So I guess you disagree with Irving on this key point that Hitler’s MAIN ambition through the years was conquest to the east?
You can’t have it both ways, friend. Either Rezun is right that Hitler was simply forced to hit Russia ‘pre-emptively’—or Hitler had this burning ambition all along?
‘…And while it’s true that there eventually were plans for settlement of parts of the Soviet Union (and an abortive attempt at mass expulsions from Crimea was actually started), where would all those settlers replacing dozens of millions have come from? Even if one included other “Germanic settlers” like Dutch, Scandinavians, English etc., where would the manpower for such a massive undertaking have come from?…’
This actually touches on something. Not only were the Germans distinctly short of settlers for the East, but Nazi social programs appear to have actually had the effect of making recruitment even more difficult. If your pathetic little parcel in Franconia is now a ‘Reich Entailed Farm’ and your children are able to go on to higher education, why exactly are you going to want to emigrate to Poland?
…Let alone the Ukraine or other such speculative ventures. Going by what I’ve read, the Germans in just the Warthegau and West Prussia had to make do with resettled Volksdeutsche from Bessarabia, Lorrainers, very disgruntled working class girls from bombed out areas in the Ruhr; people were not lining up to take advantage of this hot new opportunity.
The Nazis were straining just to fill those areas of Western Poland they’d added to the Reich; Germans just didn’t want to emigrate — the more so as the Nazis had done much to ameliorate conditions for the peasantry in Germany proper.
So how would this great Eastward expansion have actually played out? As far as I can see, there would have been a distinct shortage of Germans.
A little bit of a deeper dive into the history of judeobolshevism, Stalin’s role in it, and how the narrative on the issue has changed over time:
To begin with, you’re simply not going to find an intelligent, nuanced discussion of this issue in mainstream outlets aimed at goy audiences, so for anyone who’s predisposed toward reflexive crimestop when looking at so-called “ebil White supreemist not-see hater heretic” sources, I highly suggest you take a look at something like the Jewish Virtual Library’s entry on Stalin. As a “jew-for-jew” source, it’s [of course] a highly self-serving, openly semitic supremacist narrative, but it incorporates a number of useful facts, and is less focused on disguising the semitic narrative shift on the SQ [Stalin Question] than most mainstream sources.
Or you could look at what (((Trotsky))) had to say in his “The Revolution Betrayed” tract, where he whined that Stalin was somehow constitutionally incapable of viewing issues from a truly globalist [i.e. semitic] standpoint:
Stalin proved the most consistent and reliable among his colleagues. He had no need to tear himself away from international problems; he had never been concerned with them. The petty bourgeois outlook of the new ruling stratum was his own outlook. He profoundly believed that the task of creating socialism was national and administrative in its nature. He looked upon the Communist International as a necessary evil would should be used so far as possible for the purposes of foreign policy.
Very revealing when you think about it.
After the October Jew Coup in 1917, the Tribe established themselves as a hostile, ruling elite in the USSR — just as they did in short-lived judeobolshevik regimes in other countries during the same period, like (((Bela Kuhn’s))) totalitarian dictatorship in Hungary. But in Russia, the semitic supremacists were able to retain long-term control. Sure, Dzhugashvili was apparently a Georgian goy. But Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev? All MOTS, and Lenin was a judeophilic mischling. Jews clearly retained their privileged status under under Stalin — see KMac’s excellent Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR, for example.
It should be self-evident that a goy who manages to rise to the top in a jew-dominated system has to be rabidly philosemitic — or at least do an excellent job of faking it. Just look up your Congressman on Twitter, and search his recent timeline for “I Stand With Israel,” for example.
And indeed, Stalin instituted the death penalty for mere possession of a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, characterized any opposition to toxic semitism as “the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism,” and sycophantically assured the Jewish Telegraph Agency that so-called “active anti-semites” are “liable to the death penalty.”
See also the “Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee,” etc. Or, in the immediate postwar period, Henry Frankel from the Foreign Affairs Dept. of the AJC [1946]:
In the years preceding the second World War, the Soviet Union uncompromisingly classed anti-Semitism as a particularly crude variety of international fascism. And during the Second World War itself, the Soviet’s fight against “anti-Jewish racialism” was one of the main aspects of the Red Army’s exploits…
So what happened? Stalin’s rejection of the Baruch Plan did not make the Tribe happy, and he was not particularly receptive to their demands for yet more special privileges in the postwar period. He had already given the Tribe the jewish autonomous oblast in the early years of his reign, but they grew bored with that, and demanded hegemony over Palestine and Crimea* as well. Though Stalin was perfectly willing [initially at least] to support the Zionist settler-colonialists in Palestine, he drew the line at giving them Crimea.
And in 1948 — after seeing the jewish response to Golda Meir’s visit to the USSR? Stalin realized that jews would continue to demand that all communist goyim must renounce their own national identity, while the Tribe aggressively worked to enhance their own collective interests. International communism for the goyim; Labor Zionism [= national socialism] for the Tribe. Rabid Israel Firstism wasn’t any more welcome to goyim in the USSR then than it is to American goyim now.
And things continued to go downhill from there, until Stalin’s death in 1953. From natural causes, of course. While the (((Trots))) gradually moved into Frankfurt School-style poz and neoconnery, maintaining their focus on “permanent revolution” for the goyim, but shifting their financial focus from ostensible “communism” to “capitalism.”
And now we’re left with the somewhat incoherent narrative that Stalin was a Very Good Goy during WW2, but inexplicably turned into an Evil “Anti-Semite” afterwards, but was mostly a Good Goy during the 30s, except in the context of the “anti-semitic” Moscow Trials, or when a J-Right narrative needs to demonize communism without saying anything mean about Trotsky or other communist jews. Judeobolshevik atrocities in the late 1910s-early 1920s are not part of the narrative.
*The JVL link above mentions this briefly — should be easy to find other sources if you look.
Judeobolshevik apologists routinely project their own sexual perversions onto any goyim in the general vicinity, or onto any who are targeted by a “bad goy” narrative [like Haman/ Hitler]. Next “McNally” will claim that Hitler had only one testicle, and that he knows this for sure because he personally — and carefully — inspected the man’s genitalia himself.
This sort of thing isn’t really intended to be a serious argument — it’s just something they spout reflexively when they can’t think of anything else to say.
McMeekin does not ‘confirm’ that the Black Hand was under control of the Tsar. He simply regurgitates (with a great deal of theatrical gestures) old tropes. Whatever he said (giggling all the way) about Sarajevo had already been said 100 years ago.
I agree. I think either immediate punitive action or no action would have been the proper response. As it is, the long, tedious delay was only serving to build up tension and set the cogwheels of the strategic thinkers in the Entente in motion. Initially, even in France and England sincere shock at what had happened was expressed in the newspapers. The Kaiser’s promise of unconditional support of Austria’s action was given under the impression of the assassination that had struck Germany’s ally Austria-Hungary and his personal friend, understandable, but form the point of politics too much laden with risks, as we know now.
‘…FDR already had an uphill battle to convince Americans that they “needed” to join in yet another European war that had nothing to do with them, and that the vast majority of them opposed. Trying to convince Americans that the judeobolsheviks were the “good guys”… while they were actively engaged in crushing Finland would be yet another obstacle.’
Perhaps. I’m skeptical both that Stalin was that perceptive and that his perspective was that global. Witness his open seizure of Poland; that hardly suggests a delicate concern for Western sensibilities.
I’d look at two more immediate considerations. First, Stalin still needed to win the main event. Second, Mannerheim had made a point of not advancing past the 1939 Russo-Finnish frontier. ‘We’re fighting about Karelia only. I’m not going to take part in overthrowing the Soviet Union, and should you recover, I expect you to refrain from annexing Finland outright.’
Of course all that’s unproven — but I’m inclined to look there rather than assume a Stalin with a truly international perspective. I suspect that tacitly or explicitly, Finland and Russia had an understanding about the limits of their conflict.
On the other hand, you are — no matter how incompetently and disingenuously….
Thank you very much. Coming from you that is flattery…I guess. I am just a simple individual, which doesn’t mean of course I’m a simpleton. I know maybe just a fraction of what most eggheads crossing irons here in this thread know, after all for us South Americans both “world” wars are rather remote, almost an afterthought (even if many in that neck of the woods would have wanted Germany to win ww2) and our most direct contact with their reality has been in the shape of the thousands of refugees coming to our shores from all over Europe. As for me, I see myself like Lt. Columbo, who doesn’t understand a thing about the complexities of each case at the beginning of his investigation (as every murderer is an specialist at something) but who then starts asking questions and when he gets to know the essentials, he starts looking for the contradictions in the narrative, the BS. In this case. I see the contradiction in the very existence of the Cold war. In other things too, but above all the CW.
Now, concerning what you write about narratives and how they change as one given individual goes from being a great guy and a cherished friend to a bloodthirsty monster I can’t argue with that, you are right, even more so when I have witnessed myself several conspicuous examples of that during the two few decades. We have all seen it. like for example how Saddam Hussein and Muhammar el Qadaffi went from being helpful allies and friends of the West to genocidal monsters who had to be taken down. (Mind you, during his honeymoon with the U.S. empire Saddam was even allowed to fire on a US navy ship, the USS Stark, and kill dozens of her crew during an unprovoked attack that many considered intentional, yet U.S. talking heads were all over presenting excuses and giving explanations in his behalf..! But of course everything changed for him whenhe decided to start accepting currencies other than the USD for Iraqi oil. And something similar happened to Qadaffi. And to Putin, when he stopped playing dead, as he had done in the case of the attacks on Syria and Libya and finally decided to say “Basta..!”. Is in that context that I put your comments, I just shrug my shoulders I ask you: Come on, do you think that any political entity with real power in this world has ever acted any differently? Why do you think both Mahatmma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela have been celebrated and even canonized in the West, why this last holy man deserved a 90th anniversary in some English soccer stadium with 90.000 present, with the creme de la creme present, European royalty, sports and entertainment figures, the whole nine yards…? Why while these two men where considered worthy of such honors (Hollywood even made a super production on Gandhi) while other figures as notable as Che Guevara or Salvador Allende haven’t received any of the aforementioned honors…? The answer is simple, the two firsts were phonies, fakers, they were in a global scale what some people call “controlled opposition” and they were rewarded in consequence for the great job they did posturing as leaders who rocked the boat when they did the opposite, while the two last were, no matters their faults and their shortcomings, men who actually rocked the global boat of the empire. And that is how it goes.
As for Stalin, there is no doubt that he was a product of his time, of the struggles of that era and of the society he had to live, Czarist Russia on its blast leg. He was tough, implacable and above all resolute. He was also a brute (Lenin himself wasn’t very enthusiastic about leaving him in power, considering him “too brutal”, which says a lot) and something of a paranoiac too. He was very much like Hitler, with a crucial difference, that when push came to shove, he was also a practical man, a realist, contrary to Hitler which was defeated and destroyed by his racial and ideological obsessions. Had he not been the practical and realist man he was I don’t think the USSR would have lasted the next decade after ww2 and people of the former USSR, and the world, owe him that. I consider him also a patriot in his own eyes, as also Hitler, Franco, Hussein, Qadaffi and many other authoritarian rulers have also seen themselves as patriots as they are convinced they have been put in their place by Destiny, God, the Providence, for the good of their country, for the work they are doing. But above all, I don’t think that once he got into power as leader of the USSR Stalin was ever willing to dance to anybody’s else tune, to be the fool or the tool of anyone else. There is a former Canadian PM, Brian Mulroney, who once explained why he had wanted to become the top dog of the country as frankly as this: “Because I don’t want to kiss anyone’s else butt anymore, I want everyone else kissing mine”. That runs for Stalin too.
When Servia accepted the majority of the Austrian ultimative demands, the Kaiser said with relief that now there was no more reason for war (of Austria against Servia); it would have dissipated a fear of a general European war. So much for “seeking a confrontation with Russia”.
Makes sense to me to draw a conclusion of the sort of “Germany was trying to avoid any war”.
England was of course intimately involved with guiding Poland towards war with Germany in 1939. Otherwise, Poland, as the chosen ally, would have been advised to not pursue an extremely belligerent course towards Germany, England would have asked Poland to end its persecution of the Germans it had brought under its rule, it would have suggested that a German city that is inhabited by nearly 100 % Germans is not Polish, that, as a “Free City” with a special status under League of Nations, shouldn’t have a Polish Garrison and England would have presented the Poles the German suggestions -the 16 points as worked out by the Government of Chancellor Hitler-of how to resolve permanently the tension-laden situation at the German-Polish border. England did no such thing, but rather gave instead Poland an unqualified guarantee worded to be solely directed against Germany. What a foolish thing.
I was bringing this up because of the foolish chattiness of the Italian Foreign Minister who blabbed to the British Ambassador in Rome that Italy would not ally itself with Germany in case of an armed conflict with Germany, hence greatly lowering the risk and possible engagement England would have to consider in case of a declaration of war against Germany.
Hitler did not “shred the Munich agreement”. Czecho-Slovakia fell apart as a creation that was inherently unstable; it fell apart as soon as the the Slovaks insisted on first greater independence from Czech domination, and as this was refused, independence. Soon the other minorities followed, the Hungarians, Ruthenians and the Poles. As you, who has some information on everything, ought to know, the Czech president asked for a meeting with Hitler to discuss the deteriorating situation in the remaining Czech state and the (temporary) establishment of a protectorate – the Protectorate in common parlance. The Czech state was not annexed and retained a substantial degree of independence. Nonetheless, it would have probably been better to simply let this state, artificially created at the expense of all of its neighbors by the magicians of Versailles, completely descend into chaos. At least the warmongers then and people like you now would have been deprived of their pro-war arguments.
At first Chamberlain’s government declared that it took no interest in the establishment of the Protectorate because due to the secession of Slovakia, the Hungarian region and Ruthenia the conditions for maintenance and guarantee of Czecho-Slovakia were not anymore given. However, someone whistled him back within a day and ever since then creatures like Churchill, general warpromotors or yourself have been, are and likely will for a while longer prattle about “shredding the Munich agreement”. These people even had their war to set the injustice back in place and make the chaos by many magnitudes worse. What an accomplishment.
Well?
Now we are coming slowly to the root of the tree.
Interest of England France and US was and To destroy both Russia, and Germany simultaneously.
After all Stalin bitterly complained for English, and US postponing the invasion several times.
England and US policy was to destroy National Socialism and Communism in the name of Democracy.
We will never know why Hitler and his National Socialist did swallow the hook.
Maybe Hitler was a sucker trying to appease Anglo Saxons.
This policy in milder form survived to this day.
Policy is that Germans and Slavs must be kept apart.
But it will not work anymore.
China did throw monkey wrench into western system.
Now you finally came with your stupidities.
trope = anything that contradicts the narrative of the mighty Seraphim
Taken on its face value, this seems like a logical argument.
However, you don’t embark on a total war having the next 5, 10 or even 50 years in mind. You have plans for a much greater time span in your sight. If not for the rest of eternity, than at least for the next 1000 years. No wander Nazi regime fancied calling itself “the 1000 years Reich”.
His behavior at the very end of the war, when he ordered a wholesale destruction of Germany because, I paraphrase, “German people have proven to be weak and don’t deserve to exist” proves that Hitler and his followers were mad enough to think in such terms
Stalin’s War: Disorted history of a complex second World War
Book review: Sean McMeekin dubiously contends war was more Stalin’s than Hitler’s
by Geoffrey Roberts
Sean McMeekin’s contention that the second World War was more Stalin’s war than Hitler’s has a long and dubious pedigree reaching back to the war-revolution conspiracy theory of the interwar years. According to this myth, Stalin plotted to precipitate a new world war in order to foment global revolution.
In truth, there was nothing Stalin feared more than a major war. While the first World War had enabled the Russian Revolution, that was followed by foreign military interventions which came close to strangling Bolshevism at birth. Stalin’s nightmare scenario was the revival of that anti-communist coalition. War did offer opportunities – and Stalin certainly took advantage of them – but war also posed an existential danger to the Soviet state.
So sparse is the evidence for the war-revolution hypothesis that McMeekin resorts to citing a blatant forgery: a document purporting to report on a speech Stalin supposedly made in August 1939 in which he spoke about the Sovietisation of Europe as a result of the war he intended to provoke. The document in question initially appeared in the French press shortly after the outbreak of war and was plainly propaganda designed to discredit Stalin at a time when he was collaborating with Hitler.
A legitimate piece of evidence cited by McMeekin are the private remarks made by Stalin in September 1939: “A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries. We see nothing wrong in their having a good fight and weakening each other. We can manoeuvre, pit one side against the other to set them fighting each other as fiercely as possible.”
But McMeekin lets his readers down by not quoting what Stalin also said: “We preferred agreements with the so-called democratic countries and therefore conducted negotiations. But the English and French wanted us for farmhands and at no cost.”
What these remarks actually show is that having failed to form an anti-Hitler coalition with Britain and France, Stalin instead opted for neutrality and the Nazi-Soviet pact, intended to further protect Russia from the consequences of war.
Disastrous miscalculation
According to McMeekin, it was Stalin who goaded the Japanese to invade Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937. He says the Soviet campaign for collective security against fascist aggression was a sham, as was Moscow’s support for Republican Spain during its civil war. Then, in 1939, Stalin engineered an Anglo-French-German war over Poland. Allied to Hitler, Stalin overplayed his hand by refusing to deepen his pact with the Nazi dictator. That disastrous miscalculation almost led to the Soviet Union’s defeat in 1941, says McMeekin, but Stalin’s bacon was saved by western military aid, the crucial source of all subsequent Soviet victories over Hitler’s armies.
His most bizarre claim is that in spring 1943 Stalin approached Hitler to offer an armistice. During the war there were numerous fake news stories about peace feelers being extended, many of them generated by intelligence agencies. The Soviets played this game, too, but there is no hard evidence of any serious intent to negotiate a separate peace with Hitler. Why would Stalin do such a thing after the resounding Soviet victory at Stalingrad in January 1943? And why risk alienating his British and American allies when they were supplying him with massive material aid, which McMeekin insists the Soviets were dependent on?
To his credit, McMeekin steers clear of the wilder claims of right-wing historical revisionism. He doesn’t excuse Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union as a preventative war or claim that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Nor does he blame the Holocaust on Stalin.
Shorn of its polemics there is some good history in this book. McMeekin writes well and has the language skills to comb through a huge amount of archival material, though in the Russian case not always accurately. There is much interesting detail about allied supplies to Russia, the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944, the Soviet plunder of Germany in 1945, and the war with Japan.
McMeekin’s relentless anti-communism keeps him focused on the dark side of the Soviets’ war – the Katyn massacre of Polish POWs, the deportation of ethnic groups accused of collective disloyalty, and Stalin’s maltreatment of the families of Soviet POWs, including that of his son, Yakov, who died in German captivity in 1943. This is fair enough. Arguably, Stalin and the Red Army did save the world from Hitler and the Nazis, but the cost was brutal.
In conclusion McMeekin argues the West should have confronted Stalin during the war and formed “a broad international coalition against totalitarian aggression”, an alliance that could have included “pro-Axis Hungary and Fascist Italy”. As to Hitler, he could have been dealt with by a peace deal that would have saved Western Europe from Nazi occupation and may even have extracted conquered Poland from his clutches.
This book will certainly enhance Prof McMeekin’s reputation as an ideologically-driven conservative historian. His fantastical speculation that standing up to Stalin would have produced a better outcome than standing up to Hitler may appeal to those who share his fervent anti-communism. More impartial readers will recoil from the book’s distortion of the complex and multi-faceted history of the second World War.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/stalin-s-war-disorted-history-of-a-complex-second-world-war-1.4551057
Thank you for digging up those quotes by David Irving, “their” prized historian. Now you can expect ad hominem insults in response from “them”.
Wait, you’ve spent this entire thread incoherently blabbering about how Stalin and the judeobolsheviks were allegedly “good guys who could do no wrong”
Where exactly did I state that? Which comment?
You clearly have a very hard time with nuanced thinking.
It’s actually possible to believe that both Stalin and Hitler were bloodthirsty warmongers that only pretended to embrace party ideology as a path to raw power.
That concept probably makes your brain explode as you are clearly locked in some simplistic mode of thinking where everyone is either on the side of the Nazis or the Communists.
The Nazis were straining just to fill those areas of Western Poland they’d added to the Reich; Germans just didn’t want to emigrate — the more so as the Nazis had done much to ameliorate conditions for the peasantry in Germany proper.
This happened but it was a surprise to the Nazis.
They didn’t have as many volunteer settlers as they were expecting.
Perhaps the German people were wise to wait until it was certain that the war was over.
So how would this great Eastward expansion have actually played out? As far as I can see, there would have been a distinct shortage of Germans.
Would really be a minor issue had they won the war.
It’s not hard to get people to move when you have a dictatorship.
Thank you Laurent for having writing this article about the work of Mc Meekin. I have also discovered that he had worked on the WW1.
I think you should be interested in this video which Xavier Moreau has just edited and which deals with Suvorov’s claims, that he debunks using a recorded conversation between Adolph Hitler and Mannerheim which he provides on the video.
The information is provided begining at 9′
The German locutors won’t need the French translation…
Keep on the good work, keep on searching and sharing
As you must be aware by now, ref Irving’s stellar research/books and the recent McMeekin volume, history is a constantly developing discipline. Or it should be. New discoveries cast new light on what was previously little more than strident/repetitive/untrue propaganda, or deliberate obfuscation —
as you can see in this comment section, for example …
From its bloodstained beginning, through the 1920s into the 1930s, judeobolshevism was viewed, and in my humble opinion correctly viewed, as a murderous horror-show. Hitler was not alone in seeing that “communism” was entirely Jewish, an openly murderous attack on ethic Europe.
Where it had not taken power as in Russia it was more clandestine ref his remarks in MK on the ownership/role of “newspapers” for example, which continues today, or the promotion of pornography, also today the same people/same thing, or drugs, or sleaze of any kind posing as “art” … etc. as more subtle means to destroy.
He also significantly identified “democracy” (haha) as a gateway to “communism”. Take a look at the “democratic west” for an evaluation of how correct that analysis is.
Hitler very early identified the parasitic monster and determined to destroy it by force of arms. There were other significant laws in Germany ref wholesome exercise, diet, raising the standard of living for Germans, “animal rights” (first in the world), education etc. But his main priority lay in destroying judeobolshevism.
As everyone knows, he failed after a very hard fight.
One of his main mistakes was due to his liking for the English (not so much Americans) and thinking perhaps that WS Churchill was an honest negotiator and not merely a hired hand for international Jewry, that letting the English army scuttle off the Dunkerque beach would bring a cessation of hostility …
So he failed to destroy judeobolshevism and the results can be seen throughout Europe, in the ME and in the world generally. People like you are the reason for that failure, dupes for judeo-freemasonry, doggedly supporting to this very day the monstrous force that is bombing/wrecking the world for the elites that live in luxury while your compatriots shit in the streets of your cities.
The fact that comments are disabled on that book review reveals the agenda of the reviewer.
Geoffrey Roberts has it simultaneously unhinged, backwards and wrong. Hitler was never a threat to the “world”, and the statement should read: “There can be no argument that Hitler failed to save Europe from Stalin, the Red Rapist Army, and the complete Judeo-Masonic take over”.
It is not ‘my’ narrative. It is the demonstrated real history of WW1, which Turkish propagandists posing as historians try desperately to turn on its head. McMeekin started his ”bold and brilliant revisionist study” campaign not coincidentally in 2011, when the ‘Arab Spring’ started to ‘denounce’ the ‘Sykes-Picot-Sazonov Agreement’ of ‘carving the Ottoman Empire’.
Whether you respect them or not you crave their attention.
Look man, I’m not interested in a lot verbiage.
Is Irving right or is Rezun right?
They can’t both be right, obviously, since they say the exact opposite.
“…Interest of England France and US was and To destroy both Russia, and Germany simultaneously…”
I suppose that is why the USA and Canada shipped around 450,000 trucks, thousands of aircraft engines. tens of thousands of tons of food stuffs, whole factories etc. etc., PLUS PRINTING PLATES FOR US DOLLARS, to the Soviet Union, with a tremendous loss of life in the North Atlantic.
But then, neither system of communists and capitalists cared very much for their citizens, which were treated as cannon fodder and tax farm animals.
The fact remains that the National Socialists in Germany produced an economic system that worked: It improved the lives of the German working class immeasurably, not only with decent housing, but also recreational endeavours such a ship cruises, theatre attendance, sports facilities, forests available for hiking, etc.
And this economic system was a threat to the communists in the Soviet Union, and the capitalists in the USA plus UK and its former colonies Canada, Australia, etc.
Thus the National Socialist system had to be destroyed, and the inventors thereof painted with the blackest tar brush in all recorded history, forever it seems, to curtail any revival of this system.
We now see the results of this destruction. The communist system collapsed due to its incompetence, and the western world is deteriorating before our eyes because of the promotion of incompetents to steer the ship of state.
This is what happens in so-called democracies when there is no competition to do better. Without a basis for comparison the tax farm cattle accept any kind of rubbish.
Thanks for that review from the historian Geoffrey Roberts. Wow! He really shredded Clown McMeekin!
I read Roberts’ Stalin’s Wars when it came out in 2007, and it is tremendously honest book. Not surprisingly Roberts did himself no favor vis a vis the anti-Russia establishment by producing an honest piece of scholarship.
It is a masterful piece of genuine historiography, and if you really want to read something worthwhile about Stalin and the other main protagonists of WW2, you will find this an engrossing and fascinating read, chock full of facts and beautifully written.
While the evidence is all circumstantial, it has a lot to it. What is clearly documented is that there were some people who must have had some type of blackmail material on Hitler, based on something in his past, which they held on to tightly for self-protection. The hypothesis that this may have involved homosexuality is not absolutely the only explanation, but it is plausible.
As I said before, the thesis here is that any homosexual behavior which Hitler may have engaged in ended in 1923. Machtan does not try to claim that Hitler was holding gay fests in the Reichstag while Chancellor. What is asserted is that Hitler engaged in homosexual affairs first in Vienna, then in the army during the war, and even went on for several years after the war until he realized that he was coming into a likely position of leadership and so disassociated himself from that past. In doing this he of course had to make sure that Himmler cleaned out any documents from the army and police which may have reflected this past. Machtan goes on to argue that some documents of this type were taken away by others for self-protection. He discusses some of these people and makes a good case that they had some kind of dirt on Hiter, even if we can’t be quite sure of what it was.
I remember when back around early 2004 the “judeobolshevik” Germar Rudolf (before his abduction off to Germany) was listing Machtan’s book on his website as a reference for readers. That was how I first heard of the book. I expressed in e-mail the opinion to Rudolf that I didn’t think it was worth promoting such a book as it could serve as a distraction from other issues. I still would caution against letting it carry too much weight. But when I later read Ian Kershaw’s 2-volume biography I was so dissatisfied with Kershaw’s coverage that I felt to go back and check out Machtan.
Basically, to the extent that Kershaw has any coherent thesis it would be that Hitler was asexual. Except that he doesn’t come out and say anything like this but just sort of winds around the issue. It’s obvious that Hitler’s relations with Eva Braun were purely ceremonial (at a time when respectable men were expected to have a woman in high society). There was a story promoted about Hitler having had a crush on his niece Angela Raubal until she committed suicide, but that too was obviously just a public relations stunt carried on by the NSDAP. The German public would have asked “who is this leader that doesn’t have any girlfriend?” Things like that used to be a social expectation of leaders. So Hitler promoted the story that he had been in love with his niece until she committed suicide, and after this his only love was Germany. It was contrived propaganda.
So, yes, it might be that Hitler was simply asexual. Although that is rare, it’s not unimaginable as some might think. But the possibility of him having had a homosexual past is also worth entertaining since the leading influence on him during his early years in the NSDAP was Ernst Roehm, a very open homosexual. As I said before, Machtan is clear that he does not believe there ever any homosexual relations between Hitler and Roehm. Roehm was a strong influence on Hitler, but not in bed. The only question is whether or not Hitler had ever had any other homosexual contacts. Read the book and judge for yourself.
The dissatisfaction someone like you feels with my view of things equals a compliment. Therefore, thanks, so to speak..
OK, well if you’re going to disbelieve Zhukov’s story then that’s fine since the actual documentation would likely have been destroyed. But it does fit rather well. All of this is described in a little over 6 pages in Chapter 18, Secret Letters, of David Murphy, What Stalin Knew. According to Zhukov there were letters sent back and forth between Hitler and Stalin with Pavel Valodin having apparently played some role in the delivery.
Supposedly, according to Zhukov, at the beginning of 1941 Stalin told him that he had “turned to Hitler in a personal letter, advising him that this was known to us, that it surprised us, and that it created the impression among us that Hitler intended to go to war with us.” Hitler’s reply, again according to Zhukov, was that “our information was correct, that there actually were large troop formations deployed in the Government General.” But then he went on that these “are not directed against the Soviet Union. I intend to observe the pact strictly and swear on my honor as a chief of state that my troops are deployed in the Government General for other purposes.”
In a later communication of May 14, Hitler is said to have notified Stalin that “by approximately June 15-20 I plan to begin a massive transfer of troops to the west from your borders.” He requested further that if there were any border incidents during the anticipated troop movement “I ask you to show restraint, to not respond but to advise me immediately of what has happened through the channel known to you.” Granted that a lot of this depends on Zhukov’s say-so, it still fits with a fact that is repeatedly overlooked by the Rezun-thesis: Hitler started the massive military build-up first and Stalin must have noticed this.
This story is very plausible because it makes that Stalin would first try to call Hitler out about what was happening. Hitler then gives a logical response in the above. He asserts that all of those troops are going to be moved to the west for something to happen there. That will only make sense if Hitler does not foresee the conflict with Britain winding down anytime soon but rather intends further action against Britain. So, yes, if the war between Germany and Britain were to suddenly wind down and fizzle out then this troop build-up would obviously be intended for something else. That is the context for any debate about “did Stalin want the war between Britain and Germany to end?”
I assume this 3-liner is a reply to my reply to your request for information ?
Why do you set up a strawman argument would be a good question to you, perhaps.
Why do you seek to set up a false dichotomy ?
Both of course can be correct …
That JS intended to invade Germany/Europe does not preclude that AH wished to destroy judeo-bolshevism … is this difficult for you to understand ?
Explain please how those Irving quotes negate this.
Are you a simpleton ?
I don’t think so — aren’t you an American rocket-scientist ?
Or trying to be disingenuous to fool the simple and naive ?
I won’t speculate on your motives, but others here seem to have a clear idea.
Meantime here is a quote by AH abt America.
I leave it to you to decide how true this has turned out after your “winning” WW2.
I personally am dubious about the source of this quote, reputed in a conversation 7 Jan 1942, but give it (with reservation) since it does express truth/prophecy.
If you don’t like it, here’s Pat Buchanan —
And why is this so self-evidently true ?
This is so typical of these “historians” like Rezun that pick and choose the facts to prove their point. By June 15, 1941, 254 airfields were under construction all over the place including Belorussia, Ukraine Far East, Polar region, Caucasus, near Leningrad, ets. About 66 of all airfield were at the 50-80 km distance from the border. Most airfields were incomplete, lacking landing strips with firm coating and any air defense. Hardly suited for a massive offensive operation.
It wasn’t that massive. The Red Army lacked most categories of modern weapons, defensive or offensive. Besides, it lacked trained personnel to use them, particularly in aviation. Stalin and his generals were well aware of that.
For once I agree with you. The argument that Germany attacked the USSR “in self-defense” is just as ridiculous as the claim that the USA attacked Iraq for “defensive” reasons. You seem to have forgotten that the Soviet Union didn’t attacked anyone; Germany did.
You really are a complete idiot, Those “boneheads” were the leading country in the world, leaders in science, technology and a high culture second to none. You writing something does not make it true, especially in view of the fact that you are repeating things the allies claimed and they have been thorough;y exposed as lying over and over again Did you even read the article liar? It says the USSR was on the verge of attacking Germany with the ultimate aim of taking all of Europe. This is based on research by a former member of the Russian security service. He has strong support in his findings from German and other historians and it also conforms with Germany’s claims as to why they attacked the USSR.
You are a liar and an idiot. You present the murderous USSR that murdered about 15,000 leading Polish military people and intellectuals at Katyn and then lied and claimed the Germans did it for the next 45 years with allied support and hold that filth up as virtuous. Even their own people feared these mass murderers and the film of large numbers of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians welcoming their German liberators as heroes belies your lies. Idiot. You can say 27 million or 127 million, it’s meaningless unless you can provide meaningful evidence and the film of the Soviets welcoming German soldiers as heroes says just the opposite, namely that Germany treated Soviet citizens well. The Soviets murdered tens of millions of their own people prior to the war. If 27 million Soviets died in WW II they must have continued killing their own, but no credible evidence has ever been presented to back that figure up. I’m certain millions of Soviets died of many causes, including hunger, but the Germans never murdered 135.000 civilians in one swoop as the British and Americans did at Dresden. The USSR (Jews) is also responsible for erecting a sign that stood at Auschwitz for many years claiming that 4 million people were murdered at Auschwitz and then admitted they lied about that too when in the early 1990’s the sign claiming that figure was torn down and since then have claimed one million people (mostly Jews) were killed but others say the number might be about 150,000, but that the people were not killed, but rather victims of disease. These are the liars people are supposed to believe? The British and Americans are outrageous liars too and have been exposed as such. The lying clown FDR claimed in a speech (FDR’s Navy Day speech 1941) 5 months after Germany’s preemptive strike on the USSR that somehow, they were now poised to attack and take over South America before continuing on to the USA and Washington, DC. These are the mass murderers and liars you hold up as noble and speaking the truth.
And then you boast of these criminals plans to kill millions of more Germans after the war, break it up and rob it of everything. They did that stupid. After WW II the backwards USSR carted off entire factories from eastern Germany and the Americans and British stole whatever they could too. The Americans also brought over German scientists and engineers that lead their space program and gave them their first operational jets, and much, much more. Pharmaceuticals (have you heard of Hydroxychloroquie?) and much more,
Because of censorship laws and that Germany is not an independent country, the mass murder of many millions of Germans is covered up. The claimed number of Germans killed by the allied butchers is far lower than what it actually was and some historians say millions more were killed by Eisenhower after the war too. It is certain the USSR killed large numbers of German POW’s, many by working them to death in their Gulags. In 1943 the Soviets captured 90,000 German POW’s at the battle of Stalingrad and they held large numbers of German POW’s from all the other battles. In 1955 five thousand German POW’s arrived home from trains originating in the USSR, The rest were killed or died of exhaustion.
This was President John F Kennedy’s view of what you call “goons”, you miserable cretin. Those goons had far more Nobel Prizes than any other country in the world.
“The Germans are really too good – that’s why people conspire against them – they do it to protect themselves.” Many others felt similarly. I’m not sure what “race theories” the article is talking about. I’m sure there are many Jewish “experts” that could explain this, just as they explained the 4 million lie at Auschwitz, the soap and lampshades lies and all their other lies.
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/jfk-was-a-fan-of-hitler-and-nazi-germany-diaries-reveal-29292797.html
This is a 1 and 1/2 hour review of the famous Russian Nobel Prize winning author Alexander Sozhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together”, about Jews in the Russian Empire and the USSR, ethnic conflict and ultimately their coup and takeover of the country. Those people that welcomed the Germans as saviors from their mass murdering government knew they were ruled by a foreign government of Jews. From the burning churches, forbidding Christianity to the “cancel culture” there where criticism of Jews was a crime. They ran the gulags and organized the starvation in Ukraine (Lazar Kaganovich) and much more. The Jews have so far prevented the publication of this book in English from one of Russia’s greatest writers, certainly of the 20th century, if not longer.
https://counter-currents.com/2021/05/200-years-together-audio/
On July 5, 1914, the Kaiser was approached by the Austro-Hungarian ambassador with a letter from Franz Joseph stating his aim “to eliminate Serbia” as a factor in the Balkans. The Kaiser’s response was that even with “grave European complications” Germany would support Austria up to and including war between Austria and Russia. The Austro-Hungarians were decided on war against Serbia from the onset. This was all they needed to let it loose. Wilhelm II does seem to have been actually surprised when the Russian mobilization began, so it’s fair to say that he was not planning on starting a general war on July 5. He just assumed that Russian unpreparedness would allow him to back Austria’s intended attack on Serbia.
England was of course intimately involved with guiding Poland towards war with Germany in 1939.
Was it a blunder that England and France countermanded the Polish general mobilization order? And a mistake that Hitler’s so-reasonable 16-point proposal for the Danzig question was read off by Ribbentrop to Henderson in German, faster than Henderson said he could understand it, and that a look on paper was refused? Fortunately, Hitler was able to counter the invasion of Germany with a brilliant riposte on September 1, or we’d all be writing the Unz Review in Polish.
No Hitler couldn’t have. The Slavs were an inferior race, remember? Besides, the USSR was their country, good or bad. Portraying the Soviet life as one of a continuing nightmare is popular in the West, for obvious reasons, but this is nonsense. At the time, there was a great enthusiasm in the country for the new life despite all the problems that seemed temporary; a huge number of people got new prospects opened to them that they never could’ve even dreamed of before – and all of that was ruined by the war. I doubt very much that no matter what Hitler did he could’ve earned any sympathies. Sooner or later the Russians would’ve kicked the Germans out.
If that’s your proof, my condolences.
This was forged in Gorby’s time. What’s more, the forgery is quite clumsy. Stalin’s regime was a stickler for proper form, deviation from prescribed norms was severely punished. This document blatantly violates the norms of the time it is purported to represent. If Beria submitted this to Stalin in 1940, he’d be shot within days.
The forgery can be proven by forensic science: all one needs is the analysis of the ink used, which did not exist in 1940.
The very fact that those shot at Katyn had documents on them rules out NKVD: the first thing NKVD did to everyone it arrested was to take away all documents and remove all insignia (if the arrestee was military).
But take heart: you are in good company. People believed all sorts of preposterous things for millennia.
You’re describing what would be a long-term defensive strategy whereas, like I said, the assumption behind Soviet thinking was that a fierce short-term defensive fight near the border would be able to quickly turn into an offense. This strategy would have had some credibility on the surface in light of the failure of the French Maginot Line. The latter was supposed to have been the ultimate defensive frontline, and it failed royally. So that much could have been used to argue not trying to dig in too far on the defensive but just be prepared to fight fiercely at the front and turn the enemy back. But a more objective assessment would have advised to plan on a long-term retreat more akin to 1812. This was how it worked out, but it wasn’t planned that way.
No, I crave the inevitable day their system crashes and I break their teeth in.
In May/June 1941 before the start of the Soviet-Nazi war the British foreign secretary Anthony Eden worked out and signed an agreement at the Soviet embassy that if the USSR went to war with Germany the UK would give its full military support. It did not stipulate that if Germany invaded first. So if Stalin invaded first Britain would have been a willing ally regardless. Viktor Suvorov mentions this in his book The Chief Culprit – Stalin’s Grand Design To Start World War II.
Likewise, I’m sure FDR would have been very happy if the Soviet Union struck first. He was not anti Stalin in the least in fact the Soviet leader referred to US foreign policy in 1939 as “pro Soviet”. Roosevelt claimed to be fighting against dictatorship yet never referred to Stalin as a dictator.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/fdr.html
Roosevelt even asked Hollywood to make a pro Stalin movie – it was called Mission to Moscow.
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/a-wears-war-movie-review-mission-to-moscow-the-factual-movie-president-roosevelt-wanted-made-the-russian-people-thought-was-a-comedy/
Why should I waste my grey matter on you? I have learned enough about your methods LONG before becoming a UNZ reader. It takes a trust fund baby or some loser without a life to actually spend time to “debate” with you. And in the end, you will switch the subject anyway.
I have to thank your colleagues though. Thank for the destruction of countless platforms since 20 years I have realized that a state of simplicity is the only way to deal with cocksuckers like you.
And guess what, I still get to dunk on you abortive kikes and golems with the boys here while living a life undermining the (((system))) every second, LOL
Sure as shit beat staying polite to expose the holohoay then gets banned later.
Go eat a zinc .32
Maybe the niggers will do it tho, kek. Putting you on the giant Holocauster and all.
Nothing in that stuff from 1949 is a revelation to anyone at this point. I simply pointed out, quite rightly, that at the time when the Katyn graves were first announced it was perfectly logical for someone to be suspicious because this was unquestionably the result of Stalingrad. No German defeat at Stalingrad would have meant no one among the German High Command bothering about what happened to the Poles. Anyone who doubts that is really naive. The fact that the massacre at Katyn was in fact done by Beria is separate from that.
Yes. I’m Polish.
Thank you for link to the pdf file. It is worth reading for sure.
Some excerpts from the note about conversation between US Ambassador in France William Bullitt and Ambassador of the Republic of Poland Jerzy Potocki. Washington, November 1938. Translation is mine from polish.
Bullitt was generally very pessimistic when talking to me, saying that spring 1939 would be very annoying ….
He agreed with me that the focus of the European problem had shifted from west to east as the capitulation of democratic states in Munich had showed their weakness towards the German Reich.
Bullit then told me about Britain’s utter unpreparedness for war and the impossibility of adapting English industry to mass war production and, above all, in the field of aircraft production.
Bullit replied that ( western ) democracies absolutely need two more years to be fully rearmed. In the meantime, the German Reich would expand eastward …
Bullit then asked about Poland and our situation in the east. He confirmed that Poland is still the only country that would fight back if Germany crossed its borders.
No they can’t.
Either Hitler had a years-long plan to invade Russia, as Irving so convincingly proves with direct citations of Hitler’s own speeches to his generals and others through the years—and even voice recordings on disk in some cases—or he never intended to invade Russia but had to do so to pre-empt a Russian attack.
That is the clearest possible juxtaposition of precisely opposing narratives one could possibly imagine. And you have not presented even the slightest bit of logic that could possibly reconcile the two.
All you do is lip flap about ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’ and this being Hitler’s supposed desire to invade Russia. Fine. Let’s say that is the case—even though there was no ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’ in Stalin’s regime since he had got rid of them and turned completely 180 degrees from their aims, as even some of your compatriots here have cited…with Trotsky and others complaining bitterly about Stalin and his ‘betrayal.’
But let us assume your school-childish narrative in fact is the case. So Hitler intended to invade the Soviet Union, just as Irving meticulously and voluminously details, with excerpts from Hitler’s own mouth—only it was for political reasons, not lebensraum for a Greater Germany.
So then Irving is right. Hitler, throughout the years plotted and planned to invade Russia. He spoke at length of that as his ‘programme’ to his military folks. He even in 1939 ‘made it quite plain that Nazi Germany was inevitably steering towards war,’ as per Irving.
This was long before there were ANY Russian troops nearby. So how on earth does this square with the ‘pre-emptive’?
He planned it for years, and then he ‘pre-emptively’ did the thing he had planned for years?
Please read that carefully and tell me if there exists any sort of conceivable PRETZEL that could make any grown person take that sentence seriously?
Look, your best bet is to just shrug and admit you can’t explain the contradiction. That way you end up looking like you at least have some sense.
Thanks.
But I was hoping you would explain why a SLOPE like you decides to pretend he’s a ‘German’ with Nazi sympathies?
It’s kind of pathetic, really. Cheerleading for all the other slopes [granted semi-intelligent ones] like ‘showmethereal’ and ‘ddan’—while spewing against white supremos that diss them, like ‘Marckus’ and ‘General Ripper.’
Logically, you should be supporting those clowns, since they are of the same stripe as the other Nazi asshats here, lol.
Even the retarded clown ‘Shitzie’ is fooled by your silly shtick. So I guess, there is that.
Adios Clown. I guess you’re burning a bit, now that your silly ‘cover’ is blown wide open?
Talking about WWI, it may be worthwhile to bring attention to the not very well known fact which puts in question casus belli.
Archduke Ferdinand marriage to Countess Chotek was morganatic, i.e. his children would not inherit the throne after the father. In other words, as a Kronprinz he was the last king, as probably was expected from the man who was expected to re-shape Austro-Hungarian Empire into Triune State, by adding Slavic part (after all, his wife was Czech). However, as probably the last king, he would be expected to end the empire.
It means that:
1) any Habsburg hardliner would be interested in removing Franz Ferdinand anyway
2) Slavs had the least interest in removing him
3) because he represented the dead branch from the point of succession, his removal was no issue, actually. Certainly it wasn’t reason for a war. Can’t blame k.u.k army for not wanting to fight for such a phony case 😉
Conclusion: Archduke death was so convenient to everyone (including Austrians) that it probably was not entirely accidental.
Look, I think I already informed you some time ago on another thread that you are most definitely a bonehead of well below-average intelligence.
Yet you keep writing these long, incoherent messages to me, that are a total waste of my time—although morbid curiosity as to the workings of an idiot-level mind, somehow compels me to read them anyway, and waste all of that time.
Ahh, c’est la vie…
It’s not really clear though that Hitler’s speech in February 1933 and his other utterances you cited refer to plans against the Soviet Union. His statements were pretty vague, referring only to possible conquests “in the East”, which would then have to be ruthlessly Germanized through mass expulsions. In the 1933 speech he referred to France’s expulsions of Germans from Alsace-Lorraine after 1918 as an example, which was probably euphemistic for what he had in mind, but doesn’t exactly indicate as massive an undertaking as a conquest of Russia. Most in his audience would presumably have interpreted his statements as directed primarily against Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Personally I do think it’s plausible that Hitler had harboured some kind of aggressive design against the Soviet Union for a long time (and his goals during 1941 certainly became ever more extreme), but what exactly he had in mind during the 1930s isn’t that easy to discern given the sources.
I can assure you that that agreement stipulated that Stalin was not supposed to do anything like what Rezun says. I’ve noted many times on this board that if Stalin attacked Hitler and declared that he was only seeking to join with the Allies then this could work out. But what Rezun asserts is that Stalin was planning a mass-Sovietization of Europe. That is insane, and it was definitely not covered by the agreement you’re talking about.
In fact, even with that agreement, it’s fair to say that Churchill would have demanded that Stalin turn around and get out of Poland once the victory was won. No such demands were made in 1945 because the world was tired of war at that point and everyone had a sort of vague sympathy for the Soviets after the huge cost of the war. But if Stalin had simply struck in 1941 and achieved a rapid victory then Churchill would have said “Great job Joe, now turn around and go back to where you were in 1939!” If Stalin had tried to challenge this in late 1941 then the trouble would have begun.
Thanks for the info. I will read the book.
Okay, so you are saying that Hitler might never have had, for instance, Ukraine in mind when he kept bringing up his ‘programme’ about conquest in the east?
Let’s assume there is something to that—although I would think that David Irving would certainly dismiss it.
So in 1939, he has agreed with Stalin to partition Poland. Then, by your hypotheses, Hitler should have been well and fully sated. You have also written here that mass settlement of conquered Russian lands, including, crucially, Ukraine was not really feasible anyway.
So there should not be any need for any further conquest to the east, yet he keeps talking about it anyway?
No, I’m afraid this story doesn’t really hang together except by the most tenuous, if not fantastical, threads.
In Mein Kampf Hitler was very clear about Russia as the main source of living space. During the course of his whole career he had times when he played certain things up or down. For example, in the years of the Great Depression before he came Chancellor he took a somewhat softer on the Jewish Question. Not that he abandoned, but it was understood that Germans were interested in hearing “bread and butter” talk, so that was what emphasized. In the time after he gained office some of his talk on living space became suitably vague. It wouldn’t have served a purpose to scream that he intends to attack the USSR when he wasn’t ready. But there is certainly a clear line connecting all of his thoughts in Mein Kampf to the things he did later.
“Most welcome and hope you find it useful.”
Yes, indeed. I have already read the book online. I have found it very well written and very informative, perhaps even definitive, until, that is, all classified information is eventually released. Once again, I appreciate your comment and your suggestion that I read the book.
Arthur MacBridge is nothing but a pretentious ignorant who thinks of himself as an intellectual and academic summit and so he goes around spewing his ignorant BS thinking he is doing us all a favor by illuminating our thick bland minds with the gift of his wisdom and knowledge. i had let his one pass but now, as everyone is coming to this realization, i want to add my own grain of salt even as a digression. I quote him:
“Say hello to my esteemed relative, Bernardo O’Higgins, you worthless little….
His efforts were obviously wasted in Chile”.
Uh, he shouldn’t have writen that because:
The truth is, most Chileans loathe Bernardo O’Higgins, who wasn’t even an Irishman but the bastard son of an Irishman, Ambrosio O’Hiigins, who happened to be named Viceroy of Peru by the Spanish crown. Which means Ambrosio (the only Irishman in the story) became the first and probably best known deadbeat dad in Chilean history. So much for the Irish contribution in Chilean Independence and for the image he cemented in the collective Chilean mind about Irish men…! But, talking about Bernardo, who wasn’t even known at the time as Bernardo O’Higgins but Bernardo Riquelme because he was forced to use the family name of his (abandoned) mother, Isabel, a lady of Chilean criollo breed, that until the death of deadbeat Ambrosio, when Bernando thought we could finally start using the family name of his dad, as this last couldn’t prevent him anymore from doing so.
But why Bernardo O’Higgisn is loathed and even hated by many Chileans..? because they see him, at best as an useful idiot of Argentinian Jose De San Martin (even if at that time there wasn’t much of a difference between been Chileans, Argentinians or even Spaniards) and his gang of international Franc masons, the ones moving thing behind the scene in the Independence of (South) America process, and at worst as an accomplices in the murder of the people Chileans consider and worship as their real heroes of their Independence, The Carrera brothers (and sister Javiera) and Manuel Rodriguez. The monument of a horse riding O’Higgins may stand in front of the Moneda Palace, as that of San Martin (as both men are the official, i.e. sanctioned by the ruling elite Libertadores de Chile) but in the hearts and minds of the Chilean people Manuel Rodriguez is the real hero of the Independence along with the Carreras. Songs have been written about him specially (La tonada de Manuel Rodriguez) and the Carreras (Dona Javiera Carrera) yet there is absolutely not one song written to the memory of O’Higgins. He may have shown great courage in combat and proven to have made good tactical decision in the war but it comes to politics he lives in infamy in the memory of the Chilean people as least as a San Martin’s tool and at worst as a traitor. See, during the war of Independence the two sides spent almost as much time and energy fighting each other as fighting the Chilean/Spanish Realists: the Franc mason gang of San Martin & Francisco Miranda against the Nationalists led by the Carreras and Rodriguez. At the end these last ended him being executed by firing squad by the former and Chileans have never forgotten that. So much for Irish contribution to Chilean Independence. I know this is a digression far away from the topics in discussion, but to show that MacBrigde has the tendency to start babbling with apparent authority about subjects he knows nothing about.
I just read the book. Tak, Panie Włodzimierzu, powinien Pan ją również przeczytać. Pozdrawiam.
A SLOPE?
aw shit, I feel bad now. I suppose I should shave half of my head and braid a pony tail, grow my fingernails and pull my eyes to the side for that manchu look 😂
Keep flailing like a retard. I think I will go the nearest Imbiss with my buddies, buy some sweet sour with a tsao tsing and make joke about low IQ subhumans like you. The owners had grandfathers who killed amerimutts too, real hardcore VC shit.
Also, Asians > slav(e)s.
It was different back then when there was enough for the lower classes to mooch on Hartz IV. But now collecting welfare checks with vodka bottles is a slow death, people all over just tend to look at what groups of minorities are still doing OK and not acting like subhumans.
And they are neither the turks nor the slav(e)s. One thing I admit is that slav(e)s have always made respectable friends from well appreciated strata of society, LOL.
Clean that toilet tomorrow with some care, mmkay? Don’t try to tax your brain beyond your inherent genetic limitation, mmkay?
LOL!
You may well be right, karel.
All those tight uniforms (from toilet attendants to party big-wigs). How about the SS Goose-Step? There’s got to be something satanically Freudian behind that!
As for decadence, Voltaire was right. We love the bizarre (thus the Unz Review)!
That don’t make no sense.
Colin your inability to understand satire and the point I was trying to make, is perennial. There is nothing wrong with being a house painter. It is quite an honourable profession nowadays. The accusation of coprophilia is new to me (citation please). But do not bother as you have probably made it up. In any case, coprophilia is quite a titillating pastime nowadays in the bizzare world of woky wokies. Soon, we may see uniformed coprophiliacs marching through the streets of San Francisco eating each other’s shit under the banner of Adolf Hitler.
Well, I don’t know tbh. I think that he probably did have some kind of aggressive intentions against the Soviet Union all along, but I sometimes wonder if modern views of his plans in the 1930s might not be a retrospective construct to some extent. The speech from February 1933 (and also later sources like the Hossbach memorandum) certainly show that he was intent on territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing (that is large-scale expulsion from annexed territories), but there is no explicit mention of the Soviet Union here.
I admit I haven’t read Mein Kampf, I’ll have to look at his comments about Russia there.
My comment to Laurent is of no concern to you.
In any case, do you really think that Hitler should have given a speech about the preparations of invading SU, rather than compiling secret orders restricted to eight copies? Sancta simplicitas, I may add.
‘Would really be a minor issue had they won the war.
‘It’s not hard to get people to move when you have a dictatorship.’
This misconstrues the nature of the Nazi state. It rested to a great extent on popular approval and at least the acquiescence of the mass of the German population.
Notice, for example, the hasty retreat when the existence of the T-4 program became public knowledge and it became clear most Germans did not approve.
Hitler repeatedly held plebiscites where the Germans approved of this or that by overwhelming majorities. As historians point out, that’s shamelessly stacking the deck. At the same time, the elections were substantially free, and people did approve. Not only did the Nazi regime ultimately rest on popular approval; it advertised the fact.
So how is Hitler going to simply order Germans to move to the wilds of Belorussia or whatever? He can’t. The Germans saw themselves as approving of the Nazi regime, and they would have had to continue to feel that way. It was the whole basis for the state.
You can watch ‘Triumph of the Will.’ That’s the message. ‘We all approve of this. Woe betide anyone who doesn’t — because we all DO approve of it.’
The thing about the Hossbach memo is that it wasn’t really a statement of plans but more just a way of feeling officers out and deciding who to replace. Hitler gave a general statement about how there will be a war which must happen because Germany needs to gain living space. He said nothing about Russia or where he really intended to get such space, but the implication was that there might be a war with Britain and France coming up. Several of the officers expressed concern over this as not a good idea. Subsequently these officers were removed, often under the pretext of sex scandals based on charges (some true, some not) of either homosexuality or marital infidelity.
After the war the Allies jumped on the Hossbach memo in the Nuremberg trials. They were eager to have a document to point to and say “Hitler planned WWII!” As time passed it became more common for historians to allow that the Hossbach memo wasn’t really a clear for WWII. It did serve the function of feeling out which of his officers had qualms about the risk of war so they could be removed. In that sense the Hossbach memo was an important step towards WWII. But it really wasn’t the grand plan for launching WWII which Nuremberg presented it as.
Part of the issue with this is in the “gambler” versus “conspirator” model. The Allies had seen how the aftermath of WWI had been followed with huge disillusionment over the “war to end all wars.” So they resolved at Nuremberg to lay out the line that Hitler had carried out a conspiracy to create WWII. One series of books is even entitled “Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression.” But as A.J.P. Taylor saw, Hitler was more of a gambler than a conspirator. Many of Hitler’s actions involved sudden moves where he caught everyone off-guard by boldly lunging ahead, rather than following a pre-crafted conspiracy. That won him great successes at first and then exhausted itself.
Maybe just read the David Murphy book What Stalin Knew. Or have you already seen it? I can’t tell.
FB is engaging in a style of argumentation that is commonly seen in judeobolshevik apologists. The specific content doesn’t really matter, but you see it fairly often, so the general form is worth a closer look. First: always remember that many, if not most, semitic tropes are based on reflexive projection of their own attitudes/ style of reasoning [e.g. “The goyim are all crazy — they hate us for no reason and think that they’re superior to us!”]
With this in mind, KMac’s work on “jewish intellectual movements” is very enlightening — I highly recommend The Culture of Critique. But for something shorter, this is a useful review of typical semitic cultural and personality traits and where they tend to differ from White goyim:
Background Traits for Jewish Activism
Semitic social structure tends to be collectivist, with a strong tradition of blind obedience to authoritarian, charismatic leaders*. Unsurprisingly, their intellectual tradition tends to be highly dogmatic, demanding submission to ingroup authority and to a designated charismatic leader/ “guru.”
FP (unconsciously) assumes that you must think the same way, and he’s decided that Irving is the designated goy “guru” for any and all WW2-related revisionism. Therefore if you fail to accept Irving’s every utterance as canon… he wins! QED
That’s where his weird “argument” is coming from. A very strange way of thinking, to non-MOTs.
*Yes, the long-debunked semitic canard of muh “goy authoritarian personality” also stems from simple projection.
lol
Yet another ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist making a failed attempt to claim that the German goyim somehow forced the judeobolsheviks to massacre thousands of Polish officers at Katyn.
The level of toxic, hate-filled semitism on this thread is unreal.
Now we see the ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist making a feeble, flailing attempt to deny his earlier enthusiastic promotion of judeobolshevism — and still pathetically failing to answer my simple, straightforward questions. Sad!
I made no such claims. All I can say is that Hitler has never made any advances to me. For someone with Parkinson’s disease, Hitler was quite charming and promiscuous. Unity Valkyrie Mitford, one of the famous Mitford sisters, was so enamored with Hitler that after he left her in 1939 she shot herself in the head so skilfully to cripple herself. According to professional hoaxers, their relationship was apparently ”sexless” and they can vouch for it because they always hid behind the curtains in Unitys flat when Hitler arrived.
Thanks, that sounds plausible.
I just read large parts of Hitler’s Zweites Buch (1928). He’s also very vague there about where in the East exactly Lebensraum would be conquered, but he writes that an alliance with Russia would prevent the project and therefore can’t be a goal of German foreign policy. So that does imply at least some hostile design against Soviet territory.
The Atlantic Charter was proclaimed with great fanfare in August 1941 by Roosevelt and Churchill. One of the clauses of the charter stated “Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the people concerned”. Can anyone explain how selling out to Stalin, betraying genuine democracy and letting the Soviets take over Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania at the Yalta Conference of 1945 was in keeping with the stated aims of the Atlantic Charter ?
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-atlantic-charter-smokescreen-history-as-a/en/
What should the US and the UK have done in 1945 to remove the Red Army from those countries? Drop a nuke on Mocow?
Annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized by Western states btw.
People tend to forget that the Yalta Conference took place before the end of the war, when Poland and the Baltics (Romania also) were already occupied. There nothing to ‘sell’.
What else could a low IQ idiot like yourself say to the primary evidence I present that disproves something you read somewhere once? I present original film of events during the war and university documents from academics and you repeat worthless claims with no evidence to back them up. I would bet most other people find those short films interesting. You know nothing and have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion. Your information comes from a Steven Spielberg movie or something similar. Most people most likely consider your low IQ drivel boring
Well… witness the more than two week wait after the German advance, followed by the “Oh, the Polish government is finished anyway, we’re just moving in to protect our interests and stop the chaos and save the proletariat from bourgeois oppression and blablabla.” If the judeobolsheviks truly didn’t care about optics, they would have moved in at the same time as the Germans. Germans — Sept 1. French and British declaration of war — Sept. 3. Then two more weeks of the “Ebil not-sees crush innocent Poles — plan to take over entire world and genocide all non-Nordics!” narrative before the Soviets attacked on Sept. 17. Polish invasions were old news by then, plus the Soviet invasion could be spun as a reaction to the German invasion. Sure, massacring 20,000+ Polish officers and sending many of the Polish enlisted men off to die in the gulag in Kolyma wasn’t exactly great optics — but no one in the West knew about (or at least would admit to knowing about) it at the time, so it doesn’t really count.
The Soviet invasion of the Baltics was much worse optics, TBH. I mean, having the NKVD grab their ambassadors and send them off to die in the gulags, followed by the leaders of all 3 countries, and hundreds of thousands of their people? Not exactly respectful of typical international norms. But I don’t have a good sense of how big a story that was in the “news” at the time, compared to the invasions of Poland or Finland.
You’re kidding me. You mean Mannerheim didn’t want to conquer the entire Soviet Union in order to add it to the ever-expanding Finnish Empire? He just wanted to avoid the fate that befell Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia at the hands of the judeobolshevik imperialists? That’s hard to believe.
Sure, he was never enough of a rootless cosmopolitan for people like Bronstein — he was a goy, after all — but he wasn’t exactly a Georgian Lindbergh either. I mean, this is judeobolshevism we’re talking about here, after all. “Workers of the World, Unite!”
ComInTern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International ]
You know, as in this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale#Russian_translation
Or this:
And if Stalin entirely lost track of globalist concerns, I’m sure that people like Kaganovitch could remind him — just as people like Baruch, Morgenthau, et al could “remind” FDR.
“Wilhelm II doesn’t seem to have been actually surprised when the Russian mobilization began”. He might very well have been surprised that the bulk of the mobilized Russian Army was at the German instead of the Austrian border. All the prattle about war in Russia was concerning Germany (Servia is far from Germany). Austria thought that putting an end to Servian provocations, at that time resulting in the murder of the future Austrian Emperor was a necessity of the survival of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy and its territorial integrity.
A war between Russia and Austria would not have affected Europe as an entity, neither one between Servia and Austria. Disputes would have been settled and yet another of the numerous treaties from the Balkans agreed to to settle the outcome. Wars on the Balkans had been quite common and Servia was not the least of its instigators and beneficiaries. Servia had been a source of unrest and agitation against Austria, a very bad neighbor despite declarations and Good-neighbor treaties.
In the very end of August of 1914 the Kaiser was becoming alarmed when he realized that the carefully planned encirclement of Germany had been completed and that he had stepped into the trap that would lead to a general European war. This was entirely different from the wars of territorial expansion or local chauvinisms gone wild. The war against Germany had been carefully planned, it rested on a deep and long-nourished resentment. Both the way how it came about, how it was not ended when it could have been very well (as in late 1916 with the German proposals to end it with no territorial changes and no winner or loser), with degrading human dignity to an unheard of extent through hate propaganda of the most unscrupulous kind, and how it was ended with an unbelievable breach of code of honor, betrayal, and primitive slavering rapacity, all of this illustrates that it was the first ideological war. Where does this resentment against Germany come from? A country that has lost nearly two thirds of its territory in the last about six hundred years can hardly be the aggressive entity it is represented as in popular accounts. Where does the resentment come from? You have it, too, MacNally. Where did you acquire it?
The Kaiser, as well as the German General Staff and German men of high standing made an appeal to the world of culture (“Kulturwelt”) to avert the desaster that was to come from a general European war. It fell on deaf ears. It was supposed to be “inept German diplomacy”, the Kaiser’s rash words, “German or Prussian militarism”, “Junkerdom” and what have you causing the war, but never the secret and open military conventions between Russia and France, France and England, England and Russia, France and Belgium, all directed against Germany, the buildup of arms on Germany’s east and west, the novels about German invasions, talk about military action against Germany and similar continued measures to erode common trust that was at fault.
Just scanned some of the recent comments. Look at #828, from “Commentator Mike”:
“Thank you for digging up those quotes by David Irving, “their” prized historian.”
lol — literally “Nice job — you found the Goy Guru™! And they said something different from the guru’s official doctrine! Ha! That’ll fix ’em!”
Thus:
1. Supporting my analysis of Levantine “logic” and their reflexive projection of it onto the goyim
2. Confirming Commentator Moishe’s ethnic identity
It’s good to be right. I can see why the Tribe is so prone to engage in hebraic histrionics about the supposed evils of u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶h̶e̶u̶r̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ “stereotypes” — they work, and they save a lot of time.
You are still making it sound too sophisticated. The shills have only one job, to waste your time. They can’t touch you, but they can wear out your mental capacity with endless logical fallacies and pulling the rug just as the supposed discussion come to an end, in favor of the truth.
Hell, they might even give you 80% truth but attempt to force you to eat 20% really vile and poisonous shit. Remember marktapley on this site, aka Mark Tapeworm? How it insisted on saying Hitler was gay/had one ball/bla bla?
FB isn’t as vile, but operates on the same principle. Just look at it’s response on Lend Lease. It is literally a jew joke:
“Oy vey goyim you gave us bolshelviks too little in 1942. We received nothing in 1943! What do you mean 14% in 1942? We got only 2% in 1941!”
Thats how they operate. To dilute a forum to the point of destruction.
The only way to win is to ridicule them and attack the obvious holes in their plots, and to keep pushing the blade in. To entertain them is to prepare your road to the madhouse.
To repeat, FB, you are setting up a strawman argument.
Perhaps to sway the weak-minded/uninformed.
As your country is now no more than a golem and continues to slide into a laughing stock as a direct result of your willing servitude to the international Jew.
The current sad state of USA would have been thought impossible even just a few decades ago, yet Americans like you fight tooth and nail on behalf of those who are destroying you.
The predictions made by AH have/are coming true in spades.
But you make no reference to them.
They will develop even further.
You are a truly sad case FB.
Churchill actually did advocate for a war against the USSR over Poland in the spring and summer of 1945. See Jonathan Walker, Operation Unthinkable, The Third World War: British Plans to Attack the Soviet Empire, 1945. It should be no shock that Churchill’s officers talked him out of this eventually. In the aftermath of WWII it was obvious that Britain was exhausted and the public would have had no patience for starting a new war so soon.
But this record of Operation Unthinkable compliments what we know about Operation Pike to underscore why Stalin would never have followed the Rezun-agenda. The negotiations with Stafford Cripps never made any allowance for Stalin to seize the whole of Europe the way that Rezun asserts, and there’re plenty of indications that Britain was ready to go to war with Stalin even when Stalin’s actions fell far short of the Rezun-claims. On top of that, Kim Philby would have kept Stalin informed about such matters so that Stalin would never have made such an overestimation of his capability as Rezin implies he did.
It’s obvious that one factor which drives a lot of the silly claims by Rezun-followers is a routine exaggeration of the capabilities of the small well-placed network of Soviet agents in the US & UK. Kim Philby was not the one who talked Churchill out of Operation Unthinkable. It was the normal officers who persuaded Churchill on rational grounds that it was not a good idea in 1945. But if Stalin had struck and occupied Europe in 1941 then these officers would have had a different assessment for Churchill.
As I said in my comment no. 857, the murder of Franz Ferdinand was no issue for a war. No one cried after him except Czechs and Slovenians. The real question to ask is why to attack Austro-Hungary if this state was on its way to demise anyway. The answer: timing of the end of the world.
The people keeping tab on the end of the world were Sephardi Jews aka Phoenicians.
The real objectives of WWI was launching a world revolution and re-shaping Middle East (note that Great Britain in the last moment DID HELP in antagonizing Turkey by not delivering already paid ships). Turkey, not a part of domino treaties, became a combatant in the last moment. Therefore, Turkey was an essential part of war design.
The never mentioned curious piece of info concerning crusades is that in the year 1240 AD or 5000 according to Babylonian/Jewsih calendar was to be the end of the world. Six out of eight crusades take place before 1240. This is not coincidence.
I presume similar ultimate motivation behind WWI. They had new calculations which did not allow for peaceful evolution out of monarchy.
Their trademark since Cromwell revolution was beheading of a monarch. This time it happened in Russia.
Thanks again JF.
I have the excellent Culture of Critique and am grateful for your “shortened version” which is downloaded for later reading.
Yes as you say projection of their own thought processes. I saw also a short note to FB congratulating him on his assault on “their” historian (Irving) and to expect only the vilest form of ad hominen abuse in reply … projection from the lamebrains again …
While one may salute David Irving for his huge inroads into judeo-freemasonic propaganda posing as history (still does), there are some criticisms.
https://codoh.com/library/document/talking-frankly-about-david-irving/en/
One may mention the attacks on Irving, physical, home broken into, financial, deportations, jailed, reputation … a truly shameful catalog which continues in the “independent” media.
So at least in my humble opinion he can be allowed some slack in view of the great strides he made in understanding of 3R/WW2/Nuremburg/Hungarian Uprising.
Not everyone opposed to Nazis (classical) or NeoNazis is a Jew. But you wouldn’t think so hanging around here. You Germanophiles should be glad the Russians treated the vanquished Germans so kindly; they killed far less Germans than the Germans killed Russians during WWII. And some are still ungrateful. You can always have another go and see where it gets you, as you learn nothing from history.
“… Of these three points, the first two were shared with the Chamberlain group; the third was not.
The difference rested on the fact that the Chamberlain group hoped to permit Britain to escape from the necessity of fighting Germany by getting Russia to fight Germany.
The Chamberlain group did not share the Milner Group’s naive belief in the possibility of three great power blocs standing side by side in peace.
Lacking that belief, they preferred a German-Russian war to a British-German war.
And, having that preference, they differed from the Milner Group in their willingness to accept the partition of Poland by Germany.
The Milner Group would have yielded parts of Poland to Germany if done by fair negotiation. The Chamberlain group was quite prepared to liquidate Poland entirely, if it could be presented to the British people in terms which they would accept without demanding war…Halifax apparently had little faith in Chamberlain’s ability to obtain any settlement with the Germans.
If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it.
It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was, apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States.
For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia, Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland…”
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html
http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm
Stalin did lost track of globalist concerns. Hitler was to remind Stalin about this fact. This is why money for Hitler were procured. Wasn’t it Warburg who brought them?!
One of the goals of WWII was to remove Stalin and bring the torch of world revolution back to the Soviet Union.
The pun: Stalin, a Georgian was as Jewish as Georgians are: 100%
‘The observed relatedness of Ashkenazi Jews to Georgian Jews and to the Central Asian Adygei people is unexplained.’
https://avotaynuonline.com/2020/03/the-genetic-origins-of-ashkenazi-jews/
The other goal of WWII was the destruction of Askhenazi and other non-Sephardi Jewry (like Romaniotes of Greece). Note that Sephardim went mostly unscathed out of WWII, safe in Spain and Portugal, Turkey and Bulgaria (miraculous suspension of deportation due to peaceful protests)!
I am afraid the relation between Sephardim (Phoenicians) and Askhenazim is that of Cain and Abel.
Therefore, after taking over the Pale of Settlement, Hitler wasn’t sure where he really wants to go (Moscow? Stalingrad? Leningrad? Murmansk?), so he went nowhere.
Nevertheless, he did really seem to be attracted to Caucausus, until at least ‘Mountain Jews’ were declared to be non-Jews (one of the plots of Jonathan Littel ‘Kindly ones’, together with sodomy and incest/hermaphroditism, plus murder in the family: all known occult obsessions ).
One should read monuments which elites build for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kindly_Ones_%28Littell_novel%29
Mannerheim took Finland out of the war, Finland was not occupied, he remained President until he resigned for ill health in 1946 and was not bothered by any charges of war crimes thanks to the protection of… Stalin.
What should FDR and Churchill have done to remove the German Army from the 40% of pre-war Poland that they occupied? [The other 60% was, of course, invaded by the judeobolsheviks] Invade Europe and drop nukes on Germany? They would never do that…
I mean, you do realize that “We must protect the innocent Poles from the evil invaders at all costs because reasons!” was the ostensible “moral justification” for WW2 in the first place… don’t y0u?
Sure, if you want to abandon the simplistic false dichotomy of “German goyim BAD! Judeobolshevism GOOD!” and look at things in terms of foreign policy realism/ power politics thoughout [including the collective interests of transnational groups], that’s one thing. But to all appearances, you’re sticking with the standard morality play frame the vast majority of the time, then switching to a quasi-realist view when you “need” to make an unprincipled exception. Comes off as highly disingenuous.
*Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — he forgot Romania, Finland and a few others
Exactly! The Finns should have been grateful that the judeobolshevik imperialist aggressors didn’t occupy all of Finland and send all of the Finns to the gulags!
Excellent point — from the standpoint of an ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist, anyway…
And not every ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist constantly beats up on obvious strawmen — but most of them do.
And those who invariably “reason” in a classically-hebraic manner? Yeah, the chance that their virulent, unreasoning anti-goy hatred is “organically” acquired, rather than stemming from false consciousness/ internalized systemic semitism… is pretty high.
But thanks for playing, Commentator Moishe.
That’s your self-flattering fantasy. Hate is too strong a feeling for your ilk. Maximum Hitler fanboys/girls deserve is contempt.
Greetings ‘Commentator Moishe’…😂
I notice these flunkies have now resorted to calling almost everyone here a ‘hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist,’ lol!
So far, I’ve counted myself, John Johnson, AnonfromTN, and several others—none of whom are actually Jewish, as if that would make any difference anyway. I believe ‘iffen’ has previously said he was Jewish, and he’s actually been quite sympathetic to these imbeciles. As is Jewish Ron Unz.
This is predictably what happens in these threads—the Nazi morons get all wound up when they are faced with simple facts and logic.
About your comment:
Very true. Our own Zarathustra here is an older fellow from eastern Germany who actually witnessed the 1945 Red Army liberation of his homeland as a boy. He has spoken quite a bit about what it was really like, but of course this, as with other historical facts, is not to the liking of these fools.
Even the Czechs, who weren’t nearly as badly treated as the Poles and Russians, turned with burning vengeance at the German civilians in their midst after the liberation. Not surprising, since these German settler populations in Czechia, Poland and Russia were the ones that welcomed the Nazis in the beginning—and then proceeded to abuse the native Slavic population.
Czech Partisans and US soldiers round up German soldiers and civilian sympathizers.
Postwar murder of Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia
A newsreel from British Pathe in 1945 showing exodus of German settlers after liberation.
Oh well. In like a lion, out like a lamb.
This misconstrues the nature of the Nazi state. It rested to a great extent on popular approval and at least the acquiescence of the mass of the German population.
Notice, for example, the hasty retreat when the existence of the T-4 program became public knowledge and it became clear most Germans did not approve.
The Germans did not approve because they didn’t know the limits of the program. There was a lack of trust in the medical system and for good reason. However the majority supported the war and German expansion until it all went to crap with Barbarossa.
So how is Hitler going to simply order Germans to move to the wilds of Belorussia or whatever? He can’t. The Germans saw themselves as approving of the Nazi regime, and they would have had to continue to feel that way. It was the whole basis for the state.
Same way the British did with their colonies which is a combination of conscription, financial incentives and land offerings. Most of the German men were already being used for the war so I don’t know where they expected these volunteer colonists to come from in 1941. Had they won the war we would have certainly seen an exodus by urban landless poor which is what happened after the Americas were successfully colonized.
Dresden, the genocidal Morgenthau Plan and judeobolshevik spy (((Harry Dexter White’s))) key role in it… But obviously WW2 is a huge topic, and no single man can be an authority on the whole thing.
It’s interesting to note that when Irving’s apartment was first burglarized by judeobolshevik Israel First fanatics way back in 1963, the only “heretical” view that he had expressed publicly was “Hey, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to deliberately holocaust tens of thousands of defenseless German civilians.”
But after that, it appears that his books were viewed as a more or less “tolerable” level of dissent by the semitic supremacist regime until about the time of the Zundel “false news” show trials. Not only did he testify in support of a true heretic, but Hilberg and every other “expert” witness for the prosecution blew up under cross examination. In a strange cohencidence, holoheresy laws began to rapidly proliferate shortly after that…
But sure, there’s a tactical aspect to it as well. When it comes to the issue of jewish civilian deaths in WW2 in particular, judeobolshevik apologists love to talk about Irving… but run as fast as they can away from any discussion of the Zundel show trials and the accompanying exposure of Hilberg and their other high priests as complete frauds.
Whether Irving’s [rather strange] take on that issue stems simply from the combination of his detailed knowledge of Hitler with the assumption that there most be some truth to the rest of the hegemonic narrative, or whether he just didn’t want to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement in an Austrian dungeon… is another question.
Your complete, pathetic failure to adduce even the merest iota of actual evidence in support of your ludicrously-counterfactual claim that the German goyim somehow forced the judeobolsheviks to massacre tens of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn is yet again noted.
Sad!
Please try to calm down, and to control your virulent hatred and impotent rage. For your own good, if nothing else. I’m worried about your blood pressure.
What should the US and the UK have done in 1945 to remove the Red Army from those countries? Drop a nuke on Moscow?
Yes they should have threatened Stalin with war.
He would have scurried back to his borders like a rat.
The Allies not only let Poland and the Baltic states fall but wrote a directive on how German women would be raped en masse by the Red Army and that the US army needed to look the other way. What liberators.
East Prussia should have been returned to Germany.
No GDR. Let the people vote if they want Communism. Of course by that time the Communists had given up on trying to win by democracy.
I notice these flunkies have now resorted to calling almost everyone here a ‘hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist,’ lol!
So far, I’ve counted myself, John Johnson, AnonfromTN, and several others—none of whom are actually Jewish, as if that would make any difference anyway. I believe ‘iffen’ has previously said he was Jewish, and he’s actually been quite sympathetic to these imbeciles. As is Jewish Ron Unz.
I’ve been banned on other political websites for talking about race but here I’ve been called a globalist Jew.
One time it really cracked me up because I was told I must be logging in from Tel Aviv. I have a large house in the woods and from my computer I can look up and see nothing but trees. YOU GOT ME.
I live in rural America and I doubt you can even buy matzo balls at my local grocery store. I do know of one Jewish doctor and he probably eats bbq pork like everyone else.
Exactly. That was the whole point of the Morgenthau Plan, after all. Genociding “Ashkenazi jewry”. Note that this evil scheme was constructed by notorious anti-Ashkenazites like, uh… Morgenthau. And (((Harry Dexter White))) — a known Sephardi spy.
And don’t forget the famous propaganda tract “Ashkenaria Must Perish!” which served to promote this genocidal plan. Written [of course] by a notorious Sephardi supremacist and genocidal anti-Ashkenazite named, uh, Kaufman.
And who could forget Bernard Baruch and his infamous anti-Ashkenazism?
And on the judeobolshevik side, there’s this genocidal Sephardic supremacist, who was responsible for the murder of millions of “Ashkenazim”.
Excellent point.
While there’s room for speculating about Chamberlain’s long-term aims may have been, the reasons for signing an agreement with the USSR are more straight-forward than assuming it was a scheme to create a war between Germany and the USSR. It was really something forced on Chamberlain by Poland. Poland had been partitioned by Germany and Russia 3 times before 1939. The Poles had set themselves on a policy to give in to either one. When Hitler took office he tried urging that Poland should reconcile itself to client-status vis a vis Germany in a general alliance against the USSR. The Poles rejected this.
But later in the decade when their were negotiations about Stalin possibly joining an alliance against Germany, the issue was raised by Stalin about Soviet troops passing through Poland. This made some sense since it would probably have been unavoidable if the USSR were to conduct a military campaign against Germany over Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939. But the Poles adamantly refused to agree to this. After driving the Soviet army back from Warsaw in 1920 the Poles were in no rush to welcome the Soviet comrades sending a million troops across Poland. Neville Chamberlain was just stuck with this as an objective reality.
Stalin requested that Chamberlain should agree to endorse the entry of Soviet troops into Poland without the agreement of the Polish government, as a secret agreement between London and Moscow. But Chamberlain realized that this would have created bad optics before the British Parliament. Imagine a scenario where on September 1 Hitler invades Poland, and Poland declares war on Hitler. On September 2, Stalin invades Poland, and Poland declares war on Stalin. On September 3 Chamberlain goes to Parliament and requests that they declare war on Hitler in support of Poland, while explaining that Stalin is going to be their ally. It would have sounded very peculiar.
Dictators like Hitler and Stalin could sign something like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and expect their followers to swallow it. But Chamberlain did not have the same license. His decision not to sign any agreement with the terms Stalin was demanding made perfect sense. If Stalin had chosen to he could simply have agreed that the USSR would join an alliance, but that Soviet troops would not enter Poland unless and until the whole country had been occupied by Germany. Those were the only kinds of terms which the Poles would have accepted.
You make some good points. I think that we will never know for sure. It is probably normal for a person to be curious about one’s own genders sexual issues without being attracted to one’s own sex.
Also look at (((FB))) in #902 — typical semitic gloating over the massacre of millions of goyim. The only way he could be more aroused by contemplating the slaughter of millions of innocent German civilians would be it would be if it happened on Purim.
Very reminiscent of Little Ben Shapiro and his notorious screed entitled something like “Millions of German Goyim Were Ethnically Cleansed and Murdered by the Judeobolsheviks — Why Don’t We Just Do the Same Thing to the Palestinian Goyim?”
Yet if I were to, say, post a single photo of a notoriously evil mass murderer finally meeting his long-deserved ice axe… oy, the kvetching!
Well, I have been posting that link to the Carroll Quigley page for close to 20 years and I have studied this topic for close to 20 years also and there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the British policy of appeasement by Chamberlain was completely and totally aimed at directing Nazi Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union.
To let both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union kill each other and finish each other off.
I have ZERO doubts about the truth of that at all.
I understand that the British totally reject this idea, but it is truth.
Hmm .. yes.
Difficult to blame D.I. wishing to avoid the virulent hatred of those people.
On virulent hatred, scrolling down past your friend FaceBook who commented —
” the Nazi morons get all wound up when they are faced with simple facts and logic. ”
then goes on to post vdo (apparently with approval) of German civilians being gunned down, exiting as refugees …
“burning vengeance at the German civilians ” …
There are some very disturbed people posting on this forum, it seems.
No question about that.
Maybe time for the ignore button …
Possibly however the example of one who obviously should be confined in a secure mental ward may give pause for thought to others …
What should the US and the UK have done in 1945 to remove the Red Army from those countries? Drop a nuke on Moscow?
Yes they should have threatened Stalin with war.
He would have scurried back to his borders like a rat.
Earth to John Johnson…Earth to John Johnson. The British had been kicked out of Europe in four weeks and came back home, barely, with their tails between their legs after Hitler had allowed them to escape from the Dunkirk trap. When they and their “American” pals came back to Europe, Nazi Germany had already lost the war and was only a shadow of what had been in 1940, their armies having been taken to pieces by the Soviets in Moscow (1951), Stalingrad (1942), Kursk (1943) and most of what was left of their armies was being obliterated at the time in the East during Operation Bagration. The opposition Anglo Saxons had to face in Normandy were not only second rate troops but, being at the time Germany that short of soldiers, and as they had to concentrate most of them in the East to try to stop the Red Army, they even had to use POWs from third countries to try to stop the landings. Of course the Germans used to glorify later the already self glorifying General Patton only because they saw the need to ingratiate themselves with their new masters but Patton was not even a factor in the great scheme of things, just a creation of “American” propaganda & Hollywood. Every grunt in Allied occupied Europe who knew about it laughed off the ridiculous idea of both dingbats Churchill and Patton, of going East, and just shrugged their shoulders. “Ivan would kick our butts to the Moon if we ever do so”. Not to mention that at the time US grunts had developed a great camaraderie and respect towards their Red Army brothers in arms an admired their fighting value after having experienced themselves just the remains of Ivan’s work. The grunts knew more than their masters, they were the ones with direct battle experience after all and without the delusions of grandeur of the drunken plutocrat and the loony general.
Mr. Know it all, or is it Know nothing speaking. My parents were in Germany when the mass murderous, mass raping Red Army arrived and no German that lived then welcomed those Judeo-Bolsheviks as “liberators”. But any German living today had better show support for the allied lies or he or she might end up behind bars, just as the 92 year old Ursula Haverbeck is. The Germans knew of the sub-human barbarism of the Soviet army, the German soldiers saw it and experienced it (some mentally ill on here enjoy that thought) and they saw how significant portions of the Soviet peoples hated their own government and welcomed their German liberators. No Germans welcomed the mass murdering allied armies and fought to the end to defeat them.
Over 14 million Germans (as many as 20 million) fled or were brutally expelled from the eastern third of Germany, lands they had lived on as far back as the 13th century or longer. 20 million was about 1/3 the German population. Many of these people were raped or murdered, in a woman’s case both. Many eastern Europeans also greatly feared the Red Army. By now, most people have heard the ludicrous stories of the holocaust which have been exposed as Jewish and allied lies so 20 European countries have enacted censorship laws to uphold those lies. Similarly, the lies against the superior behavior of the German army is evidenced by the many Soviets that welcomed their arrival. Under international military law it is legal to shoot captured partisans (those not wearing uniforms). This is of course forbidden by military law for a uniformed soldier. The partisan also greatly endangers the civilian population. This was also the case in the Vietnam war and in the middle east today, where they call combatants without uniforms terrorists.
While some of the gross distortions and lies against the Germans have been exposed, the deliberate and repetitive lying about what the allies did to Germans is also enforced by law. The deliberate mass murder of German civilians by the allies has been grossly downplayed by the millions and some historians say the Americans under Eisenhower killed millions more after the war. My father, who was a young boy had also heard of the large number of German soldiers being deliberately starved to death. All across Europe people say the stupidest things today and the mainstream media creates this stupidity, in Germany’s case state run media like DW. Four years ago I met a young Dutchman in Berlin that said Berlin, one of the most heavily bombed cities of the war suffered hardly any damage.
Here is historian David Irving on the Hungarian people’s perception of their Soviet rulers. Warning: Irving is not nearly as mealy mouthed as FB.
Please stick to the current party line in the future. Mentioning the old party line is simply not allowed — people find these gross inconsistencies confusing; it might undermine their faith.
Never forget the infamous Wall of Butterfly-Like Human Eyeballs:
Unbelievable. Who could even dream up the idea of such a terrible thing?
And the notorious Saunas of Death™ at Treblinka — the indisputable existence of which is attested to by no less an authority than the Ultimate Court of Totally Objective, Truthful Justice:
Never Forget that all White goyim — not just the Germans — will always share in the collective responsibility for these unbelievable atrocities committed against the Tribe of Supreme Victims. But if you Stand With Israel to support their indiscriminate attacks on Palestinian civilians, perhaps you may feel slightly less guilty.
Stuff your worries where they belong.
I will explain why I feel about Nazis the way I do. Not for the sake of Hitler fanboys/girls, but for the sake of honest readers.
For me Hitler, Nazi Germany, and Nazi occupation are not just theoretical concepts. My info is not from books written by people with zero personal experience (“well researched” based on “documents”, my foot!). My info is from the people who lived through Nazi occupation of former USSR territory and relatives of those who did not survive.
My grandparents on father’s side were murdered by Nazi occupiers. As all their neighbors were also murdered by the same scum, no details are known.
My grandparents on mother’s side survived, even though my grandmother was severely wounded by a Nazi bomb that exploded in her yard. She fell through the entrance of her basement and would have bled to death if it weren’t for the dog, who forced passers-by to go to her. The husband of my grandfather’s sister was murdered by Nazi occupiers for refusing to collaborate with them. My mother and her sister avoided being shipped as slave labor to Germany by hiding in a remote hamlet. Occupiers rarely went there, and their approach was easily spotted from afar (Ukraine is mostly flat steppe, so you can see an approaching person miles off).
The township where my grandparents lived was liberated by a Soviet tank detachment. These tanks squashed running German soldiers under the tracks. There was no centralized water in the township, but my grandparents had a well in their yard. One of the tanks stopped in front of the yard, and the driver asked my grandfather to help him wash Nazi remains off his tracks. My grandfather had such fond memories of Nazi occupation, that he eagerly helped and even offered tank driver food after that (food was very valuable commodity at the time).
So, my info about Nazi crimes in occupied territories is from eyewitnesses. All witness accounts I’ve heard paint exactly the same picture. If your “well researched” books say something different, you are welcome to stuff them up yours.
Look my attitude is simple: I don’t care what you do in your own country whether I like it or not but when you invade another country then you deserve whatever you get in return. Did you measure how far Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad were from the German border? What business did Germans have being there? But maybe you’re one of those who thinks Germans deserve to rule the world.
Zarathustra says that his father is German and his mother Slovak and he has a strong pro-Slavic and anti-German stance. He was born and raised in Slovakia. Despite being strongly ant-German in his general makeup, he felt, however, the compulsion to elect a name made famous by yet another famous German all the herostratic elements in the world stare at in anxious disquiet.
Commiserations to your parents, Peter.
There is a useful history of this from Yale U. Press.
It documents —
Splendid, now it is my turn to read it.
Pozdrawiam
If that has been true then there would have been no need for the confrontation over Czechoslovakia. Hitler declared that he was going to annex Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain put his foot down hard and made it clear that Germany would only be allowed to take the Sudetenland, which had a Germanic populace, but not the non-Germanic regions. This led to a confrontation where it seemed as if Britain and Germany would go to war. But Hitler backed down because he realized that the German public still wasn’t ready to accept war. Instead he waited more than 5 months and then moved in on Czechoslovakia again. This was what led Britain to issue a declaration of unconditional support for Poland.
None of that would have been necessary if Chamberlain had simply wanted to sick Hitler on Stalin. All that he had to do was get out of the way and Hitler would have followed a drive to the east, the way he had always avowed to do since Mein Kampf. The truth was that most people in the British government (including Chamberlain) took Germany more seriously as a long-term rival. It was rather widely assumed that the USSR was just a crumbling inept state which wouldn’t really be a major power. Both Chamberlain and Hitler subscribed to this view.
The much-denounced policy of appeasement was just a logical backlash from WWI and the Versailles Treaty. From the earliest days following the signing of Versailles there had been many people who pointed out how unreasonable the whole thing was. The treaty not only demanded reparations from Germany but it imposed territorial partitions which placed of German populace in different states. On top of that, there was obviously no real muscle to back it up. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty had been much sterner than Versailles, but it was backed with occupation forces. However nobody among the working classes in the Allied nations really wanted to be stuck forever as global policeman to enforce the Versailles Treaty. So it just created resentment among Germans without a plan of enfrocement.
Certainly no one disputed that Austrians wanted to join with Germany. They had for a long time before Hitler came to power. Going to war to keep Austrians from willfully joining with Germany would have invited a lot of discontent from the working stiffs sent to the frontlines. So Germany was allowed to take Austria. But Czechoslovakia Hitler was placing demands on a wider region than just the German-inhabited Sudetenland. So he was told not to do it, and pretended to stop. But then he moved on Czechoslovakia anyway, and this was when the countdown to war began.
Hello bonehead.
So Hungarians ‘hated’ their Soviet rulers? Probably some did in 1956, but then there is this in present times:
SPECIAL REPORT: In eastern Europe, people pine for socialism—Reuters, 2009
In Yugoslavia:
Notice the Reuters ‘creative license’ there with their ‘artificial unemployment’ which the actual interviewee never even mentioned, lol!
So all across the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, 20 years after the ‘glorious’ fall of the Berlin Wall…everybody is overjoyed—NOT!
But the best news comes from Germany itself:
Homesick for a Dictatorship: Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism
More polls from Eastern Europe:
From Romania:
[LOLOLOL] Eventually the EU pollsters gave up on running these surveys since they were so humiliating. You can smell the desperation in their prose as they try to spin and weave these very simple responses with all kinds of ‘editorializing’ and ‘splaining.’
And even back in 1989, just weeks after the Berlin wall came down, here’s what East Germans told a West German poll:
Majority of East Germans Oppose Reunification
This is the REAL world folks—populated by real people, with real sense and sensibility—unlike the hilarious neo-Nazi Clownstuffel here.
After reading with fascination the fantastical yarns and disneylandish tales spun here, I have a question:
How do you imbeciles actually navigate day-to-day life? It is kind of amazing that you don’t get run over by a bus when you step into traffic on red, thinking it’s flashing green?
Commiserations re your grandparents, Anon.
Is it healthy or helpful for you to retain, maybe even gloat about things like this ?
Mr. Know it all, or is it Know nothing speaking. My parents were in Germany when the mass murderous, mass raping Red Army arrived and no German that lived then welcomed those Judeo-Bolsheviks as “liberators”.
Here Mr. Know-Something trying to answer to this little gem of yours. I vividly remember this passage in Anthony Beever’s Fall of Berlin (he is such a great chronicler I vividly remember many episodes and scenes in his books):
During the last month of the war, when Germans soldiers and civilians were running for their lives from the East and to the dubious safety of their homeland, there was this train full of refugees on the same trek, mostly German civilians, among which the talk was pretty much about the same topic you are touching now. Then suddenly, a wounded soldier, bandaged arm, who had kept to himself, silent and sullen in a corner, said something that stopped the conversation at once: “If the Russians do to us just a fraction of what we have done to them there wont be a single German left alive”. Period. That is the best answer that can be given to your rant, right from the mouth of a German soldier who had been in the Eastern Front and seen it all. Because it is really, really tiring hearing your people babbling, droning and going on and on all the time about what the big bad wolves of the Red Army did to you, always forgetting that what you did to them, and without any cause or provocation, was hundred times worse. Frankly I have had with Germans babbling, droning on and complaining about the same. If you dont want to experience that unpleasantness, dont start.
It turns out the McMeekin has authored another book that is just as important as Stalin’s War. It is called “The Russian Origins of the First World War”.
This book also dovetails nicely with Docherty & MacGregor’s First World War Hidden History
Like D&M, McMeekin draws numerous links between what happened in WWI and Russia’s prewar goal of taking control of the Bosporus. In fact, after the Judeo-Bolshevicks seized power in Russia, the US mandate was supposed to include Constantinople and the Bosporus instead of Russia as a reward for helping England.
This sounds just like the way Stalin was able to play Churchill and Roosevelt in WWII. It also parallels what D&M write about WWI. Of course from McMeekin’s newest book, we also know that Stalin was demanding control of the Bosposus as his price for entry into the Tripartite pact in 1940. The more things change, the more Russian warmongers remain the same.
Further, we have the Constantinople Agreement of 1915 which is actually quite relevant:
Just as D&M claim.
Like McMeekin claims, Turkey cut off Russian grain exports during these balkan wars, they even put a chain across the Dardanelles during the Italy-Ottoman war. This is the real reason why WWI and subsequently WWII were fought. It was Russia first, and then England, who were primarily to blame for both world wars. Germany was merely victim of these two jew stooges in both wars.
FYI, Newton’s third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Was it healthy for Nazis to behave bad enough to have earned this?
And some Germans have had enough from you. You quote something from a book and you accept it automatically as the truth when the allied side has lied for over 75 years. Many years ago my Jewish teacher assured me Germans made Jews into soap and lampshades and I only learned within the last 15 years those lies have been debunked. There is no evidence to support the claims and no serious historian accepts them. Your quote sounds like it comes directly from Steven Spielberg movies or one of the hundreds of holocaust movies. Go back to sleep.
Hello stupid. Those are two different subjects.
Well, I give you a plus for creativity, but not for truthfulness.
But Askhenaz, one of Noah progeny on the site of Japhet, is not synonymous with Germany. It seems that original Askhenazim land was limited to Rhine Valley, with Worms being one of the oldest Jewish settlements in Germany.
But some put the land of Askhenaz in Turkey. Anyway, Germans never called themselves ‘Askhenazi’.
Germany as a Nordic/Germanic land seems to have more to do with Gog or Magog.
As for methodology of conspiracies, everyone should read Umberto Eco ‘Foucault Pendulum’ where he discusses one not very often discussed publicly – ascribing to someone else your own designs. So it could have been like Phoenicians aka ‘International Jew’ made Germans to kill Askhenazi Jews.
A few real Sephardi surnames to consider, together with their possible bearers:
Franco (General Franco?)
Medina (Medina-Sidonia, probably deliberately inept commander of the Invincible Armada?)
Seixas/Sasson (behind opium wars with China?)
Setton/Sutton (how Antony was allowed to publish his discoveries unless he was one of them?)
Grazi (what about one inept Italian marshall of WWII, Graziani, immediately amnestied after being sentenced to prison?)
Abigdor (Avigdor Lieberman, born in Moldova, once a Turkish territory?)
BTW, Rothschild got his initial wealth by marrying into Montefiore.
‘Sidonia’ in Medina-Sidonia is rather obvious reference to Sidon, a famous city of Phoenician merchants.
Moreover, Zion/Sion seems to be reference to Sidon too, not to Jerusalem. Never says the Bible that Zion is a reference to Jerusalem or Israel.
If God didn’t love you, progeny of fallen angels, wouldn’t you like to pretend that you are one of his chosen people…?
That undereducated halfwit likes to post up walls of text around something s/he has read from one of the Court Historians. S/he believes the Court Historians because their accounts “feel” right at an emotional level.
S/he is not at all open to correction or modification.
Possibly a pre-teen female by the pert girly emotional style.
Well, after WWI Russia actually lost to Turkey Caucausus territories, mostly populated by Armenians, which previously was given to her by San Stefano treaty!
The important city of Kars went back to Turks.
The irony: the only front where Turkey in fact won WWI was the Russian one.
What does ‘soap’ and ‘lampshades’ have to do with your endless KVETCHING about the ‘poor’ Germans?
Besides, those stories are not so far-fetched.
—Miriam Schulz, The Holocaust in the Borderlands: Inter-ethnic Relations and the Dynamics of Violence in Occupied Eastern Europe 2019, page 202.
Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire, as they say.
Miriam (((Schulz))). 2019. Heh.
When are you going to start quoting “Ass Goblins of Auschwitz”, slope?
You quote something from a book and you accept it automatically as the truth when the allied side has lied for over 75 years.
Of course the “you are a bunch of lying judeobolshevik trolls spewing your venom” nonsense is far more credible as argument than what Beever wrote, which by the way corresponds to what most of the world knows, specially in South America. I am myself a member of the Boom Generation who grew up in Chile, where thousands of German refugees were coming to after the war trying to start a new life, among them a good number of Nazis which backsides were still red and aching for the sound beating they had received and, as most of us could see and experience, these were the most hateful, unlikable, racist SOBs you could ever find on this planet. These blonde, blue eyes bastards seemed right out of a Allied or Soviet anti Nazi propaganda film, they actually thought they were far superior to everyone and anyone on this planet, including the people of the country that had opened their doors and warmly welcomed them so they wouldn’t starve in a Germany that had gone back to the Stone Age. This was a regular talk among us Chileans when speaking of newly arrived Germans, so don’t tell me that these stories are all lies conceived by judeobolsheviks because that is something we saw by own own eyes at the time, that the Nazis Hitler created in Germany and through Europe were nothing more than despicable, hateful, uber racist monsters. Not all incoming Germans were like that of course, in fact most regular Germans were pretty nice people, but not the monsters Hitler created by taking the typical blonde, blue eyed Aryan and separating him from society and making something inhuman out of him. Those were the despicable ones, uber racist even with their own who were not “Aryans like them”. So don ‘t even try to feed your lying boollsheet.
Anyway, I think that this debate is dead in the water. At what is left in the end is a bunch of Suvorists getting redder and angrier watching that nobody of us is ready or willing to swallow their canard that all what Hitler did in June 1941 was to simply preempt a planned attack of Stalin against Germany. And what about this here as a coup de grace.
Q: If Hitler “was only trying to preempt a planned attack by Stalin”, why then German invaders were being handed land titles on Ukrainian land as soon as they had stopped fighting…? Mind you, that doesn’t look at all like “just a preemptive strike” to me. The fact is, as German troops were advancing onward in the direction of Moscow, they were not only exterminating Red Army divisions, burning towns to the ground and massacring their inhabitants, but also taking due legal possession, according to Nazi German law of course, of the land they were conquering. That is surely the reason why those dudes appear always smiling and laughing in the pictures and film footage they took of themselves in their march East. We have seen all those private films taken by advancing German troops in the USSR. Have you noticed that they are always smiling and celebrating…?. That’s because hose conquering German had a good reason to celebrate as they were getting the land along with the glory. They were would-be-settlers of the conquered land as soon as the war was finished. So much for a preempting strike…! Armies who attack in a preemptive strike don’t use to take all their land through which they have advanced. When the U.S. went to war against Mexico because of Texas they arrived to Mexico City and they took it, yet they didn’t keep the whole of Mexico, they just took half of it. When Chile went to war against Peru in 1879 it conquered the entire country but at the end it returned it all back to Peruvians except one province, Tarapaca. Even Israel gave back the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty. But in the case of Nazi Germany it is obvious that Hitler had no intention whatsoever of giving an inch of Soviet territory back to Moscow as he was handing land titles to his troops from the very beginning of the war. So much for a preemptive strike! Had been so, all Hitler and his gang would have wanted was to destroy the offensive capabilities of the Red Army for decades to come, end of the story.
Well?
I do not like to comment here But I cannot stand it anymore.
You silky people even in your wildest imagination cannot visualize how devastating and the most misery causing for people the WW2 was. People had hardly something to eat. My second wife two cousins died eating sand.
And yes!
Hitler was half German and half Jew rabid insane berserk idiot.
His war was “preemptive” that is why he went all the way until Stalingrad.
I do not understand the purpose of your retarded motion to prove otherwise.
And yes Germans did consider Russians animals because many of Russians did have houses underground. But the small minds eventually did figure out when Russian winter did set in.
So you bullshitters just shut the fuck up.
Says the clueless dork who doesn’t even know who his “Irish relative” Bernardo O’Higgins was. And a sickening misogynistic old fart on top of that. “Poor soul, poor pathetic soul, what did you mother do to you…!?”
Well said, Gato.
Bingo!
This Bullshit from Clown McMeekin was torn to shreds first by genuine scholar of WW2 Geoffrey Roberts, and also by many here who find it preposterous that a clown who knows nothing of military aviation cites as his main argument that Russia was building airfields close to its own frontiers!
How dare they put their airfields and their army close to the Glorious Reich? A perfect analog of today’s ‘How dare the Russian’s put their country next to our Nato bases?’
Btw, thanks for the Chilean perspective. Yes, a lot of the criminals managed to get away—and many more were scooped up by the US under Operation Paperclip, for their already planned campaign against their erstwhile ally, that actually did most of the fighting, dying and winning.
Really? Why would the Führer want to replace anyone? Because they might object to launching war?
Good news: the principals (careerists to a man) remained on board.
Where was that “space”? Give us a hint.
Good question. I’d pick both, but should it matter? Is the ‘gambler’ who murders your family and destroys your nation any less guilty than the ‘conspirator’ who does same? Especially in destroying Germany?
Here’s what Mr. Big (a guy who never finished school, never had meaningful employment in the private sector, who rose only one rank in four years of war service to PFC) opined:
Roll the dice with German blood in planned aggression (he ordered Barbarossa plans 31 July 1940), attack other nations to bleed and plunder them. And if it doesn’t work out, well, it’s the German Peoples fault! Not “sleepwalker” St-Adolf, agent of ‘Providence’.
What of suicidal leadership – public threats to kill himself if he didn’t get his way 1923, 1924, 1932, (and of course 1945)?
What rational adult does that? It’s conduct of a Mama’s boy holding his breath until he gets his way.
Really? Are you serious? WW1 was unpopular, so the Allies resolved to cast WW2 as Hitler’s “conspiracy” at Nüremberg?
Was there any real need? Who ordered the Dollfuß assassination (1934); official revocation of Versailles (1935); Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen [Sudetenland] (1938); invasion of rump Czechoslovakia, Memel and Poland (1939); Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France (1940); North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR (1941)?
Wasn’t the Allies.
Look, my little Chinese trollstein [you haven’t denied it so it is now consensus]:
Trophy taking is as old as war. Even today, some US and coalition soldiers have been found taking fingers and such as trophies off dead Afghanis.
Also during the Lynching era in the US, postcards would be made by the thousands [some of these are now in museum exhibits]. Also pieces of clothing, fingers or ears cut off and pocketed from the hanging victim etc.
Nothing new about any of this. What is new is the depths of depravity plumbed by the Nazi psychopaths.
Nazi photo album made from HUMAN SKIN of a death camp victim is discovered after collector noticed book cover had ‘a tattoo, human hair and bad smell’
The photo album pictured with a notebook. The battered WWII album was handed over to staff at the Auschwitz Memorial Museum after the buyer noticed the cover had ‘a tattoo, human hair and a bad smell’
A collection of Buchenwald prisoners’ internal organs including two human heads remains (upper left) and also examples of tattooed skins (foreground)
Now this ghoulishness was certainly not done on an industrial scale, but there was a small workshop that made those trophy items from human skin.
It’s certainly possible Stalin would have attacked Germany if he perceived weakness/advantage. He knew the East was Hitler’s ‘lebensraum’ (in other words, he was on the menu), as well as how meaningless German treaties and promises were.
Interesting. Hitler first (23 June 1941) gave Göbbels ‘preventing a British-USSR alliance’ as a prime motive for invasion (the other two reasons were plenty of plunder and the inevitability of conflict between National Socialism and Bolshevism). Weeks later (8 July 1941) he sweetened the deal to include immanent invasion. Perhaps because German parents expected their sons lives to count for more than mere pawns in a political exercise? Much easier for a leader to sell death if he can say he had no choice.
It worked. Citizens and troops remained loyal. By January 1945 Germany was losing an average of 10,000 soldiers killed per day. They lost 451,774 soldiers killed in the month of January [Beevor ‘’The Second World War’ p.690].
Insanity!
Your testimony is very authentic and would have had been accepted as irrefutable evidence at the Nuremberg trials.
Your stories are the gospels of truth, just like “Night” and “Schindler’s List”.
I hope you are proud of yourself, Boomerman. Thanks to you, we know that soldiers usually never have any sense of humor. Just like in those old Hollywood movies, soldiers are all hard, 100% serious and stoic men who never crack a joke. No Sir!
Only those sick, vile evil notzis would smile while marching.
Didn’t you realize that I was speaking about “The Russian Origins of the First World War”? You are so preoccupied to listen to yourself that you have no time to listen to others.
This was what led Britain to issue a declaration of unconditional support for Poland.
May I offer the nuance that although Britain did explicitly commit to giving Poland “all the support and assistance in its power,” as stated in Article 1 of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance, such response is conditional upon Poland’s experiencing “hostilities with a European power in consequence of aggression by the latter …”
And so if Poland were to initiate hostilities rather than Germany, no support is entailed.
The Agreement is fascinating for what bears on the turn of a word.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp
Minimizing the reality of a military response at that time, I see it as the British setting a curb that Hitler decided to jump.
Salut Laurent,
Je te contacte via ce fil en espérant que tu me trouves dans cette marée de commentaires (quel succès ;D)
As-tu lu le Conjuring Hitler de Preparata ? Malgré quelques affirmations qui me paraissent raccourcies, Preparata propose une grille de lecture de l’interaction entre Allemagne, US et GB depuis la guerre de 14-18 qui me semble intéressante, et dont ton travail de lecture résumé dans ce présent article semble compléter ses interrogations sur la nature du stalinisme. Pour l’avoir traduit, je peux te dire que Preparata n’aime pas beaucoup le nazisme mais ceci dit, ce n’est pas gênant, il a une belle prose et il étend bien les travaux de Sutton et de Quigley sur la trame anglo-saxonne (maçonneries et finances internationales). Pour lui, il n’y a pas de nazisme sans droite allemande réactionnaire (un non-dit je trouve en France), ni sans contexte financier propice (c’est ce qu’il appelle l’incubation). La thèse est intéressante à discuter…
Il y a aussi le mastodonte The Forced War de Hoggan qui traite de 39 et de la question polonaise (il a été traduit par les gars du SakerFR mais sans les sources :/). Rassinier avait aussi traité plus courtement le sujet, dans la veine des mouvements pacifistes.
Je trouve ça difficile de traiter des responsabilités des guerres contemporaines, mais c’est sûr que c’est toujours intéressant de voir si on peut apporter de la nuance dans les thèses atlanto-communistes. J’ai aussi lu Lopez dans le bouquin sur les mythes de la 2GM de Tempus, et j’ai également été perplexe sur son argumentation, ne sachant guère si elle relevait d’une conclusion facile ou pas…
Merci pour ton travail de synthèse en tout cas, ça me donne plein de pistes pour mes traductions, même si le McMeekin a l’air assez commasse 😮 (si tu as des suggestions, je suis preneur)
Porte-toi bien
Hello to the english-speakers ! Thank you Mr Unz for your work 🙂
‘…Wasn’t the Allies.’
And of course the war must have been intended by someone — therefore it was Hitler.
You could prove icebergs have brains with this logic. Who intended the Titanic to hit the iceberg? Wasn’t the Cunard Line. Wasn’t the crew. Therefore…
“Because they .. ?”
They specifically did object, and that was why they were removed from authority. It certainly is true that Hitler did not have any coherent plan to start WWII in 1939 and this is why Ian Kershaw entitles his chapter on this “Miscalculation” in the 2nd volume of his biography of Hitler. But obviously Kershaw isn’t claiming that this was a pacifistic miscalculation. Hitler had a clear sense that the policy which he would be pursuing would entail the risks of starting a large war, and he was calculating that he could avoid that while still getting what he wanted.
A crucial caveat: because Hitler never regarded the USSR as much of serious military opponent before Barbarossa was in motion, he assumed that a campaign there would take between 6 weeks and 3 months. Saying that he did not necessarily plan on starting a large war does not mean he did not intend to conquer the living space which he described in Mein Kampf. It just means that his notion of a large war was mainly centered on the Western powers. First of all the UK, but also France and probably the US at some point. He hoped that Britain would concede to allow German expansion across eastern Europe, and such British acceptance would force France and the USA to accept this. Then there would be nothing but small short campaigns in which Germany could leisurely gobble up eastern Europe.
A prime motive designing Barbarossa as a large-scale campaign (albeit one which he expected to be over rapidly) was that by that time he realized Churchill was banking on a Berlin/Moscow conflict as a last hope. Hence the resolve to crush the USSR totally and rapidly. But from his recorded comments prior to 1939 it’s not at all apparent that he really thought of any specific large-scale campaign against the USSR. No real details were ever spelled out, but many people in the West at that time thought the USSR was a crumbling state. So this was not his main focus.
The focus of the Hossbach memo was exactly to raise the issue to his officers of a possible with Britain and undoubtedly France, with the possibility that the US might join as it did in WWI. He threw this out to his officers as a likely possibility and then removed them if they raised complaints. Not that he even wanted a war with Britain, but he had to take into account that the British might contest his drive to the east and so wanted to make sure that any officers were ready to accept this.
Oh, yes, it is true that British messages to Poland did caution that Poland should not initiate the attack. The reason it became known as “unconditional support” was because it specifically dropped any contingency over Danzig. In the Munich crisis Chamberlain had refused to allow Hitler to swallow all of Czechoslovakia. But he readily accepted that the Sudetenland was a German-inhabited region and made it clear to Benes that Britain would not go to war simply to keep Germany from taking this.
Now there had been many people of different points of view, by now means all of them of the same persuasion as Hitler, who had argued that the Sudetenland and Danzig reflected errors of the Versailles Treaty and should be changed. But after the way that the Munich treaty was torn apart, Chamberlain decided that he could not try to demand any concessions about Danzig from the Poles. So “unconditional support” here meant that the Poles could refuse any negotiations over Danzig and they would not face any pressure from Britain as long as they did not initiate hostilities.
Actually, I think the strongest evidence implicates FDR as the primary instigator of the war. As I discussed in my long World War II article:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#the-true-origins-of-the-second-world-war
Why did Hitler have to start a war with Poland? It’s not like there was popular pressure on him to do so, or that the issue of Danzig (already largely controlled by the local NSDAP anyway) by itself was so important to German interests that there was no choice but war. It was Hitler’s choice to attack Poland, and he did so in full knowledge of the security guarantees given by Britain and France, which means he willingly risked a large European war.
And that doesn’t even go into what he did subsequently (not just restoring the borders of 1914, but actually completely eliminating Poland as a state).
Of course these German dudes had a sense of humor, and a lot of it…specially those waving at the camera their land titles in Ukraine.
My second wife two cousins died eating sand.
Tell that to millions of Soviet citizens who died eating German lead, you moron.
Who after promising Sudetenland was his “last territorial demand I have to make in Europe” (26 Sep 1938), and signing “peace in our time” (30 Sep 1938) gave orders a day later to plan the invasion of rump Czechoslovakia (1 Oct 1938)? Who, contrary to all promises, invaded it (15 Mar 1939) and Memel (23 Mar 1939)?
Who, after clear signs were laid promising war, invaded Poland 1 Sep 1939?
Hint: his first name was Adolf.
Logic? LOL! What about fact?
NSDAP Germany was not an iceberg.
Or are you blinded by the romance of singular (‘I’m special’) contrarian conspiracy?
Who objected? Who were ‘removed’? Be specific.
‘…And that doesn’t even go into what he did subsequently (not just restoring the borders of 1914, but actually completely eliminating Poland as a state).’
To be fair here, I’m aware of two pieces of information.
First, Germany considered but rejected the possibility of forming a rump Polish state. Second, in response to German peace feelers in the winter of 1939-40, the French and British took the position that the Germans would first have to withdraw completely from all Polish territory.
How these two fit might together is speculative. I don’t see why the French and British should have been prepared to negotiate, but it’s possible that if they had, the Germans might have agreed to a rump Poland.
‘Who, after clear signs were laid promising war, invaded Poland 1 Sep 1939?
‘Hint: his first name was Adolf.’
I don’t disagree that Hitler bears primary responsibility for starting the war — but that’s not the same as saying he intended that outcome. In fact, he had been assured, and chose to believe, that France and Britain would not actually declare war if he invaded Poland.
Sticking with the metaphor, there is such a thing as being out on one’s feet, but able to recover if given a little time to clear one’s head for a boxer, and in August 1941 the Soviets were really in that condition and on the ropes, because they were weak, disorganised and could not retreat but rather have to defend Moscow with all forces immediately available. Capturing Moscow would entail destroying the bulk of what remained of the Soviet Army, but Hitler did not strike while the iron was hot. On July 26 1941, Hitler had told Halter that the Soviets could not be defeated operationally, and during the following weeks began to alter the plan to prioritize an assaults’ on Moscow for other objectives and talked of going into the Ukraine to seizing the Donets regions resources for a long war (he had proposed a similar objective of coal and iron ore areas during planning for the battle of France) . Hitler had a siege mentality that harking back to the blockade of Germany in WW1). In early August he became ill for the first time in years, and was shivering in bed.
Hitler was better than just fine as a charismatic political leader and military strategist willing to take the decision to go to war and trust in the fighting power of the German Army. As a military planner Hitler was surprisingly good considering his lack of education and training on that level, and sometimes truly brilliant, but in interfering to rule against every military professional’s preferred option (the generals around Hitler were more or less bound to agree with him because he was their superior) he made a made a critical error in August 1941 by not allowing Field Marshall von Bock to following up the success of Army Group Centre and attack Moscow ASAP.
The original concept was for a single thrust at Moscow but after some tabletop wargame simulations it was decided to have two subsidiary army groups (North and South) either side of Bock’s Centre Group. Moscow was the official-ish objective of the plan, although Hitler was uneasy with that. Army Group Centre was assigned to take Moscow, and had the most rapid advance, arriving at the Smolensk on the land bridge to Moscow in August 1941, when that road was in effect open as regards the Soviets not having tanks in position. Taking forces away from Army Group Centre was a diversion, and the man on the spot Field Marshal Von Bock was vehemently opposed to the halt at Smolensk of the drive on Moscow. beyond a fortnight for resupply and consolidation . He was ordered by Hitler to stop and give up his tanks to another army group and by the time they returned, it was almost two months later. Once Bock’s force restarted the advance they destroyed huge Soviet defending formation (far stronger that had supposedly stopped him two months before because during the several extra weeks the Soviets had brought in reinforcement) and the advance more of less stalled because of an extremely cold winter.
Crucially, it must be borne in mind that in Aug ’41 it was not only the Germans who’d been in a fight, sustained losses, and were in need of a couple of weeks rest repair and resupply before begining the battle for Moscow , the Soviet forces were even more in need of a halt, a much longer one. Which is what they got as a result of Hitler’s decision Regarding the Soviet artillery, it was ineffective while the Germans kept moving, it was when they stopped that they got easily targeted for heavy bombardments.
Hitler saw the USA as a model for the German super state he wanted to create and he could only do that in the East by taking the land by military force. If Hitler had succeeded, Germany would have been a continental power equivalent to America, which was a regional hegemon, and did not want to see any other arising in the world. So whoever was US pres, they’d have tried to stop Hitler. After Germany crushed France and forced Britain off the continent it became clear to all that it was a mistake to assume WW1 was going to be a rerun of the stalemate of WW1 and Hitler was going to quite possibly succeed unless America came in and/ or he made a disasterous mistake, which he did in Aug 1941.
I think you underestimate how weak the British Empire saw itself as before WW2, and how resistant they were, not to Hitler fighting Stalin, Chamberlain was happy with that, which is why he did not initially guarantee Poland’s territory; allowing Hitler to take a bit of Poland and be in contact with the USSR. which he could then invade. After the pact between Hitler and Stalin, chamberlain knew Hitler was not going East first.
It was Chamberlain who actually declared war on Germany six months after he guaranteed its independence and a week after he guaranteed its territory. Chamberlains guarantee of Poland’s territory came immediately after the Nazi Germany -USSR pact was announced. To the British Germany and the USSR being in an alliance was unacceptable and thus war was necessary.
Slope means Vietnamese, actually. And yes, I do deny that I’m a “slope” or Chinese. Do you want to present more “proof” or do you want to keep making noises like a kike?
To all the gentlemen of UNZ who wasted time actually trying to debate this (((FB))), don’t say or even think now that you were not warned.
Discuss the Holohoax to your pleasure and at your mental risk.
Nürnberger Kangaroo Court
Again, this means that Ass Goblins of Auschwitz was a historical novel in the context of the Holohoax.
Poor little bolshelviks!
If you are willing to keep an open mind on this topic, the full story is told here in Chapter 16, 42, 44, 45 and 46 of this book, “Tragedy and Hope” by Carroll Quigley.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm
The earliest book written in english as far as I know on this british policy of pushing Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union is this 1939 book by Frederick Schumann, ‘Europe on the Eve’.
https://archive.org/details/europeoneve0000schu
There was a crisis for the Germans living in Poland. That’s why there were in registered locales alone (refugee camps) about 76000 German refugees who had fled from from Poland in the summer of 1939.
Remember when NATO went to war against Servia because of the Kosovo refugees? And they left Servia, but Servia was attacked nonetheless by NATO; Servia was held to be responsible for creating a hostile atmosphere for the Kosovo inhabitants and this was taken as a casus belli. In the case of Poland, the Germans fled from there because of the increasing hostility towards Germans and measures instituted against them, quite similar to restrictions against Jews in Germany. However, in this case, unlike as with Servia,the eternal good doers initiated hostile action against Germany.
So, if NATO thought it right to take action against Servia because it thought it wrong that the Kosovars felt that they had to flee from Servia, it can only have been right for Germany to take action in defence and for protection of the Germans who felt that they had to flee from Poland.
So, what was the real reason for the British insistence to not find a peaceful solution for the Danzig and Korridor problem?
The Munich agreement stands as one of the most just and applaudable international agreements of all times; it did do away with a scandalous situation that was originally created to cause unrest and constant troubles. The people concerned forced a solution, and that was unwelcome to people far away who who give a damn about the people but think in terms of political scheming.
In your unrelated gibberish comment 45 you wrote:
Once again you did not present an argument, you merely tried to smear McMeekin, just like you do to with everyone of my comments. Arrogance is not the same as intelligence, and ad-hominems are not a counter argument.
Everyone reading this thread can see the lengths that you and the other Stalin fanbois will go to try to deflect and avoid any kind of coherent debate.
Sean McMeekin. The Russian Origins of the First World War (Kindle Locations 573-584):
Russia had secret treaties with England and France to get Constantinople and the Bosporus as a victory prize in WWI. Russia paid the black hand to Assassinate the the Arch Duke. Russia provided logistical support to the assassination and helped cover up Serbian and Russian involvement. Russia gave Serbia a blank check. Russia was the first to mobilize secretly. Russia was the first to mobilize openly. Russia attacked Germany first. Russia caused both WWI and WWII. Deal with it jew.
Werner von Blomberg, Werner von Fritsch, Konstantin von Neurath, Ludwig Beck are some of the obvious names. The purpose of the Hossbach meeting was to find out who expressed qualms about a potential conflict with Britain and France and then remove them from office.
The main problem with this comment is the implicit assumption that FDR was calling the shots. In reality the real power was vested in a Cabal of Jews surrounding FDR including Morgentau and Baruch. They continued calling the shots after FDR died and Truman took over as the puppet in chief. These Jews also had long fingers reaching into Stalin’s soviet regime, and they were clearly also calling the shots in England. We can see with this current great reset plandemic how effective jewish power is in getting a myriad of goy government officials to pressure each other to follow their talmudic orders while simultaneously providing a smoke screen of “plausible deniability”.
One of the main enablers of plausible deniability is the cover of incompetence. “Occam’s Razor” must be in the Talmud somewhere near the paragraph about “conspiracy theories” as a method to dupe the stupid goyim.
We are told that with both Churchill and Roosevelt that they are on the one hand so incompetent that Germany can build up a massive invasion force for Barbarossa under their noses without their knowledge while they are intercepting virtually all German communications. We are told that Churchill was preparing to invade the USSR while simultaneously making secret alliances with Stalin. We are told that Roosevelt had no clue what Yamamoto was up to in the weeks before Dec 7. We are told that Stalin duped Roosevelt to get a complete blank check to any US resource, blueprint or manufactured good, military or not, up to and including enriched uranium and the plans for the atomic bomb.
The only way you can make sense of all these contradictions is by accepting the fact that there was some force working behind the scenes on a secret agenda. I have a very good idea who that force was, many readers steadfastly and ignorantly refuse to accept it.
Quite right, and that brings up what has always been the 4 or 5 essential points adopted by apologists for German imperialism with respect to the 2 World Wars of a century ago which I’ve always noted. They may be listed as:
1) Wherever there is any evidence of the German leadership having entertained some hopes of aggrandizement through wars, the emphasis is always placed upon a conditional nature of such aims. To speak of a conditional nature in this context means, for example, to point out that all of the war aims documented by Fritz Fischer in Germany’s Aims in the First World War are depicted as something which just came about after the war had broken out and hence are supposedly irrelevant to the outbreak of war itself. In fact, while Fischer recognized that the outbreak of war in 1914 was probably not specifically intended by the Kaiser, yet it is really obvious that the war aims in question had a lot to do with the reckless confrontational policies which Wilhelm II had followed since firing Bismarck and which led to war.
2) Wherever it can be shown that a crisis caused by German actions resulted in unintended consequences for Germany this is always given the most benign interpretation. The evidence does suggest that Hitler did not want war with Britain and France in 1939. The fact that such war broke out was an unintended consequence of Hitler’s actions. But it was really rather predictable and followed from Hitler’s general aim of imposing German rule on all of eastern Europe.
3) Wherever there is any evidence of the Allied leadership having hoped to achieve some political or financial gain as a result of the war, this is interpreted as the most all-encompassing conspiratorial cause behind the war. Hitler was undoubtedly correct in the speech which he gave when declaring war on the US that Roosevelt had for some time been hoping to bring the US into the war. The New Deal was stalled by people like Robert Taft and Roosevelt realized that only a full-scale war would allow him to brush people like Taft aside. Therefore Roosevelt latched onto the clear signs that Germany and Japan were willing to initiate aggressive moves and began to pattern his rhetoric around a confrontation. Nevertheless, all of the aggressive initiatives which started the relevant conflict were begun by the Axis, not by Roosevelt.
4) Wherever it can be shown that a crisis involving blunders by the Allies (or Soviets) occurred, this always cast as the chickens coming home to roost. There is never any exculpatory meaning attached to a blunder by the Allies. But it’s clear that Roosevelt really was caught off guard by the extent of Japan’s blow at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was unquestionably seeking to provoke Japan in a way that would lead to war. But when Japan actually struck the effectiveness of the blow caught him by surprise. If this was Hitler being surprised by the effectiveness of his enemy then we would long essays about how such surprise demonstrates the peace-loving nature of der Fuehrer. But when Roosevelt was stunned by the Japanese strike, this only shows his dastardly war-mongering nature.
The funny thing about each of the above 4 themes is that on an individual basis they can all seem to lead to valid points. Yes, it is true that Wilhelm II was ultimately surprised by the outbreak of war in 1914, as was Hitler in 1939. Sure it’s true that Roosevelt saw US entry into WWII as a way of saving the New Deal, and he willingly pressed Japan with sanctions in order to lead to this. But despite individual valid points when the whole thing is strung out together as an argument the silly hypocrisy stands out.
One other fifth point which can be mentioned is simply:
5) The inflated significance attached to Soviet agents in the US and UK. Around 1947 the Truman administration launched a series of investigations motivated largely by the Venona decrypts. Similar inquiries broke out in Britain at the time. It was clear that a well-placed Soviet network had been built under the guise of the anti-Axis alliance that formed prior to and during WWII. However, it is ridiculous when some people try to imply that it would have been possible for Kim Philby and his cohorts to defend Stalin under the Rezun-scenario. Likewise, the policies which involved confrontation between the US and Japan were not determined by Harry Dexter White. It was Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, Henry Stimson, George Marshall et al who pushed for the showdown with Japan. White could align himself with this policy, but not dictate it.
These 5 methods of historical distortion are the most typical that I see when people seek to throw dust in the air over the policies of the Axis powers which made war very likely.
After war broke out they had trouble with any kind of Polish identity at all. Poles who wanted to collaborate with the Reich were expected to claim ethnic German status. Poles working in Germany were required to wear discriminatory badges but it is noticeable that the Polish colours of white and red were avoided.
not the same as saying he intended that outcome.
He didn’t intend for the Soviets to be gifted the Allies as a result of Barbarossa, but that’s what happened.
Or are you blinded by the romance of singular (‘I’m special’) contrarian conspiracy?
What about paranoia, visions of an Illuminati, a dash of the apocalyptic, and a belief that the discovery of an innocuous writing is the ultimate cosmic reveal?
People have been looking at scattered chicken bones forever.
began to alter the plan to prioritize an assaults’ on Moscow for other objectives and talked of going into the Ukraine
Hitler altered the plan before Barbarossa. He intended a swing north for Army Group Centre to secure the Baltics and the capture of Leningrad, and he meant to swing south to secure the Western Ukraine. The Army General Staff wanted to capture Moscow and never wavered from this goal, instead they stealthily subverted his orders. The pursuit of divergent goals no doubt had bad effects operationally.
Only thing I’ve ever read about that is that some individuals on the outer fringes of the regime considered it advisable (e. g. the conservative general Ritter von Leeb), but I’ve never seen anything that would indicate it was seriously considered by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. It seems unlikely to me given the entire drift of German policy since the invasion (Einsatzgruppen killing tens of thousands of national-minded Poles until the end of 1939, something which must have been registered at least in outline in Britain and France). But if you have any sources regarding this issue, I’d be interested.
That’s pretty much my own position, and in any case it’s extremely hypocritical to go on and on about German war aims in WW1 without reference to the imperialist aims of most of the other combatants.
The tendency by some commenters here to conflate WW1 and WW2 is pretty annoying and imo can only be attributed to obsessive anti-German sentiment which seeks to absolve all other powers of any responsibility at all for the disasters of the 1914-1945 era. While one can indeed see some continuities between imperial and Nazi Germany, there are also marked differences (e.g. while imperial Germany’s elites thought about annexing a “border strip” of Polish territory and expelling inhabitants from there, they never did it, and their main goal from 1916 onwards was creating a Polish satellite state, not abolishing Poland completely as a nation).
Thanks Sean for a competent overview/introduction to the burning question of Who lost the War, Hitler or the Generals ?
As you say, the nub lies in the Strategy —
Long War — oil, coal etc resources, Donets etc or
Short War — knockout, take Moscow, collapse judeo-bolshevism.
As you rightly say, Moscow was more or less on a plate in front of FM v Bock. The Halt order prevented him from no doubt destroying yet more Soviet formations, also becoming a static target, maybe (unquantifiable) puzzlement/loss of morale in troops …
also there was the boost of Russians coming onside — Vlasov, “hiwis” etc
https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Wehrmacht-Russian-Volunteers/
Yet the reception given to such volunteers by Erich Koch in Ukraine, and the disapproval of Adolf Hitler, one is forced to scratch one’s head … (nb I did read recently in an evaluation of Koch that some consider him a spy interestingly enough …))
Anyway of course it’s still an open question/debate.
Little doubt that v Bock would have taken Moscow, but not easily or cheaply, also problem of stay-behind saboteurs, and Stalin would simply have moved the Sov govt inland as he had previously moved the industry … although the Axis would then be at the center of the Russian road and rail network in Moscow.
So it’s a very interesting and highly complex conundrum.
Whatever, it remains a blow to humanity in general that Barbarossa did not succeed in eliminating the dead hand of judeo-bolshevism. Followed by the same thing (not necessarily by military means) in the Jewish-freemason finance capitals of London and USA.
How much better our world would be if that had occurred.
In so many ways, not least currently in Palestine.
I seem to recall sketchy reading that the British Foreign Ministry and individual ambassadors to Poland and Czechoslovakia had a poor opinion of the countries to which they were accredited. Does anyone know whether that’s true, and, if true, the sources of that poor opinion and how widespread it was within the British foreign policy establishment and elite opinion leaders?
The plan for Barbarossa did as you point out have Leningrad as an objective, although ostensibly only as being of equal importance to Moscow, and Hitler did expound to Jodl about how Army Group Centre after penetrating the enemy front in White Russia needed to send a substantial part of its mobile forces veering north to help capture Leningrad. But that was not a command, or something there were orders for so the generals can’t be blamed for not doing it. However, there was never anything in the plan or Hitler’s conversations about the Ukraine being one of the two main objectives; the Ukraine was to supposed to be taken care of after Leningrad and Moscow had been captured.
Leningrad was the key to Baltic communications and like Moscow had political significance for Hitler, while for the army the forces sent to Leningrad would be diverted to contributing to the defence of Moscow, which is what happened because the Soviet forces sent to defend Leningrad were forced inside the city and besieged. For Von Bock, the military significance of Moscow as the prime objective was that the Soviet army defending it could be brought to battle and destroyed, after which the Germans would have disposed of the bulk of Stalin’s military forces as well as his main railway hub and a substantial amount of industry into the bargain. To say nothing of such profound damage to Stalin’s prestige that his remaining as unquestioned leader would be very much in doubt
Anyway, the essential point is that nothing was said or written by Hitler about the Ukraine being a priority over Moscow until the 28th of July 1941, and at that time he was talking about it not as a political and military centre of gravity that striking at would shatter the basis of continued Soviet resistance west of the Urals (like almost everyone said Moscow was), but very much as somewhere resources for a long war that America would soon be joining could be secured along with Lebensraum. On the 12th of August Hitler made official the new policy in a directive ordering the economic objectives would have priority, meaning the seizing of agrarian and industrial resources such as could be found in the Donets Basin and West Ukraine, would come before the attack on Moscow, and Army Group Centre would have to wait before puting in their attack on the capital. It may not be entirely without significance that, unusually for him, Hitler had become ill in early August and was confined to bed for a time. Putin has also seized the Donets Basin, make of that what you will.
The Germans living in Poland were being murdered at the rate of tens of thousands. Plus the constant border excursions by the Poles. Add to that the continuous Polish newspaper headlines that the Polish military would move the Polish border to Berlin.
There were other irritants as well.
That’s why in Hitler’s speech to his deputies he spoke of “shooting back”.
What you have written is the common or standard view, but it is entirely wrong.
If the Soviet Union and/or the Red Army really had been “on the ropes” after the battles of Smolensk, Stalin would not have been able to send three entire armies – the 44th, 47th, and 53rd – to join the British in invading Iran in late August 1941.
The battles of Smolensk, ostensibly a huge victory for the Wehrmacht, were in fact far more costly to the Germans than to the Soviets.
Bien reçu. C’est toi Nicolas?
Between occupation of Poland and Barbarossa Nazi Germany attacked and occupied The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, France, was bombing England, fighting in the Balkans and Africa. Please explain why peace-loving innocent lamb Hitler did all that.
Well I can clarify at least one misconception which you’ve shown. No one has ever tried to claim that Churchill prepared to invade the USSR while making secret agreements with Stalin. In early 1940 the British Command did indeed contemplate a serious strike against the USSR (Operation Pike). This was judged to be part of the wider conflict with the Third Reich, at a time when the Hitler-Stalin Pact was in force. When Hitler struck in France in the spring this effectively nullified any ongoing plans for an Allied attack on the USSR. From that point on the British aim was to turn Stalin against Hitler. It would have served no purpose to try attacking the USSR at that point. Then again in the spring of 1945, when German defeat was obviously in sight, Churchill began suggesting to his officers that they work out a plan for Operation Unthinkable. This was intended to be a new campaign that would liberate Poland from the Soviet occupation. His officers counseled against and the idea was buried. But there never was any actual ongoing inconsistency between the different policies. It was simply that policy changed when either Hitler or Stalin appeared to be winning.
As was noted in debates back then in the ’60s, the detailed war aims which Fritz Fischer documented were not really something could just have been thrown together on the fly after the war had broken out. The German Foreign Office must have had the outlines assembled before June 28, 1914. For contemporary analogy the obvious parallel would be the paper on “A Clean Break” put together by neocons under Netanyahu’s direction long before 911. Some people are convinced that this is proof that 911 was a Zionist plot. It isn’t proof of that, but it’s easy to see how someone want to think there is a connection.
Now one certainly can say that, all right, so the German Foreign Office did have a bunch of plans put together for significant territorial annexations before the Archduke was even assassinated, but that doesn’t mean they planned to start war in 1914. That actually is the view which Fischer took. He does not try to claim that there was a Kaiser-conspiracy to start WWI. Rather, Wilhelm II comes off more as a reckless buffoon who chose to back the Austrian decision to destroy Serbia without expecting that this would lead to Russian mobilization and hence fatally trigger a war.
Those are simply lies. After Hitler had attacked Poland there was a massacre which broke out. Apparently the numbers are still in dispute. The Polish Institute of National Remembrance claims that the number of victims was about 800. I have at least one author (Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles) who puts the number between 2,000 and 5,800, which is obviously a lot higher than 800 (if true). But Hitler himself began spouting propaganda with a figure of 58,000 which was a total fabrication. In any event there is no reason to think that any such massacre would have occurred at all without Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
It’s noteworthy that some have tried making analogies to the Yugoslav situation. There are some limited parallels which can be drawn. One of the most common argument which I remember from way back in the spring of 1999 was that Clinton was exacerbating the tensions with his intervention. That is quite plausible. But it is far more true about Hitler’s approach to Danzig.
My heart cries out for these poor, innocent Germans who had to suffer so much abuse! from the vile, primitive and brutal untermenschen from the East. Well, that is at least the narrative with which they and their Western pals have been trying to brainwash us all since already when Hitler was still alive. The truth is, life has been pretty good with them, both the West and the East, and the lucky fact that the Cold War was already running in the last months of ww2 was a godsend for the German nation, as it spared them the punishment they most likely deserved, specially from the USSR.
The thing is, at the time the West (i.e. the “Americans”) couldn’t get fast enough on the gigantic task of laundering, for the rest of the world, the massive collective guilt of the German people, as they realized they needed their nation now to be part, a crucial part, of their crusade against the Soviet Union. What both dingbats Winston Churchill and Patton proposed was only the tip of the iceberg if at the same time the most exaggerated manifestation of this crusade, not to mention the contingency plan being drawn at the time by the Pentagon to nuke the USSR out of existence. As said, in this new task the Yanks needed the Germans, as Germany, even if still in ruins and mostly destroyed, was still a very important nation in Europe, so it had to be rescued from the claws of Nazi atrocities and Nazi guilt and turned into a decent, peace loving, song singing, yodeling nation. That was relatively easy, as the U.S. controlled the entire propaganda apparatus of the West, i.e. most of the world, and also possessed the political clout needed for the task. Anyone who have seen movies about Germany and the Germans in the postwar period could see that they were depicted as very nice regular folks (just watch the Elvis movie) and so the evil that had descended upon Europe had to be put elsewhere, on someone else’s shoulders, mainly in those of the “bad, bad, bad Nazi” and also of course on the Reds of the East. But Germans, themselves…? Upright, formidable people! Even in movies about WW2 the regular soldier is depicted positively. But also as important as WW2 flicks are Cold War propaganda movies where poor oppressed East Germans are shown as poor, wretched souls desperately trying to escape tyranny and go to the West, to freedom. That first part could have been correct, of course, but nowhere is those movies we could see them as anything but victim of the current state of things, not in any measure the creators of it, nowhere to see the real roots of their situation .
The laundering of the collective German guilt for crimes committed during WW2 had two main foci. The first, we are all familiar with this one, peddled above all in movies like Guns of Navarone, were the thesis is portrayed that Germans in general acted decently during the war, including the military. It was the Nazis, the SS, the Gestapo…! the ones who did all the atrocities things they are all unfairly accused of, a myth transparently portrayed in that movie in the correct, by-the-book behavior of the Wehrmacht officer as compared to the cruelty and sadism of the SS goon. That contrasts can be seen all over in Hollywood war flicks of the 50s and 60s, like in The Great Escape or even Casablanca, of the 40s. But as the scope of the horror perpetrated by Germans during ww2 so wide and widespread also all over a continent, they couldn’t possibly put ALL the blame exclusively on Hitler’s goons and murderers, so they needed something else, something that could explain how most German “blindly followed such a monster” as the Cold War cliche went. What came to explain that mystery was, wait for it, “Hitler’s magnetic personality. His speeches, which threw a spell upon the masses and from which no German could escape. His hypnotic stare, nobody could resist the sting of those blue eyes when he said something or was asking for something” All this nonsensical krap was peddled during the Cold War to explain why, why tens of millions of Germans “had blindly followed the tyrant”. The truth is far different and far more material and down to Earth than that and regular Germans had no problem in telling it once they felt comfortable with their listeners. Simply put, they were having it good with Hitler. Hitler was for German like the uncle or sugar daddy who always comes home with something, with goodies and gifts. Candy, cake, toys, ice cream, you name it. There was no “magical spell, no hypnotic powers in his eyes or speech”, that is BS, it was simply that he kept buying their loyalty with goodies, which he stole from others, from the West and from the East. That is why they remained extremely loyal to him to the end, because when things started going bad and scarcity hit, they started blaming the Allies and the USSR for the inconvenience, never Hitler. That is the real story, why Germans followed Hitler so “blindly” as not to want to see the atrocities he and his goons were committing and that is why the “Americans” had to conceal this fact which, after all, makes of Germans humans like the rest of the world. They loved the tyrant because he was treating them good and that is why they didn’t feel “liberated” at all by the Allied or the Soviets, (I don’t know who and why they even started peddling that crap anyway)
In any case, spoiled brat Germans keep babbling and whining that the victors in WW2 and the world at large have been treating them badly for a guilty that is not theirs, when the fact is the opposite. Instead of that, instead of the Anglo Saxon having been demonizing them, they have been cleaning and polishing their image, turning them, to fit in their anti Soviet, anti Nazi propaganda, from the bad guys they were into the good and the victims.
Note that ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists are so deeply delusional that they’ve actually convinced themselves that their virulent, unreasoning, genocidal hatred is not directed at all White goyim –as it so obviously is — but at a political party that was dissolved 75 years ago.
An interesting variety of psychopathology.
Not sure about diplomats (Foreign Office), but I remember reading somewhere that the British military attache in Prague had a very good opinion about Czechoslovak army and was convinced that they could stop Germans for weeks, if not months. Unlike Poland, Czechoslovakia had also a very serious, ready-to-go ‘home front’ plan of total militarization of society and industry in case of war.
All that, of course, with the help of Sudeten fortification – the total collapse of Czechoslovakia after 1938 is connected to the fact that all Czechoslovak defense plans were based on these fortifications, after Munich agreement in the German hands. That really broke the Czech morale.
The Czechs had actually quite a few plans for war, cooperation with France, with Soviet Union, with Little Entente (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania), even with Poland, but were not prepared for a partition without war.
By the way, both Poland and Romania were ready to allow transfer of Soviet troops to Czechoslovakia in case of war (but no otherwise), should that war be at least politically supported by Western Allies. France was even willing, but Britain said no.
So it was ultimately the British decision. And the German one, of course.
War reparations were exaggerated and rather resulted from the previous war with France.
Germany, however took the territory of Alsace and part of Lorraine from France and forced a huge contribution in gold.
Nevertheless, when it comes to the contribution, the Germans did not have to be pressed so hard.
Apart from the main topic – was Germany directed for expansion eastwards by other forces, such as Great Britain, or not. I have a question, how do you think the Polish government should behave in order to defend Polish interests, to preserve the territory of Polish state and human potential ? Let’s consider as the starting point 30 September 1938 just after signing the Munich treaty.
Probably in Africa there lived some peace loving Germans who were persecuted by their aggressive and quarrelsome neighbors. Someone had to save them…
From footnote 33 of this article:
“[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.”
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/815721
Page 12:
So according to these “secret Finnish documents” from Mannerheim, while the UK and France were supposedly planning operation Pike, they were also conspiring with Stalin to attack Germany.
Putin has also seized the Donets Basin, make of that what you will.
Putin–not Trump– is the new Hitler?
You’re at it again, “Patrick McNally” …
1) Do you still believe the Holodomor is lies, as you posted earlier ?
2) You have now stated that killing of thousands of Germans in Poland, pre-WW2 is also lies, and assign a false timetable to such killings.
Are you then saying the following evidences are all manufactured ?
Please provide proof — not just your opinion. Thank you.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1960
The above article is fully referenced.
https://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
The intro text gives details of the heroic “Marshal” Rydz-Smigly — smigly means speedy, and this proved true when he ran as fast as he could to Romania when Germany invaded, leaving his troops behind him as he sped on his way.
Personally I doubt “Patrick” that you will take the time to read the Official Report (scroll down to Contents), which is quite lengthly, since your task here is to produce frequent mind-baffling walls of text which give your opinions plus blatant untruths.
But others genuine in the search for truth, so hated by Debbie Lipstadt and her paid or voluntary acolytes may do so, so it has been worth while to post this reply to you.
PS
You also have a very voluminous output for just one person and on so many topics, one might almost think it’s some kind of erm, well, team effort …
Perish the thought, eh “Patrick”.
‘After war broke out they had trouble with any kind of Polish identity at all. Poles who wanted to collaborate with the Reich were expected to claim ethnic German status. Poles working in Germany were required to wear discriminatory badges but it is noticeable that the Polish colours of white and red were avoided.’
Lol. Red and white badges would have suited everybody. Heck, I imagine the Poles could have been talked into flying banners from their barracks.
The Dolfy fanboys are at it again. Nutjobs pulling figures out of clubfoot Joe’s arse. Do you have any reputable sources for these fantastic statements? Codoh and Wintersonnenwende are not accepted. Tens of thousands was it? Where, when, how? The 58000 claim of murdered Germans came out of Goebbels in 1940 after British newspapers reported on the atrocities being committed by the Nazis in Poland.
The so called “Bloody Sunday” massacre at Bydgoszcz on Sept.3 has been thoroughly investigated by German historians and the best estimate of Germans killed is about 350. Some were innocent and some were fifth columnists and saboteurs. There are many non-Wikipedia discussions about this. But the doofuses are too mentally constrained to look them up.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3697
‘…But if you have any sources regarding this issue, I’d be interested.’
Not really. It just went by at some point.
But as far as the Einsatzgruppen etc, as I mentioned I’m genuinely interested in a text that covers the gentile Polish experience during the war. I’m a little gun-shy, as the one book I tried seemed entirely concerned with demonstrating that the Poles were really very nice to the Jews.
That was good to hear — but it wasn’t actually what I was looking for.
‘Quite right, and that brings up what has always been the 4 or 5 essential points adopted by apologists for German imperialism with respect to the 2 World Wars of a century ago which I’ve always noted…’
Interesting. No on (1), yes on (3) and (5), mild qualifications on (2), and (4) just seems strange. Who does that?
With regards to (1), I genuinely don’t think Germany wasn’t doing anything any more egregious than France, Serbia, or Russia were. In general, I think it’s a gross error to anachronistically associate the shortcomings of the really rather laudable Germany of the Second Reich with the revolutionary fanaticism of the Third Reich. Wilhelmine Germany was in essence a good thing, and we might well have a better world if it had prevailed in the First World War.
When it comes to (2), I substantially agree — although I’ll note that ‘all of Eastern Europe’ is an exaggeration. There’s no reason to suspect Hitler of territorial designs on Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Finland, or Greece. Basically, his ambitions were confined to Poland and those territories controlled by the Soviet Union — and how and when he would have attempted to realize those had it all been entirely up to him is unknowable. However, was Hitler bent on expansion by conquest in the East, and was a declaration of war the only way of stopping him? Yes.
I can’t help you there, sorry. I know of studies of Nazi policies (like the Germanization in Danzig-Westpreußen, Wartheland and Upper Silesia, where there were a lot of policy conflicts related to the alternatives of mass expulsions/killings and forced assimilation) or of Polish resistance (Armia Krajowa), but don’t know about anything dealing with “ordinary” life during the occupation.
That’s just terrible.
They held them there at gunpoint you mean ?
Without any kind of plebiscite and all the time they were yearning for France ?
Just appalling.
Not to mention the huge contribution in gold they took off them.
Do you know where it went ?
I have a suspicion those evil Nazi’s took it to the South Pole to build their base. It’s still there, Polish scientists have discovered it. But no-one believes them.
Are there awards in Poland for the best war stories you can think up ?
FYI, no statute of limitations applies to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nazis are guilty of both kinds of crimes, big time.
‘My heart cries out for these poor, innocent Germans who had to suffer so much abuse! from the vile, primitive and brutal untermenschen from the East. Well, that is at least the narrative with which they and their Western pals have been trying to brainwash us all since already when Hitler was still alive. The truth is, life has been pretty good with them, both the West and the East, and the lucky fact that the Cold War was already running in the last months of ww2 was a godsend for the German nation, as it spared them the punishment they most likely deserved, specially from the USSR…’
Considering the horrors that were visited on the Germans, and the Germans of the East in particular, between about 1944 and 1947, your dismissal of their suffering is nothing short of obscene. The most charitable interpretation of your remark is that it’s made from ignorance.
‘I can’t help you there, sorry. I know of studies of Nazi policies (like the Germanization in Danzig-Westpreußen, Wartheland and Upper Silesia, where there were a lot of policy conflicts related to the alternatives of mass expulsions/killings and forced assimilation) or of Polish resistance (Armia Krajowa), but don’t know about anything dealing with “ordinary” life during the occupation.’
If it’s reasonably good (and in English) any of the above is of interest.
… as I mentioned I’m genuinely interested in a text that covers the gentile Polish experience during the war.
Consider The Black Book of Poland – January 1, 1942, by the Polish Ministry of Information. The editor is the same chap who was chief Polish negotiator for the British/Polish defense agreement.
Considering the horrors that were visited on the Germans, and the Germans of the East in particular, between about 1944 and 1947. your dismissal of their suffering is nothing short of obscene
Considering the unprovoked horrors that were visited on the peoples of Belarus, Ukraine and White Russia from 1941 to 1944, specially during the first months of the Nazi aggression, there is no words to qualify your chutzpah when overlooking their sufferings, as if the chosen, pure, superior Teutonic race was the only one entitled to suffer and to be a victim, even when they had been the ones starting it all . Obscene doesn’t even starts to qualify it. (Yep, we Anglo Saxons are the ones pulling the string here and so we are the ones deciding who is a victim or not.)
The same Anglo Saxon imperial mentally and chutzpah of ever, the one that decides that for the U.S. engineering provocative military maneuvers ten thousand miles away from home and just a few meters from the Russian border is only meant to deter aggression and to keep stability in the region but that when in response Putin moves a few troops to the other side of his border, still in Russian territory, screams hysterically that the new Stalin is threatening peace and is spoiling for a new world war. The same.
Tell you what, my friend. By comparison to what the valiant German army did in Russia as far as rapes are concerned, the Russian soldiers were real gentlemen. Although truth to be told, some vengeance on their part would’ve been excusable give what they have seen done to their land and their people. Raping women in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union was a common sport for the German soldiers. They also kept brothels with women and girls as young as 10 years old for their entertainment in every occupied town.
Only you see the Russian women did not write books like “I was raped by a hoard of German Nazis”, because the majority did not live to tell the tale. We learned of these things straight from the horse’s mouth, i.e. the German soldiers themselves boasting about their “adventures” in their conversations, letters or diaries.
Probably, not, for they suspected that might have to pay dearly for what they’ve done, which they should have.
Geography isn’t your strong suit, is it? Otherwise you would know that most of the Germans were expelled, and in many cases raped or murdered, by the same Eastern Europeans, Czechs and Poles, that were so timid and fearful of the Red Army.
‘The Dolfy fanboys are at it again. Nutjobs pulling figures out of clubfoot Joe’s arse…
Yeah. Between German propaganda of the era and ‘Dolfy Fanboys’ as you call them on the one hand, and Polish chauvinists and the masochistic compulsions of post-war German historiography, it can get pretty hard to ascertain the truth of it all. So here’s my take.
Pre-war, the Poles weren’t actually killing the ethnic Germans still within Poland’s frontiers. They were enthusiastically and rather cynically marginalizing, dispossessing, and mistreating them — but they weren’t killing them. There seem to have been a few murders in the days leading up to the war, but that obviously had nothing to do with Germany’s decision to invade. Hitler was not rescuing a population facing genocide. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if pre-war Poland’s treatment of its ethnic Germans was more or less on a par with pre-war Germany’s treatment of its ethnic Poles.
On the other hand, once the war broke out, Poles did start killing Germans, and in numbers considerably greater than hundreds. More like thousands. As I recall, somewhere between perhaps three thousand and ten thousand. For one, there’s the question of what happened to the six thousand German-speaking conscripts serving in the Polish army at the time. They all seem to have vanished. Goebbels ‘58,000’ may represent the Germans’ own best guess at the time — with a zero tacked on.
My source for most of this this is the decidedly dry but dispassionate Orphans of Versailles, by Richard Blanke. There’s also De Zayas’ The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945.
‘I have a question, how do you think the Polish government should behave in order to defend Polish interests, to preserve the territory of Polish state and human potential ? Let’s consider as the starting point 30 September 1938 just after signing the Munich treaty…’
Starting 30 September 1938?
About the only suggestion I could make would be that perhaps Poland should have ascertained exactly what would have been required to improve relations with the Soviet Union. At the end of the day, trapped between Stalin and Hitler, Poland’s only hope of salvation was to placate one of the two.
I would suggest entering into negotiations with Germany too — but I can’t see that ending well. Probably backfires. Germany makes proposals, Poland makes counter-proposals, Germany makes counter-counter proposals that really aren’t acceptable, and Britain and France are so desperate to avoid war that they demand Poland accept Germany’s ‘reasonable offer’ or they’ll withdraw support.
If one can go earlier than 30 September 1938, perhaps Poland should have been more vigorously supportive of Czechoslovakia. A bellicose Poland stomping about in the wings might have encouraged Britain and France to redefine ‘reasonable’ so that it was less in Germany’s favor — and have made the German General Staff still less enthusiastic about the prospect of war.
‘Geography isn’t your strong suit, is it? Otherwise you would know that most of the Germans were expelled, and in many cases raped or murdered, by the same Eastern Europeans, Czechs and Poles, that were so timid and fearful of the Red Army.’
That, actually, is the opposite of the truth. One thing that struck me while reading about the horrors perpetrated in East Prussia is that the Poles, while certainly brutal and indifferent to the welfare of the German population, tended to be less gratuitously barbaric than the Russians. Polish conduct was about what one could reasonably expect from a people who had just undergone five years of horrific abuse at the hands of the Germans: they weren’t very nice, and this was going to be theirs now. But go off and try to survive on stewed nettles or something; we don’t care.
The Russians seemed bent on reenacting the crimes of the Mongols.
Uh oh. Sounds like (((FB))) is claiming that there must be some truth to repeated, consistent allegations of jewish ritual murder over a period spanning many centuries.
Clearly, FB is just one of those evil “not-see” German goyim — he’s sneakily infiltrated the ranks of judeobolshevik apologists to subvert their tribal agenda. Like that famous “goy” Ariel Toaff…
Oy vey! “antisemitic canard” alert! Call in the ADL! And AIPAC! Heck, call in the Conference of Presidents and the WJC! It’s like a trope shoah or something…
And as others have pointed out, it is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the suffering that the Germans incflicted on Russia and Poland—with nearly 30 million and five million victims, respectively.
Nobody and nothing could have stopped the Red Army in 1945 from annihilating every German and salting the earth.
Everyone agrees that war between Russia and Germany was inevitable. So if Germany attacked first So what. Germany had to keep the war on the open plains of the east otherwise the war would have been in densely populated area of western Europe. So don’t blame Hitler for doing what he had to do. As far as invading France and Holland he had to pacify the west before the war with Soviets. It was desperate for the survival of the west.
There’s a reason that they call them ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists — their woefully-inadequate knowledge base leads them to believe some very odd things. Like “anon” above, they frequently try to claim that the German goyim somehow discovered the secret to immortality during WW2, but it was irretrievably lost during the final stages of the war.
Though others seem skeptical about the existence of allegedly-immortal German goyim, and instead make claims like “A 2 year old SS officer hooked me up to the masturbation machine — then threw me in the Sauna of Death™. Oy vey! It was like an infantile shoah, or something!”
Very strange.
Is this what they call a “Jungian slip?”
Just curious.
There were Black Sea Germans. Hitler was mainly worried about America, especially its attraction for the most capable Germans, and he wanted to swap the Jews for German Americans, but he needed to make Germany a continental economy to give Germans a lifestyle that would be the envy of even Americans.
While not concerned about emigration, Putin has demographic worries. Indeed he has said that is the number one problem, and the refugees from Donbass are a welcome addition.
You’ve got one thing wrong. The estimates of ethnic Germans killed ran from 2,000 to 5,800. The later propaganda claim spouted Hitler of 58,000 was simply the result of adding an extra zero onto the largest of the plausible estimates. Richard Blanke addresses this quite specifically in Orphans of Versailles. The fabled 58,000 was never an honest estimate of any kind.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn – If he were alive today he would be a victim of the Cancel Culture.
https://codoh.com/library/document/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-he-would-be-canceled-in-tod/en/
I agree that there wasn’t much option for the Poles in 1938. The time to fix the problem was at Versailles. Unfortunately, Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke and was largely ineffective. The French were hell-bent on making stiff terms for Germany. But the British were already having doubts. Wilson had talked a lot about the peace which he envisioned and maybe if he had been in better health things could have turned out different. But in practice the Versailles Treaty was one which was bound to piss off many Germans but didn’t have the muscle behind to enforce conditions stringently. A bad combination. Many Germans legitimately complained about it. But by the time Hitler had been in power for 5 years the issue had gone far beyond that.
‘And as others have pointed out, it is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the suffering that the Germans incflicted on Russia and Poland—with nearly 30 million and five million victims, respectively.’
The problem I have here is that apparently collective guilt is a valid concept.
…so what was wrong with the Holocaust?
‘Nobody and nothing could have stopped the Red Army in 1945 from annihilating every German and salting the earth.’
No — actually the Red Army needed to be encouraged to commit its crimes. It’s a matter of record that especial efforts at indoctrination were aimed at those troops invading East Prussia and Silesia — two provinces that were to be entirely emptied of Germans. Red Army outrages in those areas that were to remain German were decidedly more haphazard than they were in the preceding territories.
Moreover — as I have pointed out — Polish atrocities, while they certainly occurred, were of several orders of magnitude less than those of the Red Army. Russian misconduct was intentionally encouraged by the Soviet state as an instrument of policy. It was no more authentic and unavoidable than the Einsatzgruppen shooting down Jews in 1941-1942 — and the justification was about as valid.
Hitler’s blame comes not merely from attacking first but from attacking with the specific goal of seizing living space from the subhuman Slavs in ways which forced people to rally around Stalin. If Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher had been in charge of Germany in 1941 the war might have gone very differently. But Hitler’s character defined the war more than the issue “who attacked first?”
‘You’ve got one thing wrong. The estimates of ethnic Germans killed ran from 2,000 to 5,800. The later propaganda claim spouted Hitler of 58,000 was simply the result of adding an extra zero onto the largest of the plausible estimates. Richard Blanke addresses this quite specifically in Orphans of Versailles. The fabled 58,000 was never an honest estimate of any kind.’
I believe that’s more or less what I said.
I just wonder how you know that the purpose of the meeting of November 5, 1937 was to “find out who expressed potential qualms about a potential conflict with Britain and France”. The answer you give in reply to your strawman statement is yet another example of your strategy to attempt to steer with subtle implications and innuendo thoughts and discussions.
Gambler Hitler willed the contest, regardless of cautionary advice and clear red lines. The time was right, adversaries (non-Aryans) would only get stronger if he waited. Ordinary Germans (as with Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Memel) nervously looked on. Shirer describes Berliners as funerary 1 Sep 1939 (none of the 1914 enthusiasm for war).
Ordinary Germans didn’t want war. The leadership did.
Between the attack on Poland and Barbarossa England attacked and occupied: Iceland, the Azores, Greece, Norway, violatedon a regular basis the airspace of Holland in its air bombing runs of German cities, and violated the neutral Belgium territory; France also violated the neutral Belgium, neutral Luxemburg and attacked the neutral Norway. That is not to say that these neutral (actually: ‘neutral”) countries didn’t open their borders to the two countries which had declared war on Germany, but you can’t have it both ways, to be a neutral and collaborate with a party involved in an armed conflict. the SU attacked Finland, occupied Bessarabia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and the Bukovina in the same time.
England also had troops in Africa.
In order to understand why German troops were in these various locations, you have to read up on the development of the war. I can’t do that for you, no one can, but in order to have an informed opinion, you have to do that. At the outset, you will have to take note of the fact that England and France declared war on Germany, hence inviting willingly any military action (because this is implied in a declaration of war).
Even if you dislike German moves, you will have to accept that the origin lay in London and Paris as far as the events in Western Europe go. Regrading the SU, it will require consideration of the Soviet goals, means and strategic considerations.
You must also not leave out Italy’s separate moves.
I wish you good luck when reading the many books and writings in order to slowly gain an overview!
That’s just bullshit, coming from someone who is basically what they call a ‘provincial’ to begin with. I come from a military family and my father was stationed in Germany. I have heard first-hand how the Russians were perceived—very highly indeed. All of this bullshit about Russian misconduct came later, as part of the cold war rewriting of history.
Look, I made the mistake of arguing with you one time, about the issue of Israel and the Palestinians and international law. With much frustration, I chalked you up as a blockhead that is beyond reach of facts.
This time I will heed Mark Twain’s advice: ‘Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.’
Obviously I give the charitable interpretation here, because it does seem to fit. If one simply takes the Hossbach memo at face value, the purpose was to plan WWII. Hitler discussion with his officers was about how he expected that a war with in the west would be a near-term prospect. The Nuremberg court therefore described the meeting as evidence of Hitler’s plan to start WWII. Today even establishment historians such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans don’t try to maintain that it represented any fixed agenda for unleashing the war. But obviously it served to remove anyone who showed qualms about Hitler talking about war in the west. That is what is was for. To remove certain people so that Hitler could take risks of war with confidence.
So, what was the real reason for the British insistence to not find a peaceful solution for the Danzig and Korridor problem?
We have gone over this many times.
1. The British were working on a deal with the Polish but the Germans had no intention of waiting. The last offer from the Germans was not for the corridor but in fact demanded that Poland become a German client state and hand over their autonomy. That is why it was rejected.
2. The Germans had worked on plans to cut up Poland well before 1939. They were never acting in good faith.
3. Germans at the time viewed the existence of Poland as an insulting reminder of their loss in WW1. Hitler capitalized upon this knowing full well that the country would support him in an offensive war. The Germans called Poland a “season state” as in it was seasonal aka temporary.
4. Germans viewed Poles as their inferiors and that their progress came from Germans living in Poland.
That is why Hitler invaded Poland based on a lousy false flag job and recklessly gambled on the British not intervening. They were working on General Plan Ost in the 1930’s. Hitler even spelled out in his book that Germany needed to take territory from the east. All of the negotiating with Poland was a fraud. The British in fact were still trying to appease him with the corridor but that would never have stopped him just as the Munich agreement meant nothing to him.
Don’t underestimate the entrails, as any accredited augur will doubtless espouse.
Perhaps. I’m skeptical both that Stalin was that perceptive and that his perspective was that global. Witness his open seizure of Poland; that hardly suggests a delicate concern for Western sensibilities.
Skeptical that his perspective might global????? Well listen to the rat himself:
Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalty to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later the regions can be brought together all the way into a single world dictatorship. – Stalin
Communism calls for the takeover of the world and especially the Anglo/Germanic countries.
They weren’t content to sit in their borders especially when it was clear that Marxism was failing on an economic level. The Anglo/Germanic countries would continue to humiliate them through success. Leftists today have the same motivation. They are deeply resentful that the capitalist model has bested their god Marx. That is why so many have switched to being anti-White over pro-worker. In their minds the only hope is to rid the world of Whites and then have some mediocre mixed socialist model.
The USSR before WW2 expected the entire world to eventually take orders from them. The Communist parties in Europe were serving the USSR and their leaders deserved to be shot for sedition. The Communist parties in Germany and Spain only wanted to get elected so they could turn their countries over to the USSR. That isn’t conjecture, we know in fact that the leader of the KPD (German Communist Party) had a direct line to the Soviets.
The rise of fascism was a pushback that the Soviets weren’t expecting from the West and especially not Germany. In fact they thought Germany would fall after WW1 along with Poland. The USSR under Lenin debated invading France to isolate the British under the assumption that Germany would have their own revolution from the economic fallout of WW1. After the Russian revolution the Soviets assumed Western democracies were weak and wouldn’t stand to the USSR fighting along side fifth column leftists within a weak economy.
This understandable pushback is never explained in schools and is childishly depicted as right-wing Whites behaving badly.
There are still the German refugees from Poland b e f o r e the war, namely in late spring and summer of 1939 in the number of about 76000 counted in German refugee camps. There would have been others not in such camps, as they would have sought refuge with relatives within the German borders. The border as it was had been drawn just a few years prior to these events, and across it many relations would have still existed.
Drawing parallels between the NATO attack on Servia in 1999 because it was held responsible for causing the flight of a large number of Kosovars, and the indulgence of Poland in 1939 because causing the flight of a large number of people are quite apt. Both opposite positions were held by the same crowd who would as gladly ignite a war in 1939 as they would in 1999. In one case a mass flight was no cause for their concern in 1939, in the other they bristled with moral and suchlike outrage when the Serbs were said to cause the Kosovars’ trouble. These characters moved seamlessly from 1939’s will to wage war to NATO’s interventionist high-handedness with a complete disregard of nations they consider as disposable. The Serbs had to learn this lesson that to be friends with England, France and the United States for a special assignment in the First World War and after didn’t mean that they wouldn’t lose their usefulness at another time if it would serve a political purpose.
That you, MaNally are pro-NATO intervention in Servia but are bristling with indignation when thinking of the German intervention in Poland on behalf of the Germans under Polish chauvinistic airs is not a surprise, you come across as someone who has an agenda.
‘…But if you have any sources regarding this issue, I’d be interested.’
Here you go, actually. It would appear Hitler was genuinely open to some kind of rump Poland.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2341741
Sorry, Mister shrink a dime the dozen, but I don’t really care for the origin of the word, all I care about is that it has been used for long in the English language and everyone is using it everywhere by now. As i don’t care either for the origins of Taxi, Troika, Iceberg, Folk, Woke, Sauna, Pretzel, Muffin, Enchiladas, Tostitos and Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Your open acknowledgement that your virunlent, unreasoning anti-goy hatred is driven solely by your virnlent, unreasoning semitic supremacism is appreciated.
Who claims that ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists like “Commentatory Moishe” are entirely incapable of occasional honesty?
Not me.
Though your delusional belief that I’m actually a 110 year old German goy who personally attacked WW2-era judeobolsheviks is rather interesting from the psychopathological standpoint, I must admit.
Sounds kind of Russophobic. Anti-Slavitic, even.
Please try to be a little more tolerant.
The British were not working with the Poles on a “deal” (if by that you mean coming to a mutually satisfactory agreement about the border and population situation). On the contrary, all evidence shows that they made an effort to even prevent German and Polish official meetings.
The Germans had no interest in Polish territories, yet since the Poles had occupied and separated considerable German territories from Germany after the First World War, Germany wanted at least a satisfactory solution regarding this. This would, for example have meant a return of the German city of Danzig in agreement with the almost exclusively German population of this city to Germany. Poland had no legitimate right to play any role in Danzig’s fate or political affiliation.
Considering that Poland was re-established as a country by Germany in November of 1916 -with much thanks from the Poles at that time- it seems preposterous to state that Germany viewed Poland as an insult. It was, however, an insult to Germany that the Poles after the loss of the war for Germany were allowed to arbitrarily occupy and take large swaths of Germany. No normal country or nation would not consider such a behavior and indulgence in it by an entity such as the League of Nations an insult.
“Germans viewed Poles inferior”; that’s you special morsel to make your “argument” stronger.
Since the raid of the radio station at Gleiwitz was not mentioned by the German Chancellor in his speech of September 1, 1939, it did not play a role as a false flag incident. There are good reasons to believe that there was no incident at all.
There were concrete reasons for the attack on Poland, namely the continued Polish hostility towards the Germans living within her borders. This hostility caused tens of thousands to flee Poland in summer of 1939. Cross-border raids by regular and irregular Polish forces occurred with increased frequency and Poland was encouraged in all of this by England and probably France, which was at least indulgent of it. Poland was in a state of full mobilization -ready to go to war- on August 31, 1939. Perhaps you, wherever you live, need such neighbor to dampen your spirits.
Where in the heck did I indicate anything about being pro-NATO intervention in 1999? At that time we spent our days trying to hold little protests in Harvard Square and sometimes at Park Street.
The significance of the Hoßbach conference (5 Nov 1937) is the Führer’s announcement of aggressive war intent. Ala the Nüremberg criminal count ‘conspiracy to wage aggressive war’.
True, Hitler must have been mindful of enthusiasm (or lack of such) in the military (which he always distrusted). His loyal minions, court assassins, would help him in that respect.
Generalfeldmarschall Werner von Blomberg (the guy who suggested the military take a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler) resigned 27 Jan 1938 after an unwise marriage brought to light by Hermann.Göring. Generaloberst Werner Freiherr von Fritsch resigned 4 Feb 1938 (on false accusations of homosexuality lodged by by Himmler and Göring: later reversed).
What does that say about NSDAP Germany? A corrupt crony state? Sycophants jostling to destroy anyone the Austrian disliked?
Were Hiitler’s fingerprints on the noose that hung Blomberg and Fritsch, or was it all his loyal minions? The same ones who helped lead Germany to complete disaster 1945?
These constant failed attempts to present this as some sort of simplistic morality play are very revealing. Norway? Come on, let’s be serious — there’s no “moral” issue there. The Brits mined [neutral] Norwegian waters, attacked German ships in [neutral] Norwegian waters and invaded Norway… because they wanted to cut off German iron ore supplies and control the entrance to the Baltic. The German goyim invaded Norway because they needed to protect their iron ore supply and stop the Brits from controlling access to the Baltic. There’s no “moral” issue in that part of the war — it’s a straight-up conflict between opposing national interests. The constant failed attempts by these ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists to jam this conflict into some sort of quasi-Manicheaen “good goys” vs. “evil goys” frame is patently ludicrous. Especially given the Brits’ obvious naval superiority, and the WW1 German history of a million civilians starved to death by the British blockade in the year after the armistice. Hard to take a “wait and see” approach to a British blockades after that experience.
These ignorant, hate-filled judeobolsheviks may be stupid, but they’re not that stupid — they’re simply lying here. They’re heard of Operation Wilfred, Plan R 4, and the Altmark incident — they know that the Brits had zero intention of respecting Norwegian neutrality and that the German invasion was only hours ahead of the British invasion… but they don’t care. They’re simply spewing standard ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist talking points.
And France? That shows a lot of chutzpah. What, the German goyim were supposed to ignore that the French declared war on them, then invaded Germany, when the Germans had given them Alsace-Lorraine and made zero aggressive moves toward them? What, they think the German goyim should have just stood by and pleaded “Please stop” while the French invaded Germany? I thought judeobolshevik apologists were opposed to “appeasement.” Very strange.
The claim about Ehrenburg exhorting Red Army soldiers to rape German women seems to be a myth, probably invented by a West German journalist in the 1950s iirc. At least no one has ever been able to produce any authentic source demonstrating he wrote something like that.
His rather bloodthirsty comments which are authentic beyond doubt were probably meant as exhortations to kill Wehrmacht soldiers (legitimate as acts of war), even if they contributed to a climate conducive to war crimes. iirc his influence on Red Army propaganda was also drastically curtailed in the spring of 1945, when the Soviet leadership realized the war crimes committed by the Red Army (which undoubtedly happened on a large scale, even if it’s never been proven that there was any organized intent behind it) hurt Soviet interests and that propaganda needed to be toned down to a less violent level.
Anyway, given the context of the times Ehrenburg’s sentiments are probably understandable (he had worked on a documentation about the extermination of Soviet Jews). What’s rather more disturbing is that so many ex-Soviet commenters on UR seem to be almost as bloodthirsty, in 2021, almost 80 years after the end of the war. And most of them seem to be emigrants living in Western countries, yet go on and on about the glories of the Soviet Union and/or Holy Russia. Really warped psychology.
Ilya Ehrenburg never held any official government position, much less ‘minister’ of anything. He was a journalist—very much an anti-Nazi firebrand, but not unlike much of the anti-German output of the other Allied countries’ war propaganda.
So right there we see how much your ‘information’ is worth.
But here is something from a real history book: Fascination and Enmity: Russia and Germany as Entangled Histories, 1914–1945
—edited by Michael David-Fox, Peter Holquist, Alexander M. Martin; University of Pittsburgh Press, page 140.
Quoting from Schmidt’s diary:
Ehrenburg comments:
Certainly Ehrenburg the writer has masterfully captured the essence of this stinking, grotesque German killer-clown.
I would say you and the rest of the clownstuffel here have similarly shown yourselves to be nothing but human dreck—not even sausage-makers like the execrable Schmidt, just useless eaters, farters and shitters. As you have amply documented here.
Why would an ostensible German goy be so eager to excuse (((Ehrenburg’s)))) virulent semitic supremacism and genocidal anti-goy hatred?
One possibility, of course, is the all-too-common phenomenon of false consciousness/ internalized systemic semitism. Then again, shameless mendacity is a characteristic feature of toxic semitism…
Unlike you, I’m a very tolerant, understanding person, so I try to educate the differently-cognitively-abled whenever the opportunity presents itself — even when dealing with ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists like yourself, who are typically very resistant to any and all educational opportunities that might improve their unenlightened state and help to attenuate their bigotry. No one can accuse me of “ableism.”
Here’s a link that might assist you in gaining a minimal degree of self-awareness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
You’re welcome.
Yes, that’s pretty much my impression of the actual history.
Hitler had generally been friendly toward Poles and wanted to enlist them as another ally against the Soviets.
The most amazing thing is not how many Hitler fanboys/girls came out of woodwork. The most amazing thing is that people who sincerely consider themselves pro-German and pro-white extoll Hitler’s virtues. In fact, what Hitler achieved was the greatest devastation of Germany in known history and the greatest slaughter of whites in known history. As Einstein once said, “only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity; and I am not sure about the Universe”.
Ehrenburg picture (If it is real him.) looks !00% Jewish. In every case it was not official policy.
I definitely agree with you! There are considerably more Blue eyed blonds in Poland than in Germany.
Hitler had generally been friendly toward Poles and wanted to enlist them as another ally against the Soviets.
During his period of friendliness toward the Poles, he was planning to attack the Soviets?
Unlike you, I’m a very tolerant, understanding person,
No, you are not, you are the perfect opposite of that, so much so they could use your picture to illustrate what is NOT being understanding and tolerant. The truth is, you are nothing but a raging, mouth foaming, Nazi fanatic completely incapable of seeing anything from any other perspective than the paranoiac, narrow minded which was that of Hitler and which brought so much pain and suffering to hundreds of million in Europe. Every time you are faced with ANY opposition to your shortsighted, narrow, fanatical views you instantly resort to name calling and insults in a way that would shame a bunch of brainless brats in a schoolyard. Already the fuzz you make about me using a word that I have heard many times, and about which I couldn’t care where it came from, perfectly exposes you like the obsessive pro-Nazi fanatic you are.
“even when dealing with ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists like yourself, who are typically very resistant to any and all educational opportunities that might improve their unenlightened state and help to attenuate their bigotry”
This shows even better what you really are and I can even say you would have fitted with ease among the Nazi rabble that came to live among us in Chile which we, locals, used to mock and ridicule. I even had teachers who used to talk with sarcasm about them and also about things like Stalingrad and the resounding crash of the “Superior race project”. And they were no “judeobolsheviks”; in fact some of them disliked Jews also. Nobody taught me to hate this or that race, as the main problem Chile has always had, as most of the Americas for that matter, comes from the historical bad blood between natives and descendants of the immigrants. I was used to study at school, primary and then secondary, in classrooms including also boys and girls with names that sounded strange, not Spanish or European, yet I never ever had the curiosity to know were those names came from. I had even an engineering school pal, with whom our group made a lot of projects and spent a lot of time with at the Faculty, and one day I asked him just out of curiosity which was the origin of his name and after some hesitation he told me that he was Jewish. And I had been practically cohabiting with this guy for five years at the school…! That to show how obsessed I has always been about race and how much I care about it. In fact it was only when I came to North America, and after realizing that over here race and ethnicity are a big thing, that I started wondering about some of those names and then I went finding out about them, “Oh, that guy was Arab” “This other one was Polish” and so on. So you are the intolerant here poor old man, because you don’t even suspect the existence of another world different from the sad and dark in which you dwell, one where race and ethnicity are not such an important issues as to make anyone waste their entire living obsessing about it.
America was an offshore balancer as in WW1, where it only came in when Germany was on the point of winning. Everyone in and around Europe was passing the buck of Hitler, but hoping to gain an advantage by sitting the coming war out. The only problem was the combination of Hitler and the German army was more powerful than anyone had dreamt of. Chamberlain gave a guarantee of Poland’s independence, but not its territory, because he wanted a corridor granted to Germany so that Germany could then go and fight the USSR, which had the “liebsraum” that it was Hitler’s objective to win, as he had written and made speeches on and was no secret even before him. It had been German policy in WW1!
Chamberlain and those around him wanted the USSR and Germany to go to war with one another, expecting a bloody stalemate but not to bothered if the Soviets lost, we know he was saying this other people in private at the time. But six months later it was revealed the Hitler and Stalin had become allies, and Chamberlain realising that Hitler would, along with the USSR, deal with Poland (which had refused to cooperate with Germany in a war on the USSR) then turn West, gave a guarantee of Poland’s territory as a preparation to declared war on Germany, which was only a few weeks later, In effect, Chamberlain only went to war with Germany because it forming a pact with the USSR made it inevitable that Germany was going West, so there was no reason for Britain to let Germany have one war at a time and defeat its enemies ‘in detail’.
Hitler came astonishingly close to total success in mid 1941, and if he had taken Moscow he’d not have made the foolhardy decisions of November (order to exterminate the Jews) and December (declaring war on America) that betrayed an awareness he had failed. If so there would have been pretty fair prospects of Heisenberg–living in a victorious German Empire–building an atomic bomb. Hitler having become ill in early August must have eroded his normally ineluctable resolution into disastrously timid half measures like the diversion into the Ukraine, and I think it was a turning point in history
Don’t let me interrupt you while you are beating the crap out of that straw man, but I haven’t noticed anyone “extolling Hitler’s virtues” on this book review thread about how Stalin was preparing to invade Germany and Europe when Barbarossa started. Could you please point out a few?
Just as a jews love to claim that any goyim who dares criticize Zionism is an anti-Semite, so do Stalin apologist thugboys claim that anyone who defends what the Germans were forced to do in the lead up to WWII is “extolling Hitler’s virtues”. It just ain’t so.
I have stated before that the Third Reich was an unfortunate result of both the Second Reich and the Germany’s loss of WWI. Germany would have been, and would still be, far better off as a Confederation of independent Germanic länder, kind of like a very large Switzerland. Unfortunately, for many reasons mostly involving Freemasons and Jews, that was not to be.
When the NSDAP came to power in 1933, Germany had been declared guilty for a war that Russia, France and England had started, Germany had been starved, forced to pay insurmountable reparations, the Rhineland was occupied, the country had been stripped of its best farmland, was completely broke, and the entire government had been taken over by same Kabbalistic jews who had stabbed Germany in the back during the war.
Immediately upon election, after overcoming extreme meddling and riots by communists like Antifa, Judea declared war on Germany, started an international embargo and attempted to starve the Germans into submission once again. Shortly afterwards the communists burnt down the Reichstag and then blamed it on the NSDAP.
With the entire Judaic West at its throat, Hitler pulled the country together, in what many would call a miracle, and restored the Germans pride in accomplishment. Unsurprisingly, the German people adored Adolf,
Now lets jump over to your Communist paradise under your hero Joe Stalin. The Tsar had been ritually murdered, the Orthodox priests too. The churches had been burn down, “anti-semitism” was an instant death penalty for the entire family, the Holodomor was in high gear, all of Russia’s intelligentsia had been murdered or were in exile, and the country was in the complete control of Kabbalistic Jews. Of course it was these same communists who had razed Hungary and Spain, and were continually attempting to do the same to Germany.
As we approach WWII, the Kalergi plan was well known, Kaufmann had written his book “Germany Must Perish”, the international Jewish media was stoking up a firestorm of Anti-German hate. England who had starved Germany by blockade twice before was tightening the screws, and ((Roosevelt)) was beating the anti-German American war drums once again.
So just viewing this debacle from my own prejudice for the underdog, I am definitely pro-German. I am also pro-Russian, and I despise what the Judeo-Communists did to Russia and the Russian psyche. Unfortunately, judging from many of the Stalin thugbois posting on this thread, most Russians have not recovered from the blow dealt to Russians by the Jews. Unfortunately, most Germans have not either, just look at German_reader’s comments for an example.
“Patrick McNally” simply issues verdicts of nonsense/lies on figures of Germans killed by Poles (as he has also written off the earlier Ukraine Holodomor as untrue) as a means to portray the German side as insane, aggressive etc.
These are views which will chime with readers brought up with the Hollywood view of WW2 and such people will be comforted in not having their world-view disturbed.
It also relieves people of having to look further, all that reading …
So much easier …
Anyway, the official report might indeed be just cooked up lies, as he alleges.
Germans are not generally known for that (more the Anglo’s perhaps) but rather for meticulous and even nit-picking accuracy.
Fortunately the original Report (Berlin 1940) has been preserved.
Here it is, for any interested.
Decide for yourself.
https://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Polish_Atrocities_intro.htm
In your sick perverted world those who point out the evil deeds of the Germans are evil while those who justify them or cover them up are the good guys. There should be an “idiot” button for the likes of you.
You ask: “Why did Hitler have to start a war with Poland?
My answer is at https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391. Ron Unz also published this article on his website.
You state: “Between occupation of Poland and Barbarossa Nazi Germany attacked and occupied The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, France, was bombing England, fighting in the Balkans and Africa. Please explain why peace-loving innocent lamb Hitler did all that.”
My answer is contained in the following articles and my book:
1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391.
2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6845.
3. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6814.
4. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/4/6936.
5. Chapter One of my book Germany’s War, which is on Ron Unz’s website at
https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/.
If you still have questions after reading these articles and Chapter One of my book, please let me know.
For some reason, FB feels very strongly compelled to engage in lengthy, incoherent, rage-filled rants in failed attempts to “defend” the indefensible — a virulent semitic supremacist and known genocidal maniac like (((Ehrenburg))). It’s almost as if he feels some sort of… tribal affinity for the man.
Of course, ignorant, hate-filled judeobolsheviks like “FB” also commonly believe that “Kaufman was RIGHT to want to massacre all of those German goyim, I tell ya! They’re almost as bad as those Palestinian goyim!”
Ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists are frankly incapable of achieving even a minimal degree of tolerance or understanding for those that they view as the hated and feared “Other.”
Very sad.
Note also that while FB tries to claim that he’s “just defending the Russian goyim against da ebil not-sees and promoting hatred toward the German goyim” here… he does not feel anything like the same impulse to attack Colin Wright for his open Russophobia and virulent anti-Slaviticism that he does to defend “Fellow Russian” genocidal maniacs like (((Ehrenburg))). Very revealing.
And that he [of course] simply cannot control the impulse to publicly exhibit his (typically-semtic) fecal fetish. An interesting case, from the purely psychopathological standpoint…
The flailing, failed attempts by both “FB” and “German reader” to assert that (((Ehrenburg))) was “just an independent genocidal hate propagandist working in the private sector, and totally NOT a integral part of the totalitarian judeobolshevik regime!” are pretty comical. I assume they’re not serious. I mean, not even ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists can be that lacking in self-awareness… can they?
The badge prescribed for Poles was purple and yellow in colour – not colours associated with Polish nationalism, and yellow may have been selected to associate Poles with Jews.
https://www.porta-polonica.de/en/atlas-of-remembrance-places/letter-p
I hope that Anon from TN and others locked into the Hollywood/Court Historian world-view would take time to investigate your material, JW.
Easy to do, Ron Unz has made it available on this site.
I have been reading for ~20 years on first half of the bloodstained C20, from Herzl’s 1897 Zionist Declaration (a significant kick-off date imho) and am still a student … masses of real information are available on all aspects … I was years reading on Barbarossa … several years on the economic “miracle” (Feder etc) and e.g. Kraft durch Freud prog … tsar Nikolai II Romanov/family … the “Russian” revolution financed by a Jewish banker in NYC …
I was fortunate to come on AJP Taylor, followed by David Irving fairly early, reading into debates abt “What is History ?” allowed me to discard many Court Historians.
RU readers —
Almost everything we have been told by western govts/media is false.
Please take time to do proper research.
Do not make a fool of yourself by posting of your knowledge of the inner thoughts of world leaders or what they said in secret.
People will just laugh at you, and you will have deserved it.
The real reason for this revisionism is the goal of creating common European identity. The process of social engineering started right after WW2. In short, the problem for EU bureaucrats who have a vision of unified Europe is that in the East the people were taught that the communists defeated the nazis. US is just a side actor in this folly.
Here’s a pretty good explanation of the politics behind it and why we ended up like this, by an insider “establishment” professor:
https://thebarricade.online/divided-memories-europe/
Like with all rotten ideologies, the intentions were good – reconciliation between winners and losers and creating a common world vision, similar to what the Americans were successfully doing. In my opinion, it all went wrong for the EU bureaucrats with the spread of internet, as there is simply too much inertia and old age in the political class to change propaganda tactics adequately.
No he didn’t.
Of course, some people are easily astonished, especially when they believe all the wartime propaganda, especially that propaganda stemming from the Russian/Soviet specialty of deception, or maskirovka.
I see you, and everyone else, has dodged or ignored my previous response to you, where I wrote:
https://www.unz.com/article/barbarossa-suvorovs-revisionism-goes-mainstream/?showcomments#comment-4665147
By dividing his forces at the outset of Barbarossa, Hitler doomed whatever change the Wehrmacht may have had to at least reach Moscow before the onset of the autumnal rains and the breaking up of the roads, or rasputitsa.
Taking and holding Moskva was another matter entirely. The Soviets were well aware of the importance of their capital, and the Red Army had ample if not abundant reserves to defend it.
Here is Ehrenburg’s picture from his wikipedia entry:
And from his youth:
Obviously that ‘picture’ posted by the mouth-foamer is hardly authentic. Not surprising, considering the source—some obscure neo-Nazi pamphlet obviously put together by illiterates that don’t even know the difference between a government minister and a newspaper columnist.
‘…Sounds kind of Russophobic. Anti-Slavitic, even…’
I actually agree with your point. Russian soldiery in the Nineteenth century and in the First World War had a poor reputation — but they’d never committed anything like the barbarities they did in East Prussia and Silesia, and they were clearly egged on to those.
Apologies for misspelling.
Some information on Kraft durch Freude.
https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-National-Socialist-Organization-Strength-Through-Joy/
1938 Maiden Voyage of “Wilhelm Gustloff” (Schiff ohne Klassen)
‘Skeptical that his perspective might global????? Well listen to the rat himself…’
On the other hand, the proof is in the pudding, and on the one hand, when it came to actual actions, Stalin displayed an almost absurd tendency to seek to recover all that Imperial Russia had held. See his demands on Turkey and his reluctance to evacuate Port Arthur in particular.
On the other hand, if Russia hadn’t ruled it, he could swiftly lose interest. Witness his withdrawal from Iran, his failure to support the Greek Communists, and his lack of interest in supporting French and Italian Communists and things.
I submit that however much he may have talked the global Communist talk, when it came to walking the walk, Stalin’s visceral tendency was to restore the Russian Empire.
It’s like me. I may agree that in theory, I should ignore nursing my watermelons to fruition this summer and get around to painting the kitchen. However, you’ll keep finding me out in the yard, and the kitchen will continue to be this strange melange of the previous owner’s tastes and the various paint samples I’ve considered.
The yard’s just where I keep going. Similarly, Stalin never saw a piece of land that had once belonged to Imperial Russia that he didn’t want to get ‘back.’
‘…he does not feel anything like the same impulse to attack Colin Wright for his open Russophobia and virulent anti-Slaviticism…’
I don’t think that’s reasonable. If I insisted on the reality of the Rape of Nanking, would that demonstrate I hated Japanese? Hell, I’ve been to Japan: I think the Japanese are the cat’s pajamas. However, the Rape of Nanking really did happen. No foolin’
I think the Holocaust occurred, and occurred substantially as described. Does that prove I’m a Germanophobe?
Russian crimes against the Germans of Eastern Europe are a historical fact, and if anything, have been obscured, minimized, and rationalized as somehow justified. That I won’t go along with that neither demonstrates that I’m a ‘Russophobe’ nor is it evidence of ‘virulent anti-Slaviticism.’
Not really. Planning on Operation Pike began mainly after November 30, with the Soviet attack on Finland. Now that piece seems to claim that Churchill had been given advance notification of the Soviet strike. I’m a bit skeptical of that, but I’ll withhold judgement about the authenticity of the document for now. They are saying that there was an older copy of a document which is lost but somehow parts of it were copied elsewhere. That happens, so the story can’t be dismissed. But either way, October 15 is a long ways before November 30.
When the USSR struck at Finland then there was a lot of public sympathy for the Finns in western Europe. That opened up the possibility to Allied commanders of not merely aiding the Finns but of surreptitiously moving forces into Norway and Sweden as part of an encirclement of Germany. This spurred on new strategies which led to the formulation of Operation Pike aimed at the Caucasus. But I’m not aware that anyone was talking about this on October 15.
Whatever the truth about this alleged document of October 15 may be, it has always been clear that Churchill’s to the September 17 move on Poland by Stalin was to welcome it as something that was better than Hitler taking all of Poland. So the possibility of Churchill have sent some message about this Stalin is valid. I’m just dubious on the idea that Stalin would begin discussing Soviet claims on Finland with Churchill, as is claimed there. But that can be left as an open issue.
But six months later it was revealed the Hitler and Stalin had become allies,
That is a lie. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union didn’t become “allies” because of the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact and in fact they were never ever allies. This is just another blatant lie those in the West who want to demonize the former USSR , and Putin by extension, use to fling around. That was a Non-Aggression Pact. A no aggression pact was signed that would mean they would have both the hands free to deal with third parties without having to fear to be attacked by the other while doing so. So what Nazi Germany did in June 1941 was treacherous, NOT because it attacked an “ally” but because it broke its word stated in the Pact of not attacking the Soviet Union. The Axis, on the other hand, that was an alliance, more or less. That is why Hitler ran to help his poor hopeless ally Mussolini in Yugoslavia and also proposed Japan to attack the Soviet Union from the East.
Mixed bag.
True.
I did proper research. Real one: talking to people who lived through Nazi occupation, rather than reading “well researched” books written by people with zero personal experience.
Uh oh. Looks like Commissar Moishe’s levels of vitriolic anti-Goy hatred and impotent rage are reaching a point where they’re completely corroding what passes for his “mind.”
Most unfortunate. Please try to calm down, and be more tolerant and understanding of the goy “Other,” Commissar Moishe. You’ll feel better.
‘…Hitler had generally been friendly toward Poles…’
Yeah — but unlike, say, as his position towards Britain, I’d say this was a purely tactical stance.
For the first few years after he came to power, Hitler wasn’t in a position to do anything about the Poles, so he did his best to neutralize them and even make common cause with them.
Once he was in a position to do something about Poland, he promptly did.
‘…That is a lie. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union didn’t become “allies” because of the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact and in fact they were never ever allies…’
Oh please. You’re just demonstrating that your posts shouldn’t be taken seriously.
People are still wasting time to talk to retards who belive in human lampshades and jewish necronomicon?
This is just pathetic. Just call them out!
Looks like a disgusting, limp wristed little goblin. All in all, a typical bolshelvik kike.
I really think so..
ART. 2. – La France paiera à S.M. l’Empereur d’Allemagne la somme de 5 milliards de francs. Le paiement d’au moins 1 milliard de francs aura lieu dans le courant de l’année 1871, et celui de tout le reste de la dette dans un espace de trois années, à partir de la ratification des présentes.
ART. 3. – L’évacuation des territoires français occupés par les troupes allemandes commencera après la ratification du présent traité par l’Assemblée nationale, siégeant à Bordeaux. Immédiatement après cette ratification, les troupes allemandes quitteront l’intérieur de la ville de Paris, ainsi que les forts situés sur la rive gauche de la Seine et, dans le plus bref délai possible, fixé par une entente entre les autorités militaires des deux pays, elles évacueront entièrement les départements du Calvados, de l’Orne, de la Sarthe, d’Eure-et-Loir, du Loiret, de Loir-et-Cher, d’Indre-et-Loire, de l’Yonne, etc., de plus, les départements de la Seine inférieure, de l’Eure, de Seine-et-Oise, de Seine-et-Marne, de l’aube et de la Côte-d’Or jusqu’à la rive gauche de la Seine. Les troupes françaises se retireront en même temps derrière la Loire, qu’elles ne pourront dépasser avant la signature du traité de paix définitif. Sont exceptées de cette disposition la garnison de Paris dont le nombre ne pourra pas dépasser 40 000 hommes, et les garnisons indispensables à la sûreté des places fortes. L’évacuation des départements situés entre la rive droite de la Seine et la frontière de l’Est, par les troupes allemandes, s’opérera graduellement après la ratification du traité de paix définitif, et le paiement du premier demi-milliard de la contribution stipulée par l’article 2, en commençant par les départements les plus rapprochés de Paris, et se continuera au fur et à mesure que les versements de la contribution, seront effectués. Après le premier versement d’un demi-milliard, cette évacuation aura lieu dans les départements suivants : Somme, Oise et les parties des départements de la Seine-Inférieure, Seine-et-Oise et Seine-et-Marne, situées sur la rive droite de la Seine, ainsi que la partie du département de la Seine et les forts situés sur la rive droite. Après le paiement de 2 milliards, l’occupation allemande ne comprendra plus que le département de la Marne, des Ardennes, de la Haute-Marne, de la Meuse, des Vosges, de la Meurthe, ainsi que la forteresse de Belfort avec son territoire qui serviront de gage pour les 3 milliards restants, et où le nombre des troupes allemandes ne dépassera pas 50 000 hommes. S.M. l’Empereur sera disposée à substituer à la garantie territoriale, consistant dam l’occupation partielle du territoire français, une garantie financière, si elle est offerte par le gouvernement français dans des conditions reconnues suffisantes par S.M. l’Empereur et Roi pour les intérêts de l’Allemagne. Les 3 milliards dont l’acquittement aura été différé porteront intérêt à 5 % à partir de la ratification de la présente convention.
I do not know anything about such an award, but I think that people like you could easily apply for podium places in such a contest.
Are Russia and the U.S. allies in Afghanistan, you knucklehead…? And yet Russia allows US planes carrying military supplies to that country to make stopovers in her territory and Putin himself has said that is because US presence in Afghanistan helps contain Muslim terrorism in the region. Anyone with a brain in their heads understand that countries may collaborate one with the other in some occasions just because it is in their own interest and not because they are allies.
That bit of propaganda is pushing the 58,000 figure. See pp. 235-6 in Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles, for the range of plausible estimates. Far from serving as documentation of much that happened in Poland that German publication will simply stand as an example of wartime propaganda.
And yes, it’s worth reiterating, the claims of “artificial famine” were a hoax played by the Goebbels & Hearst media and later transmitted into Cold War propaganda by Robert Conquest, James Mace, Dana Dalrymple et al. An actual famine caused by plant rust inducing crop failure did occur and was not somehow deliberately created by the government. The Ukrainian government plays games like this
web.archive.org
/web/20111107151436/www.nr2.ru/crimea/223417.htmlas a way of distracting people from the mess in their own backyard.
I am truly sorry for the dire experiences of those you spoke with.
And hope their bitterness will not continue to poison your life.
People can indeed be in the wrong place at the wrong time and suffer innocently.
Others may be banditti, looters, so-called partisans and similar illegals, liable in international law to be executed, as many were …
The view “from the street” can often be explained by reputable “overview” research, but you indicate that you are not willing to do that.
Which is unfortunate.
Not for me or anyone else, but for you yourself.
Below is a different testimony from a Ukrainian volksdeutsch, Ingrid Rimland.
There are two sides to every coin.
Sincerely wishing you well. Farewell.
Yes, probably you are right.
I think it was a lack of good calculation on both sides. Czechoslovakia counted on an alliance with France and good relations with Soviet Russia. The Poles did not forget the old conflict over Śląsk Cieszyński and didn’t foresee that it would finally lead to the encirclement of Poland. There were also doubts on the Polish side whether the Czechs would fight which is minor issue. Still this was a much better moment to test German intentions than to do it alone.
The war with USSR was about Jews, not about Lebensraum.
Try to think outside of schema of Hitler’s providential powers of Titan.
If Hitler really wanted manageable Lebensraum, Scandinavia was the best answer. The Soviet-Finnish war offered an excellent opportunity for an intervention in Finland (plus liberation of Baltic countries), and thus, of creating a bridgehead there from where Sweden could be either managed or taken over.
Denmark could be taken from Schleswig-Holstein, already in Germany. No logistics problem. Racially compatible populations, and yet small ones. Minerals. Ores. Trees. Easy to defend: Sund is easier to block than Bosforus. What do you want more. So easy. So obvious.A fruit hanging low, waiting to be picked.
Norway could be left, due to the British obsession with ‘freedom of navigation’.
Anyway, Hitler would simply realize plans for Swedish Empire of the 17th century, this time as the German Empire, making from Baltic Sea a Mare Nostrum, namely a Mare Germanicum…
A simple answer for a simple problem, if such a problem (i.e. Lebensraum) really existed. But did it exist ?!
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
2. Calm down
3. I’m deliberately mocking the rhetorical tactics that ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists and genocidal semitic supremacists typically employ in their incoherent, rage-filled rants. For anyone who possesses the merest vestige of a sense of humor, this should not be difficult to understand.
4. The obvious truth underlying the deliberate hyperbole is that, while you feel free to blabber about “German goy crimes” and “Russian goy crimes,” you would never dream of making similar blanket attributions of collective ethnic guilt in formulations such as “jew crimes” or even “judeobolshevik crimes.” Why is that?
Well, I suppose if it was published on the venerable Unz review, it must be true and the matter is settled.
No wonder that “volksdeutsch” experience was different. After all, primeval tribal nationalism of the Hutu-Tutsi kind is one of the key features of Nazism.
Possibly. But although I’m not a specialist in that issue, I’m skeptical…
Hitler certainly sought alliances with lots of the smaller anti-Communist nearby countries, including Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, and such. It seems to me that Poland would have merely been by far the largest and most powerful of all of these. Obviously, some of the Polish leaders resented the idea of being a subordinate ally and wanted Poland to regain the “great power” status it had enjoyed a couple of centuries earlier, but that really was unrealistic. And if they’d recognized that their choice was between Germany and the Soviets, I think nearly all would have preferred the former.
Obviously, some of the Prussian Junkers might have had dreams of regaining control over the ethnic Polish territories they’d ruled since the Polish partition, but Hitler was Austrian and didn’t particularly like the Prussians. Also, he was Catholic, giving him another tie with the Poles. From what I’ve read, the offer he was making to the Poles was far, far better than anything any of his Weimar predecessors would have dared make. I think it was a little like a “Nixon Goes to China” situation.
Given that Hitler certainly seemed to expect a forthcoming war against the USSR, either offensive or defensive, a conflict with Poland rather than an alliance wouldn’t have made any sense.
You write: “Well, I suppose if it was published on the venerable Unz review, it must be true and the matter is settled.”
My response: Read the information presented and let me know if you find anything that is inaccurate. I don’t claim to be infallible.
That is just straight bullshit, of course.
Please see —
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-holodomor.html
https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor
There are many other similar reputable references.
And talking of references, just citing a page number in a book that somebody perhaps mentioned to you is not a valid reference. A direct quote and link is necessary if you wish to present evidence, and from a recognised authentic and reputable source.
But when that offer was rejected, he started a war against Poland and abolished it as a state, with his subordinates carrying out mass killings of Polish elites and forced population transfers. Makes it kind of irrelevant that originally he wanted to enlist Poland as a minor ally in an anti-Soviet war.
‘…Obviously, some of the Prussian Junkers might have had dreams of regaining control over the ethnic Polish territories they’d ruled since the Polish partition, but…’
I don’t think Polish-German ill-feeling was confined to the Junkers. There had been considerable fighting at the end of the First World War over who was to get precisely what, and Polish ill-treatment of their German minority had led to nearly a million dispossessed and presumably embittered exiles moving to Germany over the years.
Finally — although here I know less than I might — I have the impression that Poland had done a good deal of strutting and menacing with respect to the virtually disarmed Weimar Republic in the inter-war years. Poland’s victory in their war with the Soviets had given the Poles the notion they were a great power.
…so Germans in general may well have thought the Poles had it coming, and indeed, the general conduct of the 1939-45 occupation suggests that was the sentiment.
Trying to send you a balanced and even helpful message, Anon.
But it seems the bitterness of your soul is too deep for that.
Mark my words — it will destroy you.
Farewell.
‘The war with USSR was about Jews, not about Lebensraum.
Try to think outside of schema of Hitler’s providential powers of Titan…’
This fails on the point that the whole ‘Lebensraum’ schtick really was a component of Hitler’s ideology.
One could say his war with the Soviet Union was over-determined. Yes, it was the nest of Judeo-Bolshevism. Yes, Stalin had been behaving increasingly aggressively and was clearly threatening German interests. And finally, yes, it was where the ‘Lebensraum’ was supposed to come from.
Any one of the three might have in theory led to war. Put all into operation at once, and you’ve got a no-brainer.
‘Well, I suppose if it was published on the venerable Unz review, it must be true and the matter is settled.’
There you go. Now that that’s squared away, what would you like to discuss?
Pas du tout ! Si tu parles de Nicolas Bonnal, je l’ai suivi sur son intéressant blog à une certaine époque; c’est d’ailleurs chez lui que j’ai trouvé la mention du Preparata. Il faudra que je questionne ce dernier sur son livre quand je trouverai le temps.
Je te précise, au cas où tu préfères travailler uniquement sur les responsabilités de guerre, que tu n’y trouveras pas des éléments de détail sur ce sujet : il suit la thèse officielle, à ceci près qu’il dénonce le jeu britannique. Ce n’est pas l’apport de son étude qui est plutôt centrée sur l’économie-politique et l’essor et l’orientation du nazisme, mais vu de derrière les rideaux.
A toi de voir si ça apporte à tes recherches :p
Bonne journée !
Ah oui, merci, enfin je comprends tout.
Continuing in English as that is the majority language on UR.
My mistake and apologies — you were referring to the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71 when Napoleon III declared war but was dealt a hard rebuke by Bismarck …
I thought your post was abt the 20th Century.
Ref Alsace-Lorraine/Elsaß-Lothringen —
https://www.german-way.com/best-of-alsace-lorraine/
…so Germans in general may well have thought the Poles had it coming, and indeed, the general conduct of the 1939-45 occupation suggests that was the sentiment.
Putting it nicely.
Yes, initially Hitler was more forthcoming than Weimar elites, especially Gustav Stresseman. He concluded in 1934 the non-aggression treaty with Poland for 10 years.
Afterwards, Hitler started being unreasonable.
Contrary to popular opinion, Danzig was not such a big issue. Poland was ready to tacitly accept the German takeover. However, only one point of German ultimatum to Poland was concerning Danzig.
The next point dealt with ex-territorial German railway (4 lines) and highway (4 lanes each side, so 8 together) from Germany to East Prussia through Polish territory. And that was an issue – a German corridor would necessitate a corridor for Poland, as Poland would be cut off from iits coast and Gdynia port. That was not acceptable.
Even less acceptable was German demand of referendum in the area of Polish corridor (from Baltic coast to Bromberg), with all German who lived in the area in 1918 t or were born until that date, able to vote (so voters bussing). The only area excluded from referendum was a city of Gdynia.
Moreover, there was to be an international commission to investigate Polish crimes against German minority.
Casus Belli, or the German ultimatum of 31.08.1939:
https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Ultimatum_niemieckie_wobec_Polski_z_31_sierpnia_1939
Unlike Hungary and Romania (which had an issue of Moldova with USSR), Poland already got what it wanted from USSR in the 1921 Riga peace treaty. Moreover, Poland since 1932 had 10-years non-aggression treaty with USSR. So Poland actually did not have an incentive to go to war with USSR.
All in all, Poland followed so called policy of equal distance to USSR and Germany, formulated by Pilsudski. There was simply no incentive to fight with USSR, which wasn’t so hostile as Germany was, actually.
The war with USSR was about Jews, not about Lebensraum.
Right. And we may add, grabbing the fertile lands of Ukraine had absolutely nothing to do with this war, it wasn’t intentional and hasn’t been planned at all…! The same Ukraine, which everyone knows as The Breadbasket of Europe. See, Ukraine just happened to be in their way but the Germans didn’t absolutely need those productive agricultural lands. It was only because the opportunity arose that they couldn’t wait to start distributing those lands to be settled by the troops and the reason why these troops frighted with such enthusiasm. Oh, no wait, it wasn’t for it, that enthusiasm was because they were fighting judeobolshviks,…!
To be clear: Germany demanded railway and highway in any case, construction to be started immediately, and it demanded conditionally (i.e. depending on the outcome of referendum), the entire Polish territory between the Baltic coast and Bromberg. Interestingly, the referendum was to be organized NO SOONER than after 12 months. The ante quem date was not given, only post quem. So it looks like there was no hurry….
In the meantime, Polish military and administration had to leave the territory, which was to be governed by a commission of representatives from Italy, France, UK, USSR.
To further stress that Poland was an unlikely member of anti-commintern pact, it must be remembered that Pilsudski believed that for Poland Red Russia was always better than White Russia.
Accordingly, Pilsudski concluded an armistice in 1919 in Miklaszewicze with Soviets, in order to help them to fight Denikin offensive.
Yes, it is difficult through the haze of 82 years, the chaos of the time and conflicting narratives to arrive at something approximating the truth. In the case of Poles vis a vis Germans , there are some things that can’t be disputed. For the German leadership class the very existence of an independent Polish state was unacceptable. Von Seeckt in 1922, “Poland’s existence is intolerable and incompatible with the essential conditions of Germany’s life. Poland must go and will go – as a result of her internal weakness and of action by Russia – with our aid . . . The obliteration of Poland must be one of the fundamental drives of German policy and is attainable by means of, and with the help of Russia” Quite foretelling.
It seems that Hitler didn’t come around full tilt to this attitude until late in the 1930s. Poland is barely mentioned in Mein Kampf. He may have accepted some kind of puppet Polish rump state. But after the invasion, the plan was clear . “It is the Führer’s
and Göring’s intention to destroy and exterminate the Polish nation.” ( Gen. Eduard Wagner quoted in Irving’s Hitler’s War) This involved assimilating those of “good blood”, eliminating the elites and using the rest as a pool of slave labour until the “race” dies out.
Let’s say that 5800 Germans were killed prior to the subjugation . That is a drop in the bucket compared to the attempt, partly realized, to completely wipe a nation and its people off the map. Does that make the killing of innocents morally justifiable? Under any circumstances . No. But context does count.
‘…Let’s say that 5800 Germans were killed prior to the subjugation . That is a drop in the bucket compared to the attempt, partly realized, to completely wipe a nation and its people off the map. Does that make the killing of innocents morally justifiable? Under any circumstances . No. But context does count.’
I agree. However, with respect to Germany’s willingness to permit a rump Poland even after the conquest, consider the references here:
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2341741
That’s interesting, but it pretty much states that Hitler may have considered the idea for about six weeks or so and then abandoned it.
Calling a spade a spade and a criminal a criminal is not bitterness, it’s elementary truthfulness and justice. Refusing to call a criminal a criminal is either a lie, or something even worse.
That’s a typical judeobolshevik reaction, tbh. Some variation of “Dose German goyim are EVIL! Dey dosoive to DIE! Anyone who disagrees is an EBIL NOT-SEE!!!” Etc,.
True to type. Judeobolshevik apologism and virulent, unreasoning, genocidal anti-goy hatred are just two sides of the same shekel. Most unfortunate, but it is what it is. All we can do is calmly, patiently, and tolerantly strive t raise their level of self awareness from its current subterranean location, and try to assist them in becoming at least slightly more tolerant of the goy “Other.” It’s a thankless task, but any decent person understands the importance of attempting to educate even the most pitiable, cognitively-crippled advocates of hate.
That’s clearly a sentiment that only an ebil not-see White supreemist fascist r****t would endorse. Oy vey!
Please don’t mention that the Poles, as a nation without a state from the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in 1795 until 1918, might just possibly have entertained some… irredentist sentiments during the interwar period.
Or that the military dictator of Poland in 1939, Edward Smigly-Rydz, was both stupid enough to believe the French/ British/ (((Bullitt))) assurances of military support, and considerably more aggressive than Piłsudski. That would be… most unfortunate.
And you certainly don’t want to mention that, while the standard portrayal of the Polish military is that of helpless victims of an overwhelming blitzkrieg by the unstoppable German war machine — including the long-discredited “cavalry charges against German tanks” canard — they actually held out significantly longer than the combined forces of the French and the BEF did in the invasion of France, with an organized withdrawal into the Romanian Bridgehead, maintaining a defensible perimeter throughout. They only collapsed completely when the judeobolsheviks invaded.
But all of these are completely unmentionable points, as they’re highly suggestive of a “conflicting national interests” narrative frame, rather than the officially-mandated “evil, unstoppable German goyim vs. innocent, weak Polish goyim” narrative. So you probably should steer clear of those “problematic” facts.
‘That’s interesting, but it pretty much states that Hitler may have considered the idea for about six weeks or so and then abandoned it.’
Sure — when it became clear the Allies weren’t prepared to discuss it.
Nobody was ever trying to argue Hitler was a friend of the Polish people. The point is that a rump Poland does seem to have been a possibility.
‘…The obvious truth underlying the deliberate hyperbole is that, while you feel free to blabber about “German goy crimes” and “Russian goy crimes,” you would never dream of making similar blanket attributions of collective ethnic guilt in formulations such as “jew crimes” or even “judeobolshevik crimes.” Why is that?’
Are you now or have you ever been?
First you accuse me of Russophobia and ‘anti-Slaviticism.’ Then, when I demonstrate the absurdity of that charge, you demand that I affirm my anti-semitic bonafides.
You can, if you like, read through all my posts. I think all your legitimate concerns will be amply addressed.
Oy vey! Clearly unacceptable! The Polish goyim must be free to massacre the German goyim with impunity!
Obviously intolerable. For the Polish goyim, war was the only possible course. I mean, it’s obvious.
1. Massive reading comprehension fail
2. Total sense of humor fail
Of course, anyone with an IQ even slightly higher than that of the average tomato would understand that random reifications of “Russophobia” and “anti-Slaviticism” are just as valid — and just as comical — as ranting about so-called “anti-semiticism”… i.e. empty, meaningless, comical rhetoric in both cases.
But thanks for confirming your support for toxic, hate-filled semitism….
Not even (((wikipedia))) disputes this:
According to the official census of 1923 3.7 percent of city population was Polish (13,656 out of 366,730 citizens of the Free City) and in the 1920s and 1930s the city’s population was over 90% German
Muh “Wilsonian self-determination” in action.
The German incorporation of Danzig was a territorial claim that every government of the Weimar Republic put on its agenda.
But muh ebil not-sees wanted to take over the world, so they started by attacking the innocent Poles for no reason, tho. Nothing to do with any preexisting territorial disputes.
Fun fact — the UN tried a similar move with Trieste after WW2, but they gave up on it in the early 1950s before they managed to start another war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_of_Trieste
But you do love the ‘subhuman’ and ‘master race’ topos, don’t you? No effort be spared to insert them and other similar buzz words in the expressions of your opinions.
The point is that a rump Poland does seem to have been a possibility.
Unless the Poles say, No.
You seem to be addressing someone other than myself. I fail to see how what I’ve said relates to your responses.
‘The point is that a rump Poland does seem to have been a possibility.
Unless the Poles say, No.’
There is that — and other considerations besides.
I’m merely pointing out that the Germans were briefly open to the concept of some sort of continuing Polish state. Their hostility to the concept wasn’t as uncompromising as some have asserted.
‘…But thanks for confirming your support for toxic, hate-filled semitism….’
With friends like me, Israel’s future is assured.
Roosevelt and Churchill appeased Stalin. They condemned others for practicing appeasement when they did it themselves. The Atlantic Charter was a fraud from the start as evidenced by the fact that 2 weeks after it was announced there was a joint British-Soviet invasion of Iran. The Shah appealed to FDR for help and got nowhere. It’s quite obvious the Atlantic Charter was simply a propaganda declaration directed against the Axis. It did not equally apply to British imperialism or Soviet communism.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12152
In your mind everything in the German government was a conspiratorial meeting to eventually conquer the world. That’s the weakness of your approach. You weave your conclusions in your arguments.
According to your thinking, every meeting of any governmental body to assess or discuss matters of national policy would be a plan to eventually lead to a war. You don’t do that, however, for England, France, the US, the SU, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Serbia, etc.
One of Hitler’s objectives was to eliminate the scandalous provisions the “Treaty” of Versailles had made; that the beneficiaries of this “Treaty” would not be happy with giving up the free money, the free territory, the free extra power, free influence they had given themselves in that “Treaty” is not surprising and had to be taken into account when driving the point home that times had changed and they were not welcome in the role of arrogant takers and commanders in Germany anymore.
Perhaps this point escapes you.
Naturally the German government had to reckon with the military threats coming from countries that had had no qualms about breaking their word in 1918, sending occupation troops without provocation into Germany, arbitrarily cancelling the results of plebiscites if they didn’t like the pro-German outcome (as in Upper Silesia). But assess such risks and trying to avoid them does not translate into “planning a war”.
You might also want to look also into the history and authenticity of the Hossbach script (it was not a report): The “Hossbach script’ used by the prosecution at Nuremberg was a copy authenticated by the Americans and made by an American from a micrograph of a microfilm copy of a copy from a German from an original that had disappeared, which supposedly Hossbach had written down several days after the meeting of November 5, 1937, from memory, not being counter-signed by any other participant. I think I got the complicated migration of this “prosecution document” right.
Since you make so much out of this ‘protocol’, perhaps you would like to be accused, prosecuted and sentenced by your mortal enemies on the evidence of something like the “Hossbach protocol”, including the many hands it had gone through and the lack of normal authentication. Would you? As the accused in Nuremberg stated, it seemed to contain additional material they could not remember being discussed at this meeting of November 5, 1937.
The origin of this threat, the new book about Stalin, shows that the more time passes the more doubts are being voiced about the self-serving version of the victors of the War. The current version of “history” has been cobbled together from the self-interest of the winning party which also is the party that instigated the war. The more the results of it fall apart and the fewer reasons remain to celebrate a general destruction for short-sighted goals, the more the motifs and justifications will become scrutinized and laid bare.
“It is noteworthy that some have tried making analogies to the Yugoslav situation”.
Sounds to me that you are not among the “some” who were thinking about that and since you detect so gladly German warmongering and wrongdoing I am compelled to conclude that you had no qualms about going against the Serbs.
The results of of playing a war game simulation led planners to decided it would be better to use three army groups rather than just one. Army Group South encountered extremely powerful Soviet forces (probably intended for an invasion of Romania) which could hardly have been left alone. The northern and southern groups were more of an economy of force operation and the strongest mobile armored assets (Guderain / Hoth) were with Army Group Centre heading for Moscow under Fedor Von Bock, made the best progress of all, which shows the proper weight had been given to each group if Moscow (or the army defending it) was the objective.
Army Group Centre was on schedule, then it was stopped for almost two months. It took Stalin four years to get back the Soviet territory that Hitler had taken in four weeks.
They deliberately decided to put all their eggs in the basket of defending Moscow, by fighting right in front of it; a battle that was being won by the Germans until weather, that would not have existed two months before arrived and made timely continuation of the German advance all but impossible. Was the Russians’ first day on the job, or were they drunk when they came up with that stratagem?
On August 25th 1941 Guderian left Army Group Centre–a static target for the first time–east of Smolensk and taking three panzer and three motorized divisions went into the Ukraine which Hitler had ceaselessly been intervening to make a priority over Moscow in line with his directive of the 12th. An encirclement of Budenney’s million strong force by the combined Army Group South panzers and Guderian’s led to a complete victory with 660,000 prisoners taken in the battle that ended on 25th September, Guderain’s panzer army had been somewhat degraded in the combat and long round trip. Meanwhile the remainder of Von Bock’s force was suffering attrition; for seventy days the Soviets had fixed Army Group Centre positions to rain attacks and artillery on Von Bock; the fortification in front of Moscow were being feverishly built and the Soviet formations in them added to by moving new units from the interior during this heaven sent period of grace for Stalin courtesy of Hitler’s siege mentality and American obsession adroitly re-stoked by the Atlantic Charter of Roosevelt with its stated objective of regime change in Germany. The Severity Order and order of Hitler to exterminate the Jews that Goebbels reported Hitler making around the time that he needlessly declared war on the USA show that Hitler went off the rails begining in late July, when he told Halder the Soviets could not be beaten operationally.
Weakened by those putative losses in the battles sixty miles east of Smolensk, one might be led to believe that Von Bock’s force was reduced in effect when the advance on Moscow resumed on October the second against what were now nine Soviet armies in 35 kilometer deep field positions, but history shows at this point the Germans made more impressive headway than ever. Having been static for 76 days, Seventh Panzer Division left the Moscow ‘highway’ , travelled a hundred kilometers in as many hours m and trapped fifty Soviet divisions; by October the 12th two thirds of a million Soviet troops had been taken prisoner. Stalin was only saved by rain turning the Moscow highway and the other bogs masquerading as ‘roads’ into a bottomless quagmires. In the period of frost that harden the roads before what turned out to be an extremely cold winter by Moscow standards arrived and ended campaigning, Army Group Centre made excellent progress, with Von Bock showing real military genius. But these were all battles he was not allowed to fight when he wanted to. There is every indication that with a two week rather than two month halt before the advance on Moscow, against Soviet defenders less reinforced and more disorganised than they were months later, Von Bock would have succeeded completely. He did not get reinforcements, so the relative strength of the defenders was greater for the long delay, and he had extreme logistical train problem with the mud, and insufficient time remaining before winter put an end to campaigning.
The ‘incoherence’ is when Ilya Ehrenburg is called ‘Propaganda Minister’ of Stalin, just to equate Stalin with Hitler (Hitler had a Minister of Propaganda- Goebbels, so Stalin must have had one too) and when it is assumed that he somehow was formulating the policy of the Soviet State, overriding the Politburo.
It becomes ‘disinformation’ when it omits the fact that Ehrenburg was severely criticized by the Party for his too exaggerated anti-German articles and when it omits to mention the no less severe orders regarding the behaviour of the Red Army in occupied territories.
I believe that he considered it as a possible enticement to get Britain and France to rescind their declarations of war.
“Early in September Göring had hinted to the British through Birger Dahlerus that Germany would be willing to restore sovereignty to a Poland shorn of the old German provinces excised from the Fatherland at the end of the Great War; there would also be a reduction in German armaments. The British response had been a
cautious readiness to listen to the detailed German proposals. Hitler told Dahlerus in Berlin late on September 26 that if the British still wanted to salvage anything of Poland, they would have to make haste.” (Irving-Hitler’s War)
Also, Roosevelt sent an emissary to Germany on Sept.29.
“Roosevelt’s proposal, according to the unpublished summary, was that Hitler be allowed to keep Danzig and all the formerly German Polish provinces.” Hitler kept the hope of making a deal with the British alive until November. You can judge for yourself as to how genuine he was in this idea of a Polish state.
“In 1941, the Red Army was in bad shape, and Stalin knew it. His 1930s Military Purge had wrecked the senior command: victims included 13 of 15 army commanders, 8 of the 9 most senior admirals, 50 of 57 corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, all 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 corps commissars. The effects were witnessed in the Red Army’s dismal performance in the 1939-1940 Winter War against tiny Finland.
Between that and observing the frightening effectiveness of the German blitzkrieg in Poland and the West, the Soviet military was in the midst of a massive overhaul in 1941, to modernize its obsolescent equipment and tactics. The Soviet leadership estimated that the modernization would last into 1943 or 1944 before the Red Army was capable of defending against a German attack, and until 1945 or 1946 before the Soviets could attack the Germans.”
“The Soviets’ recent farcical experience in fighting Finland had demonstrated to Stalin and the Soviet leadership that the Red Army was poorly led, poorly trained, and poorly equipped. As such, attacking Germany was the last thing on their minds. Indeed, Stalin went out of his way to eagerly – even obsequiously – appease Hitler, to avoid giving him any excuse to attack the USSR. Precisely because he knew his military was in no shape to fight a major war in 1941, let alone invade Germany.
Nonetheless, Viktor Suvorov’s assertion that Stalin was about to invade Germany in 1941 was eagerly embraced by the fringe. Hitler apologists, neo Nazis, and assorted white supremacists were eager to accept anything that portrayed the Fuhrer as having merely been defending his country against imminent communist aggression. However, there is no historical evidence to support the thesis.”
Just generally to note that this must be a vital topic for the Cohens.
Preserving the carefully nurtured Hollywood version of WW2 is obviously of first priority in these days when we see the cracks and crumbling edifice of their long-term mischief becoming known to an ever-wider audience.
The gross barbarism in Palestine the latest sign of their character which has been manifested through long centuries and even millennia.
It seems fairly obvious in this thread that there are some people who are a bit “slow”, perhaps have not/cannot/are unwilling to put in the time to study, others who would rather tell everyone what they think or “feel” about complex situations they know next to nothing about except from misleading Court Historians/teevee etc. Maybe these are simply examples of the wider percentage of those who have been deliberately misled by the msm, realise something is not quite right with 6 million etc yarns and are genuinely enquiring into the validity of the standard narrative..
There is also a group wishing at all costs to shore up the satanic edifice.
Far from engaging in scientific/historical discourse, they are on a mission; maybe because they are paid or maybe for ethnic reasons.
Cretan liar paradox, ha…? ‘Why do you beat your wife?’ aka ‘Why Poles are terrorizing Germans?’
As I said, note the lack of definite term for a referendum: that would generate time for Germany to create enough smoke.
Actually, the evidence indicates that Stalin intended to attack Germany as soon as he thought that the USSR was militarily in shape for the war. Just as the evidence indicates that Hitler was intending to attack the USSR at the first opportunity. He wanted to go in late 1940, but his military wouldn’t back him. As it was, he attacked with a military force not much stronger that what he had in 1939.
Another remarkable thing about Hitler fanboys/girls that crawled out of woodwork is that in many cases their stupidity makes them expose their hypocrisy and tribal mentality fit for a caveman, but not fit for a civilized person who has a right to call him/herself human.
Many of these Hitler admirers blame Russia for WWI. As Russia joined WWI while being ruled by anti-Bolshevik imperial government, this alone shows that their claimed opposition to “judeo-Bolsheviks” is no more than a ruse. In fact, imperial German government transported the leaders of “judeo-Bolsheviks” (allegedly with ample funding) to the Russian Empire with the aim of undermining its anti-Bolshevik government. Thus, German imperial government shares the blame for everything “judeo-Bolsheviks” did to Russia and beyond.
In fact, in Stalin’s USSR contracting STD by a soldier or officer was considered a grave crime, punishable by the firing squad.
It’s funny how people how Hitler-apologists will rush to reference the Britannica as a prestigious over a charge from Cold War propaganda like the Holodomor hoax, but then will insist that claims about the Final Solution which the Britannica obviously clearly are a Jewish lie. I doubt object to someone casting aspersions on the fabled Auschwitz gas chambers since a careful look at the story shows a lot fables. But the hypocrisy in the way that Hitler-apologists cite the Britannica’s endorsement of Ukrainian government’s propaganda is really funny. None of these people would be impressed by a statement from the same sources that “The Holocaust is now known as an act of genocide against the Jewish people.” Nor should anyone be impressed by such.
As I said already, Mark Tauger is clearly far and away the leading scholar on the subject of the crop failure which caused an unintentional famine affecting first and foremost of all Ukraine, but also secondarily the Volga as more peripherally various regions of the USSR in 1932-3. While Tauger is the best authority on the causes of the famine itself, one which should mention the old Canadian labor journalist Douglas Tottle and his book Fraud, Famine and Fascism. Tottle was sort of like the Holodomor equivalent of Udo Walendy in that his focus was on the misappropriation of photos from various places and the splurge of fake reports spread through the media all through 1934-5.
These fake reports were subsequently retconned and incorporated into the story of the famine that resulted from the poor harvest of 1932, leading to the inflated figures of 7+ million which are so popular among Holodomor hoaxers. I already mentioned the demographic analysis appearing in Population Studies, November 2002, which arrives at the figure of 2.6 million Ukrainians having died in the famine. This compares very well Walter Duranty’s famous estimate of somewhere over 2 million dead Ukrainians in the famine. Contrary to popular claims, Duranty never denied the famine which occurred. All of Duranty’s denials were related to the later attempts by Goebbels and Hearst to keep the famine rolling into 1935.
Mark Tauger’s most important work on the nature of the famine is, in my opinion, the 2 booklets:
— Statistical Falsification in the Soviet Union: A Comparative Case Study of Projections, Biases and Trust
— Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933
But also of interest for additional points one may add:
— “The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933″from Slavic Review, Spring 1991. Of interest may also be the exchange which follows between Mark Tauger and Robert Conquest which appears in the Spring 1991 and Spring 1994 issues of the same journal.
Sorry for my harsh words.
The ignorant, hate-filled judeoboshevik apologists are really getting apoplectic here. Endlessly stewing in your own boundless hatred and mindless rage is no way to go through life, boys and girls.
On a related note — it has come to my attention that many of the ignorant, hate-filed judeoboshelvik apologists ranting in this thread are laboring under a couple of serious misapprehensions when they sputter and spew their hatred:
1. They seem to be completely and pathetically incapable of distinguishing between the concepts of of “judeobolshevism” [the totalitarian, genocidal ideology] and tribal membership in the sense of halachically-valid Hebrew heritage. For anyone who is not severely cognitively compromised, the difference should be easy to understand. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for goyim to support judeobolshevism for reasons of false consciousness/ internalized systemic semitism, generalized gullibility, etc.
2. Many of these shills seem to highly triggered by the mere mention of the well-known ideology of judeobolshevism — they seem to feel that despite its long history of usage and its accurate description of the underlying reality, this term is in some vague, unspecified sense not a validly-reified entity; that it because it is lacking the officially-mandated semantic seal of approval, it is simply not allowed for the goyim to employ the term judeoboshevism.
Let’s see what famous German ethno-nationalists, promoters of a Polish Corridor, and advocates for German sovereignty over Danzig have had to say on the topic in the past. Here’s one notorious “ebil not-see” leader who said very mean things about the Tribe and their role in judeobolshevism — right before he hustled billions of them off to the steam chambers:
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian “Revolution” [coup] by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.
Oh wait a minute — that was that Winston goy. Strange. I thought he was a Good Goy™. Huh. Never mind.
Well, at least the Russian goyim would never claim that communist totalitarianism was an inherently semitic supremacist ideology… would they?
https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/178906/first-soviet-government-was-80-jewish-says-putin/
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.
There ya go then. Who could possibly disagree with the officially-designated representatives of the “Good Goys” in the “Good War?” Obviously, anyone who dared to do so would be an ebil not-see — and probably an “anti-semiticist.” Judeobolshevism it is, then.
QED
Also relevant here is that such decisions by Hitler had nothing to do with any machinations by Roosevelt. It certainly is true that Roosevelt was looking around for a holy crusade somewhere. The New Deal was blocked by people like Robert Taft and Roosevelt saw that a war was the best way to get around this and justify government spending. But Roosevelt did not cause the Poles to reject Hitler’s offer to become a client state in the general drive to the east. The Poles rejected this overture from Hitler for the same reason that they rejected Stalin’s urgings that Soviet troops should be allowed to pass across Poland in the event of war. The Poles knew that Germany and Russia had a long record of partitioning Poland, so they resolved not to make any concessions to either Hitler or Stalin. Roosevelt had nothing to do with that.
Calm down, numbers are not the same as intentions.
Not true at all. The Soviets had massed on the borders way before Germany did. Germany did not expect the USSR to backstab them though Soviet behaviour after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact should have given given Hitler the indications of the evil intentions of the USSR. Hitler was too naive. I have posted enough about Soviet gangster behaviour during the period in between the pact and operation Barbarossa.
No I am not.
I do not know why crackpots keep on bringing this Lebensraum bullshit for Barbarossa. One can bring documents where Lenin advocated Communism around the World including Europe. Operation Barbarossa was not only Germany preemptively striking the Soviets. Six nations took part in Operation Barbarossa including Romania, Hungary and Italy. 30000 Spaniards volunteered for Operation Barbarossa. They all persevered a Soviet threat to Western+Central Europe from Eastern Europe, it was not about Lebensraum. Next you will tell me Ion Antonescu wrote somewhere about getting Lebensraum for Romanians in Russia.
And the USSR was churning out books to help their soldiers converse in German way before Barbarossa. “Which is the way to the railway station” in German for Soviet soldiers, printed before Barbarossa. Ya rite.
Does not make any difference. Churchill coolly traded Soviet influence inPoland for British infulence in Greece with Stalin after the war. The same Poland for which Churchill and Anthony Eden went to war with Germany and started WW2 which led to the death of millions, the same Poland was coolly abandoned to the Soviets. Yeah, so much for protecting democracy. Yeah!!!
That is the dumbest bullshit I have ever read. FDR admired Stalin. Why didn’t FDR look at Germany as a major power and have a pro-German stance too. Why did US Navy start attacking German submarines before war was declared? Why didn’t America think about saving democracy when the Soviets invaded Finland? When they invaded the Baltic States, when they invaded Poland in the East, when they got involved in Mongolia? It was American inaction in these situations which increased the fear among the Germans and the Japanese, they could only depend on themselves to contain Communism not the so called Capitalist Christian USA. That is one more reason why Manchuria was so important for the Japanese as a bulwark against Communism.
If the USA could not get into action to save democracy in Finland when the Soviets invaded, what guarantee that they would do so for Western mainland Europe?
You are farting bullshit. The Japanese had no interest in going South. It was FDR’s embargo which forced Japan to go towards Indonesia for oil. Japan had moved into French Indo-China earlier to cut supply lines to the Chinese KMT with whom they were at war, a move supported by Vichy France who officially owned French Indo China.
You have got it the other way round.
No problem – maybe it wasn’t perfectly clear.
Yes, I was referring to mentioned war. France was wealthy country in 1871 but Germany after 1918 rather not. Sometimes it is not worth getting all your “debt” back.
Cathedral of Our Lady of Strasbourg looks tremendous. Masterpiece.
It all conjecture at best, Iffen. In fact, the theory has been advanced that the Stalinist
wanted an armed conflict between Great Britain and Germany; destroy one and weakening the other as both nations were viewed as capitalist enemies.
Makes perfect sense — the Polish government was adamantly opposed to any neutral, objective investigation of their alleged crimes against the German minority… because there were no such crimes. Such an investigation was “unacceptable” because they were deathly afraid that an international commission would expose their nonguilt for their noncrimes. Uh huh. Das rite
Many ignorant, hate-filled judeobolsheviks have serious problems with basic logic, but yours are worse than most. Their narratives typically achieve at least some minimal level of internal consistency, even when they’re sheer fantasy entirely unmoored from any empirical basis.
I mean, your claim that people like Baruch, Kaganovich, Morgethau, White, etc. were “evil Sephardic supremacists” cooperating with “Secret Sephardim” to destroy the innocent, powerless Ashkenazim is frankly delusional. Very loose associations in general. You should ask your doctor if this might be right for you.
Nonsense. I’ve never arrived implied anything such as “conspiratorial meeting to eventually conquer the world.” On the contrary, I specifically pointed out that Hitler (and Wilhelm II) acted more in the fashion of gamblers rather than conspirators. A lot of conspirators may harbor evil intent, but will moderated by considerations of self-interest. Big wars like the World Wars of the last century are more likely to break out when someone engages in reckless actions with the possibility of achieving gains at what may seem to be minimal cost. Then things eventually roll out of control.
You’ve missed the point about the Hossbach meeting. The issues you’re bringing up are already gone through in the piece by Jonathan Wright & Paul Stafford, “Hitler and the Hossbach Memorandum: A Blueprint for War?” appearing in History Today, March 1988. All of the relevant facts about the Hossbach memo are verified. As I’ve said already, it has long since been acknowledged among historians (e.g. Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans) that the statements made at the Nuremberg trials about the Hossbach memo were greatly inflated. But no one has been able to challenge the basis point that Hitler used the meeting as a way of feeling out who among his staff expressed qualms about a future war in the west, and then these were the people who are removed from authority.
Attempts to dismiss the Hossbach memo as a domestic maneuver simply miss the point that Hitler’s domestic maneuvers at this time were all geared around preparing for confrontations where he expected a risk of war. Hjalmar Schacht was dismissed so that Goering could raise armaments production. That was a domestic maneuver, but one related to foreign policy. While Wright & Stafford note that there isn’t much reason to dispute the authenticity of the memo, the more important issue really is “what actual role did this play if we regard it was a domestic maneuver?” The role that it was used for was to pick out those who were most disturbed by the talk of war in the west and then sack them.
Just out of curiosity, can you cite any actual evidence in support of your comically-confused claim that (((Ehrenburg))) was merely an independent genocidal hate propagandist working in the private sector, and totally not a mouthpiece of the totalitiarian judeobolshevik regime?
Your naked assertion that the judeobolshevik leaders might have possibly said something mean about him at an unspecified time in an unspecified place is interesting — but was his private sector employer ever pressured to fire him? Was he ever sent to a gulag?
Stalin’s attitude before the war of conquering all of Europe by a sneak attack while Germany is tied up in the West and thus be seen as “liberators from Fascism”, changed after the war. Stalin was pragmatic and after WW2, he had very little interest in over-extending now as he knew that the war had left the Soviet economy in tatters. That is why Stalin was opposed to a 100% Communist mainland China after WW2, he wanted China divided into Communist and Capitalist halves like Korea and Vietnam. But it were the Americans who wanted a 100% Communist China, yup they back-stabbed the KMT. This is because all these new Communist regimes would need started economic help from the USSR and primarily the Russian SFSR whose economy was devastated just after the war. Besides Stalin’s idea of spreading communism around the World was very different from Trotsky’s Communist sleeper cell method + revolution method, he preferred the Red Army conquest way. Those Jewish Trotskyites have now morphed into right winged neo-cons in the west. Instead of spreading Communism they now spread “Democracy” around the World. That is why the USSR took a long time recognize to North Vietnam after WW2. Stalin also stopped supporting “National liberation movements”. Khrushchev on the other hand had Trotskyist leanings and he started supporting “National liberation” movements in the Third World. Thus the USSR and PRC and DPRK in collaboration with Wall Street money supported fake decolonization movements in Africa to terminate the various European Empires. They of course had help from insiders in the European Metropoles for this.
It is true that Churchill made a deal with Stalin and exchanged interests in Poland for Greece i.e British interests in Poland was sacrificed to Soviet influence in return for British influence in Greece.
Looks like your language skills are breaking up, “Patrick” …
Thank you for mentioning your very obscure sources.
But you don’t quote from them or even link to them. Why not ?
Is it because you haven’t read them, but a member of your team has dug them out and given them to you to quote, so you can appear learned ?
You immediately in your fractured opening refer to the “Final Solution” and refer to “Hitler-apologists” even though the topic is the Holodomor.
Isn’t this known as “Deflection” ?
Is Duranty a hero of yours ?
You are a troll, “Patrick”, desperately trying to stay afloat by issuing yet more reams of bullshit. Here are some more refs, since you object to Britannica —
https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin
Kaganovitch/ Holo v. Holo
https://rense.com/general85/holodo.htm
I don’t have an overly positive view of Roosevelt for various reasons, but it seems to me his attempts to influence European affairs in 1938/39 can easily be seen as supporting a policy of deterrence aimed at preventing war, instead of facilitating it. It was Hitler’s choice not to back down and attack Poland despite the Western security guarantees.
It’s irritating that Ron Unz never seriously addresses these criticisms of the “revisionist” theories he’s promoting.
The one thing which I have to respond to there relates to another silly typo by myself. I sort of wish that this blog had a policy of allowing corrections to be made for several days. Redstate is a site where one is allowed to make corrections for a week after posting. The 5 minutes given here means that type errors easily slip through. But I won’t gripe too much about that.
Anyway, like I said “no [one] (including Hitler) saw the USSR as a major power.” From you’re query “Why didn’t FDR look at Germany as a major power..” Well he obviously did. In fact, most people in the 1930s anticipated that Germany would be the leading power of Europe through the mid-to-late 20th century. The USSR was seen as a broken state which would fall quickly in a real war.
It’s silly to argue that Roosevelt should have gotten into a war over Finland with Stalin when he couldn’t even get into a war with Hitler over Poland. Obviously the public sentiment at that time was for the US to stay out of the war on all sides. To try to counter such sentiment FDR needed to propagate the case that Hitler was on the verge of dominating Europe, and in December 1941 this did seem plausible. But if things had turned the other way around with Stalin now on the verge of dominating Europe ala Rezun, then many of the people who were most firmly isolationist in September 1939 would have eagerly called for a US intervention. Roosevelt would be struggling to get out in front of Lindbergh and many others usually thought of isolationist.
You’re doing it yet again, “Patrick McNally” …
A lot of innuendo, Court Historians, blather about a means of getting rid of staff that weren’t up to mass slaughter/war …
Lots of dark whisperings, lots of your usual weak unreferenced blather.
Hossbach Memorandum —
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/nuremberg-farce-quote-24-relying-on-the-dubious-hossbach-memorandum-as-evidence-to-convict-execute-german-leaders/comment-page-1/
Both gentlemen were pragmatists and there are many indications that Piłsudski would not be maneuvered into the conflict with Germany and Russia at the same time. After Munich Piłsudski would have judged correctly the “military readiness” of the allies.
Hitler realized that Poland would actively fight on the side of France. That is why Great Britain gave Poland a guarantee to direct the German offensive to the east. Paradoxically, Polish loyalty turned against Poland. Who knows what would happen without that guarantee.
Maybe the proposals weren’t so reasonable?
Maybe because everything was done peacefully before and no one said “call” to Hitler.
Perhaps the Polish command overestimated Poland’s defense capabilities.
Duranty was no hero. In the later part of the decade he did disgraceful reporting on the Moscow Show Trials. This was a common stance among New Deal Democrats at the time. Since Hitler was generally regarded as the more overt war-monger (with good reason) there was a tendency to play the song that Stalin’s show trials were actually catching a real fascist conspiracy, rather than simply enacting Stalin’s paranoia. Duranty supported this Stalinist line at the time, and in the process destroyed his reputation as a reporter.
However in the later Cold War there was a tendency for Right-wing Ukrainian groups settled in the West to charge that Duranty’s cover-up of Stalin’s show trials had extended to a cover-up of the 1933 famine. It didn’t, and anyone who bothers to look back at what Duranty wrote realizes that. What is true, as I said, is that the Goebbels-Hearst campaign maintained claims about a famine going on in the USSR all the way into 1935. This was the context where Duranty did in fact deny a famine. He never denied the actual famine of 1933.
Now I see that you’ve suddenly become enamored with a web-article which gives a figure of 3.9 rather than the usual 7+ million that is often given, and the author seems to be claiming that this figure is for a “Ukrainian” famine. This sounds like confusion on his part.
The best estimate for the cost of famine in Ukraine is 2.6 million dead. On top of this, the famine was not strictly limited to Ukraine. It also affected the Volga with 1.2 million dead being the best estimate. Now you’ll notice that 2.6 + 1.2 = 3.8, which sounds a lot like 3.9. Well, although the Ukraine and Volga were the worst affected regions, the crop failure and resulting food shortage still affected others parts of the USSR so that one could easily justify lobbing on an extra few hundred thousand deaths beyond just the bare 3.8 million figure. But the author of that page seems to have picked up a figure somewhere which was arrived at in this way and is now squishing it into the Ukraine. Probably just sloppiness on his part.
I’ve already cited some of the relevant information from some of Tauger’s research. Plant rust caused a crop failure, the actual volume of grain taken from peasants was not of a volume that could have caused a famine, claims about big exports of grain abroad are arrived at by including that exports which happened after the harvest of 1933 was in and the famine was over, such post-famine exports do not account for the famine, it is not true that Stalin shipped huge amounts of grain abroad while leaving peasants to starve needlessly. Just look up the academic research. I won’t start flooding board with quotes from Tauger, but if you’re serious about studying the topic you’ll look his work up.
These links should assist you with your confusion:
https://www.healthline.com/health/concrete-thinking
https://www.webmd.com/brain/what-to-know-about-concrete-thinking
Good luck!
Look at this semitic supremacist agent of the Zionist settler-colonialist state in Palestine — he’s crushing an innocent indigenous Palestinian subaltern to death for no reason other than sheer hatred. Is he a judeobolshevik apologist? Of course.
Ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists hate it when you point out that:
Palestinian Lives Matter!
German Lives Matter!
Goy Lives Matter!
No, you’re obfuscating the point again. Since you now seem to have fascinate with quotes, I’ll talk the quote from you’re own piece: “it outlines no specific actions, and it establishes no timetables.” Yes, of course, and that was why I pointed out that conventional historians today such as Ian Kershaw & Richard Evans reject the Nuremberg interpretation of the Hossbach memo. So do Jonathan Wright & Paul Stafford in the article from History Today which I referenced. But what is really important about the Hossbach memo is the way that a major rearrangement of personnel was carried out in response to the undisputed qualms which broke out ever the meeting. The general outline is clear. Hitler had a meeting where he suggested the possibility of an upcoming war. Anyone who didn’t like the idea was subsequently removed from office. The Nuremberg prosecutors claimed that the Hossbach memo was Hitler’s plan to launch WWII. Historians today don’t buy that. But the shake-up which Hitler carried out following the meeting of the Hossbach stands as an important step towards war nonetheless.
‘Both gentlemen were pragmatists and there are many indications that Piłsudski would not be maneuvered into the conflict with Germany and Russia at the same time. After Munich Piłsudski would have judged correctly the “military readiness” of the allies…’
Before Munich would be a different matter — there were possibilities then. But after Munich? In my estimation, there really wasn’t anything Poland could have done.
Certainly Hitler’s subsequent annexation of Prague would have made matters clear. Concessions would simply open the door to further demands — and I don’t think turning to Russia would have offered more attractive prospects.
At any rate, giving way to Germany post-Munich simply leads to replay of the Eighteenth Century Partition. Germany gets its route across the corridor — so Stalin demands Galicia et al. If Poland gets defiant, Germany and Russia sign the pact they historically did and divide Poland up. If Poland gives way, Germany makes haste to grab what’s left before Russia takes that as well.
One can devise other variations — but they all end the same way. Finis Poland.
So Pilsudski wouldn’t have helped. Now, a Pilsudski might have realized in the summer of 1938 that the thing to do was to make common cause with Czechoslovakia rather than getting in line for a slice of the cake. That offers some prospect of national survival.
Since you’ve taken up this new fascination with quotes let’s quote Ian Kershaw from Hitler: 1936-1945, Nemesis:
“Then, in February 1940, on Hitler’s own instructions (it was later claimed) this was simply multiplied by around ten-fold and a figure of 58,000 German dead invented.” (Page 242.)
I don’t have any principled objection to the idea of seeking an alternate sources in an effort to critique an academic historian, but Ian Kershaw or Mark Tauger. It’s generally a good idea to read from various sources and compare. But you’re obviously following a silly game here of citing German propaganda with the invented 58,000 number and then turning around and citing the Britannica when you think it helps you. If you want a more honest account of the Danzig situation pick up Herbert Levine, Hitler’s Free City, and Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles.
Thanks for those references about the ‘Holodomor’ hoax.
This was of course Nazi propaganda that was then picked up by the US Cold War propagandists like Conquest, Solzhenitsyn and others.
The entire narrative about Stalin ‘murdering’ millions is laughable. To this day, Stalin is revered in Russia, especially among older folks who actually remember those times, when people actually had access to higher education and upward mobility for the first time.
I mentioned in my previous comment above how one prominent Soviet intellectual spoke about why his mother and millions like her revered Stalin.
People should keep in mind that the world of 100 years ago was very different than today. What happened in the United States in the 1930’s when there was a population shortfall of 10 million?
—decade by decade percentage growth shown in right column
—Historical Census population
Was there also a famine in the US during the Dust Bowl years? It may be forgotten now, but many during that era remember it well. Here is a map of the unprecedented internal migration during those years:
And the accompanying drop in fertility rate:
Part of the population decline can be chalked up to decreased immigration:
But there is little doubt that there was a serious demographic catastrophe in the ‘dirty thirties.’
Thank you. It looks like things were much worse in Poland than I knew.
‘The ‘incoherence’ is when Ilya Ehrenburg is called ‘Propaganda Minister’ of Stalin, just to equate Stalin with Hitler (Hitler had a Minister of Propaganda- Goebbels, so Stalin must have had one too) and when it is assumed that he somehow was formulating the policy of the Soviet State, overriding the Politburo….’
I for one would never equate Stalin with Hitler. The one didn’t work out very well, all things considered. The other was a relentlessly nasty piece of work.
Have you read Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit”? I think this book is very convincing that Germany’s attack of the Soviet Union was preemptive.
‘…It’s irritating that Ron Unz never seriously addresses these criticisms of the “revisionist” theories he’s promoting.’
Ron wouldn’t be Ron if he did that. Bless his heart, as far as I can tell, Ron never met a ‘revisionist’ theory he didn’t like.
It’s fine with me — Christ, spare me compulsive orthodoxy — but it is hard not to notice.
This is the dog walk. You get to let your dog off the leash here. Just don’t get all upset because others do as well.
What part of “the frigging commies seized the seed corn in The Ukraine” do you people not understand?
Hey!
That looks like George Floyd’s brother.
One of his Daddy’s yard chillen.
And little piffen was right there? Going ‘piff piff’…’piff piff’.
Under conditions of crop failure caused by plant rust disease there will be conflict over resources. The issue is was the crop actually good enough, and was the volume of crop confiscated from the peasants and used for purposes other than feeding urban cities (e.g. export abroad) so large, that the resulting famine is to be regarded as “artificial manmade” famine? The answer to that is “no.” It was actually the failure caused by plant rust of the grains to carry the expected proportion of grains which caused the famine. The volume of grain exported was too small to account for this as a cause of famine. Even just focusing on grain requisitions which did not lead exports but merely distribution throughout the USSR, the confiscations were not great enough to account for a famine.
For these points I would simply have to refer to the work of Mark Tauger already mentioned. But I’ll correct a small typo above while at it. I mentioned the Slavic Review for Spring 1991, 1992 and 1994, but I seem to have retyped “1991” twice above. Such typos seem like an eternal curse which no attempt at proof-reading can avoid.
The other was a relentlessly nasty piece of work.
Unkind wqrds for a poor wretched man who ended up a hundred feet below ground with a bullet in his head.
I’m skeptical that the famines in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s were mostly natural, but there do indeed seem to be issues with the more extreme interpretations. Stephen Kotkin (who’s a fairly mainstream historian) in the 2nd volume of his Stalin biography puts a lot of the blame on Stalin’s regime, but also writes that the famines weren’t caused intentionally and that even Stalin himself at times allowed measures aimed at mitigating their impact. Kotkin also cites Tauger’s research, so the latter at least doesn’t seem to be just a commie propagandist who can easily be dismissed. Of course it’s pretty hard to evaluate for any non-specialist.
{” I think this book is very convincing….”}
Actually Rezun’s (aka Suvorov (sic)) latest book “Why Copernicus was Wrong: the Sun Does Rotate Around the Earth” is even more convincing. Rezun apparently somehow gained access to secret Soviet and Vatican archives to finally prove what many of us suspected all along, despite the lies we have been told all this time.
Once one recognizes that there was a real crop failure then it’s always natural to find these which could have been done better to deal with it. For example, Tauger documents that about 364,000 tons of grain were exported during the famine. That is very different from the 1.8 million figure popularized by James Mace during the Cold War. But one can rationally argue that all such exports should have stopped. The reason that this was exported was not because of a scheme to create an artificial famine but because the problem of a shortfall was not properly appreciated.
It is also inevitable the issue how collectivization was handled will come up. A common myth is that the Czarist agriculture produced great grain crops and this fell apart under collectivization. That’s rubbish. Actually both Russia and Ukraine saw a substantive drop in grain production after 1991. But Tauger addresses how the attempts to argue that it would have been better if NEP had simply been continued are based upon using inflated production figures from before collectivization. Once the pre-collectivization figures are adjusted it is clear that collectivization did raise grain production after 1932.
Still, the bureaucratic way in which it was handled cast a shadow over the whole thing. For a few years, 1928-31, there was an eruption in low-level civil war across the countryside. That mostly ended in 1931 when Stalin wrote “Dizzy with Success” in an effort to fob off on others the overall mess that had been created. The classic Cold War Holodomor Theory asserts that somehow Stalin got the idea in 1932 to go back an intense civil war after he had already tried to separate himself from it. That doesn’t make much sense. But some things may had an after-shock effect.
During the fights over collectivization there may have been times when some peasants left crops to rot as a protest against it. This may have inadvertently served to feed a rat population which in turn may have added to the problem of plant rust in the harvest of 1932. There was also a surge of rats at the end of the Russian Civil War which contributed to the famine of 1921-2. Some part of that may have been reenacted with first conflicts over collectivization leading to conditions which might the rat population. But in any event, this gets into a range of issues which are more complicated than can be summarized in the “intentional famine” thesis.
You had your answers at FB.
According to the commenter Another Polish Perspective, Poland had no special concern or interest in Danzig. Here comes to mind a dispute that had become quite serious by late May of 1939 about the greatly increased numbers of Polish custom inspectors which had been sent to Danzig in recent months. The Senate of Danzig protested, the situation became quite serious. It resulted in a letter by Beck, in which he warned that German support for actions of the Senate in Danzig which would imperil the rights and interests Poland had in that city would be considered an attack by Poland.
Considering this reply by Beck, and contrary to Another Polish Perspective’s opinion, Danzig seemed to have been of central concern for the Poles.
It is interesting that that morsel of information – a threat of Poland with armed action against Germany- is so little considered by the preparers of history narratives deemed fit and proper for general consumption.
This would have been a golden opportunity for a Hitler bent on war no matter what to have the Senate in Danzig declare its union with the German Reich and have Poland start shooting and be the bad guy. Yet nothing of the sort happened.
I’m not “enamored” of anything, troll.
posting up that website to show that the Holodomor was man-made, one of very many such reputable sites that reach the same conclusion.
This was in response to your objection to Britannica, and your attempted diversion into the “Final Solution” and “Hitler-apologists”.
There are very many such websites that reach the same conclusion.
It is true that the deliberate starvation of “kulaks” mainly but Ukrainians generally resulted from govt policy and is specifically laid at the door of Lazar Moiseevitch Kaganovitch. There is dispute abt numbers but not the actual event —
https://rense.com/general11/stal.htm
I repeat, “Patrick McNally”, you are a troll who is on a mission to attempt to save the standard Hollywood version, and not a genuine poster of information.
Your team is quite good, maybe just got a new typist ?
PS Your endeavor at continued falsification will fail.
More and more goyim get to know the truth every day.
Goodbye.
Thanks, HdC.
However distasteful/disturbing I or others may find it ref prior received worldview, it is necessary to look at a variety of reputable documents and evaluate them in light of other similar docs, letters, news etc etc.
Just issuing blanket denials or saying such-and-such report is false because I think so or because a Court Historian says so doesn’t cut it.
As you may see on this (and other) forums at UR.
You’re obfuscating things here in a classic way. But since other people may simply be confused about these issues it’s worth spelling some things out for the honest individuals. One has to draw a definite distinction between 2 events which happened back-to-back and inevitably draw some comparison, but which are nonetheless 2 distinct phenomena.
In the mid-1920s Stalin was politically aligned with Bukharin. At this time Trotsky and Bukharin would have seemed publicly like the main 2 foes, while Stalin could have been brushed off as just a grey face in the background. Bukharin had developed an enthusiasm for what today would be characterized as a “free market” approach. Trotsky was opposed to giving the degree of reign to markets which Bukharin called for. Instead Trotsky argued that the USSR should launch a 5-year plan of industrialization. One of the arguments which Trotsky made for this was that he warned of a “price-scissors” squeezing the countryside if the government could not provide industrial tools to aid agricultural production. Trotsky argued that any collectivization of agriculture would have to wait until industry had been built which could facilitate farming. In the meantime, however, Bukharin’s plans of letting free markets loose should be restrained. A regulated market must be maintained while collectivization is postponed.
In 1927 Stalin managed to have Trotsky booted out of the party; in 1928 Trotsky was exiled to the hinterlands of the USSR; in 1929 he was exiled out of the USSR altogether. With Trotsky’s political defeat, Stalin now moved against Bukharin. The strategy which he used was to out-flank both Bukharin and Trotsky now from the Left. Whereas before Stalin had seemingly rejected Trotsky’s call to lay out a 5-year plan of industrialization, Stalin now announced that it would be done in 4 years. Whereas Trotsky had discounted the idea of collectivizing agriculture without first having an industry that could provide the most up-to-date farming tools, Stalin demanded a rapid forced collectivization. Trotsky could critique this as irresponsible, but he was upstaged from the Left with Stalin now appearing as the true revolutionary.
This led to a lot of reckless policies in the countryside which brought about a low-level civil war in which thousands (not millions) were killed. This wasn’t an economic policy which Stalin had carefully thought out. It was political posturing aimed at upstaging Trotsky and Bukharin without carefully thinking through the practical consequences. In 1931, as things were rolling towards year 4 of the plan, Stalin began to backtrack and announce that everyone had become “Dizzy with Success” as he phrased it. Many critics from all points of view argued then and since that the whole collectivization endeavor had been poorly planned and executed. But there still was no real famine.
Famine arose when the crop of 1932 turned out badly. By this time the main efforts of collectivization had already receded. There was no argument to be made that Stalin was somehow going to make a political gain by the failed crop of 1932. If famine had erupted in 1929 then someone might have plausibly hypothesized that Stalin somehow wanted a famine in order to break the resistance of peasants. But this would have made no sense in 1932.
While it’s obvious that Stalin had no desire for the famine which occurred in 1932-3, the question which always arises unavoidably is to what extent did the civil conflict of 1928-31 affect conditions that may have led to the crop failure of 1932? The only plausible practical connection that may be drawn is over this issue of rat-infestation and the plausibility that earlier conflicts in 1928-31 may have led to crops sometimes being abandoned in the fields in ways which might have added to rats as a menace in 1932-3. There’s no obvious reason why the occurrence of plant rust in the grain stalks should have been triggered by the earlier events.
Anyway, these are 2 separate parallel events. The civil conflict over collectivization from 1928-31. The harvest failure of 1932 leading to famine in 1932-3. Whatever arguments anyone wishes to make about the causes of famine the distinction still has to be drawn.
but there do indeed seem to be issues with the more extreme interpretations.
Almost always the case, right?
From Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine
Mr Wear, I have not read VS books, which in the opinion of others were an interesting read but did not reflect actual facts.
If the Red Army was massing for an assault upon established German lines, why was the
Wehrmacht able to make massive gains in less than ninety days, along a front of 1200 miles??
If in fact the Red Army was preparing for a western campaign, their best forces and equipment would have been stationed near the demarcation line. Moreover, Moscow was fully aware of Wehrmacht military build up alone the Polish border.
If an invasion of Germany had been a strategic plan, why not launch an attack after the
Wehrmacht assault on France and Benelux countries??
With ref to trolls —
The reader may wish to look at the commentary on the thread “Palestine Has the Right to Defend Itself” which has been totally spammed up by zio trolls who as Israeli’s kill Palestines, especially children, post about how you are to feel sorry for them because of their hard life — no, not the Pal women/children but the zio’s themselves.
The thread is straight chutzpah.
It’s an education for those with eyes to see.
Commentor “AnonStarter” says in #706 he has been involved in online debate for 25 years and offers some very good advice based on his experience.
I could not agree more.
“bureaucratic way” sounds pretty euphemistic, collectivization involved very harsh repression after all (including at least temporary deportation to labour camps or internal exile for hundreds of thousands of peasants).
I mean, ok, some kind of “revisionism” about Stalin’s Soviet Union is probably appropriate, and it’s pretty silly that Robert Conquest’s Cold War works are still cited today as if they were unassailable truth. But many of the pro-Soviet comments here on UR seem to go the other extreme imo.
Sure, and personally I do think that Stalin’s government probably bears a major part of the responsibility for the famines. But the issue seems to be more complicated than often realized and there’s serious dispute among historians who can’t be dismissed as just commie propagandists. I won’t pretend to have any firm views on the matter myself, I can’t read Russian (so can’t evaluate sources for myself) and many of the arguments about grain exports, statistics etc. are highly technical.
Ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists frequently claim that the massacre of many thousands of innocent ethnic German civilians by the Poles was somehow “justified” — or at least “understandable.” They incoherently shriek hate-filled rhetoric such as “they deserved it because ALL German goyim are BIG MEANIES who picked on the innocent, weak Polish goyim for no reason!” or “ALL German goyim were part of the ebil not-see plot to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!”… etc.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful here. It’s a well-known fact that “Polish” jews openly supported and colluded with the judeobolshevik invaders of Poland — as they did in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and other many other countries that were victims of unprovoked judeobolshevik imperialist aggression.
Even wikipedia openly admits this — and as we all know, wikipedia is a virulently semitic supremacist source, controlled by an crazed Israel First fanatic named Jimbo Wales:
https://hummusforthought.com/2012/01/12/jimmy-wales-and-palestine/
Let’s see what wikipedia has to say about the Judeobolshevik invasion of Poland:
“Many Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews welcomed the invading [judeobolshevik] troops.”
“The event was recorded by (((Lev Mekhlis))), who reported to Stalin that the people of the West Ukraine welcomed the “Soviet” [judeobolshevik] troops “like true liberators”.[101] The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists rebelled against Polish rule and (((Communist partisans))) stirred up local revolts, such as in Skidel.”
So the jews not only belonged to the same ethnic group that dominated the government of the invading totalitarian state, but they actively colluded with the evil invaders.
Huh. Were the jews in Poland also “big evil meanies who were picking on the innocent, weak Polish goyim for no reason other than their evil scheme to take over the world?” Leaving the issue of “partisans” [i.e. jewish communist terrorists] aside, would any of the ignorant, hate-filled judeobolsheviks in this thread try to claim that thousands of semitic supremacist civilians in Poland somehow “deserved” to be massacred by the Poles?
Why or why not? Please refrain from invoking long-discredited semitic supremacist canards/ unprincipled exceptions when formulating your feeble, flailing, failed attempts to answer this very simple, straightforward question.
My purpose here in referencing a “bureaucratic way” is to simply define the distinction between deporting people who resisted collectivization in 1928-31 versus the causes of actual famine in 1932-3. Although it may be tempting to seamlessly run these issues together, they actually are distinct. Obviously if a famine caused by natural disaster erupts somewhere, the more of a high trust society the better. The USA 50 years ago would probably have been better able to deal with a major disaster than today. Some would say that CV-19 is an example of that. Others would say we haven’t yet really hit a true disaster. But the USSR in 1932 was definitely not a high trust society. It was one where people were starting to get used to looking neighbors over warily, and that would continue through the 1930s. That’s not a good environment for figuring out what to do in a natural disaster.
But just the same, the claims made about huge food requisitions and exports during the famine are not true. The unexplained shortage was not well understood and poorly responded to. This was especially because rustic plant disease allowed grain stalks to grow while being short on the grains they carried. Hence the impression of an adequate crop was given, and then panic and suspicion struck when it turned out not to be there.
All of your questions are answered in Chapter One of my book “Germany’s War”. You can read it on this website at https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/.
Thanks, that’s an interesting argument I’ll have to think about. As I wrote above, I don’t have that firm views myself on the matter, if I ever find the time, I’ll look into the relevant literature (including the articles by Tauger you cited).
In Warsaw, it was impossible to forget Prague that in 1920, taking advantage of the ongoing war with Soviet Russia, annexed Cieszyn Silesia, inhabited mostly by Poles. The Czechs closed down Polish schools. At the same time, the Czechoslovak government supported Ukrainian nationalists. OUN terrorists could always count on a safe haven in Prague, weapons, explosives and money. The Polish government did not miss any opportunity to harm Czechoslovakia. Polish military intelligence was building the structures of the Polish resistance movement in Cieszyn Silesia.
Even Beneš’s letter ( dated September 22 1938 ) to President Ignacy Mościcki, did not help.
“At a time when the fate of Europe is at stake and when our two nations are vitally interested in building solid foundations for sincere cooperation between the two countries, I turn to His Excellency with a proposal to establish friendly relations and new cooperation between Poland and Czechoslovakia” he wrote. The Czech leader proposed a peaceful settlement of Zaolzie’s affiliation in exchange for Poland’s neutrality in the event of a war with Germany. Here I see a role for someone like Piłsudski. To deal with the topic and the possibilities, not old traumas. At least to verify Czech proposal with outmost care.
Six months later, Great Britain and France were ready to promise Poland everything, knowing how valuable it was to direct the German impetus on another enemy.
Warsaw could gain much more in September 1938 than Zaolzie. There would be a real ally, the Czech tanks would still be Czech and the Czechs would be on the southern border instead of the German army and three Slovak divisions. All this, however, on the condition that the Czechs would like to fight. Unfortunately, in this army there were 20% of Germans and the same number of Hungarians. Not a perfect combination in such situation.
There’s no need to justify actual attacks on German civilians as they occurred in order to simply recognize that the 58,000 fable was a deliberate propaganda inflation of about 10-fold.
You are so retarded that is unbelievable.
You are a judeobolshevik or you are totally stupid. You did not notice that Judeobolsheviks are now
the most vitriolic anti Russians ever.
I am curious. Are you stupid or you are hypocrite?
Most probably you are just an asshole.
Thanks for your comment Sean, but you’re still dodging my main point.
https://www.unz.com/article/barbarossa-suvorovs-revisionism-goes-mainstream/?showcomments#comment-4665147
In August 1941, with the Wehrmacht at high tide and the door to Moscow supposedly wide open, Stalin and Stavka sent three armies with 1000 tanks to invade Iran, which was a very long way indeed from Smolensk and the road to Moscow.
This action lays waste to several popular but mistaken ideas about Barbarossa. If the danger to Moscow was so great by the end of August 1941, wouldn’t those 3 armies and their 1000 tanks have been moving toward Moscow, not away from it? But you claim…
Nb errata:
Huh. Let’s take a little closer look at this one. First of all, can we safely assume that, when wikipedia refers to so-called “communist partisans,” they actually mean “jewish communist terrorists?” Let’s see… “Skidel?”
Hmm…:
“There had been about 8000 people in Skidel before the War and 6000 of those were Jews. ”
And:
“Skidziel is sometimes referred to as a former shtetl because 80% of its population was Jewish”
Jewish communist terrorists it is then. Sounds like they were actively colluding with the judeobolshevik invaders. So what happened with these communist jews in Slidel and their s0-called “revolt?”
They massacred a hundreds of Polish civilians before the judeobolshevik army arrived. Of course. Typical semitic “Red Terror” behavior.
Not really.
Overall, it turned out very well for the peasant masses. They moved to the quickly-growing cities where the industry was rapidly expanding, not some ‘internal exile.’
In those cities, Russian peasants for the first time in history had access to higher education and could become something—a doctor, engineer, officer.
And what was going on in America during those years? I already mentioned in my comment above the demographic catastrophe of the 1930s, where the country saw a population shortfall of 10 million.
Maybe you are lacking some basic facts about the American landless peasantry. They were called ‘tenant farmers’ and made up a substantial part of the rural population [much of US still being rural in the 1930s].
As the depression set in, they were simply uprooted from the lands they had been farming for generations. They didn’t even know they didn’t own it, but that ‘their’ land was actually owned by some big city bank or corporation.
A scene from the 1940 film Grapes of Wrath, where ‘Muley’ is being told that his land is being taken. This was the experience of millions.
The film is adapted from the Steinbeck novel that won the Nobel Prize for literature.
It’s pathetic how Americans and the west in general concentrate on finding fault with others, especially the Soviet Union. They point at a speck of historical truth, like that crop failure in Ukraine, and then they blow it up with all kinds of mythologizing and exaggerations.
Yet what was going on at that time in the US?
It was a far worse experience for the ordinary folks. Which of those millions of uprooted landless dirt farmers ended up putting their kids through university and watching them become doctors and engineers, like in Zinoviev’s family?
This is called PERSPECTIVE, and it is important not only in historiography, but in everything. Very little perspective on display in this discussion at all.
I’m unaware that New Deal America ran a massive forced labour system or had hundred of thousands of its own citizens shot as the Soviet state did in 1937/38.
But I suppose you will deny that too or come up with some clever rationalization for it, or some other whataboutism (“But they were lynching blacks in the US!”).
You seem blissfully unaware of a lot of important historical realities.
Somehow Stalin was loved by millions of ordinary folks despite ‘massive’ forced labor and shooting of ‘hundreds of thousands’ of ordinary folks?
How does that make logical sense?
Or was Stalin loved because peasants could move to the city and get a decent job in a factory, universal healthcare and education, and see their children become professionals? [How many of those can the US check off even today?]
I also doubt you know much about New Deal America. Millions were in fact put to work building the nation’s infrastructure. They were very happy for it. Was this ‘forced labor’ too?
Millions of landless American peasants migrated out of the Midwest in the 1930s. I had earlier posted a demographic map of that, showing emigration rates by county, nationwide.
I suppose for those uprooted, landless, jobless people, like ‘Muley’ in the clip above life was just sugar plums and marmalade?
The FDR administration certainly did step up to the plate with a number of programs to help those folks. First the Farm Security Administration in 1935, which started by setting up camps for these transient people who were being badly exploited as plantation labor in California and the West Coast. Most were unable to get work even at slave-labor rates.
But the vast majority of these destitute migrants lived in squatter camps:
Dorothea Lange photograph of an Arkansas squatter of three years near Bakersfield, California
That picture is just one of 175,000 photographs taken by the FSA to document the catastrophe. The photographer Dorothea Lange took many of the most memorable pictures.
Many forget that the Free City of Danzig was just a protectorate of the League of Nations. In other words, it was Palestine of Balticum, if you like – an appropriate comparison if you notice that the majority of League of Nation High Commissars were British or Britain-oriented. Here is the list:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wysocy_Przedstawiciele_Ligi_Narod%C3%B3w_w_Wolnym_Mie%C5%9Bcie_Gda%C5%84sku
Therefore, politically it was neither German nor Polish city.
Poland has certain rights in Danzig; among them a privilege of duty-free import-export trade through Danzig. Also right to its own communication infrastructure and the presence of the limited number of Polish military. Any Polish custom officials were to secure Polish custom privileges. If Poland decided there is a need for more of them – she was entirely in her rights. On the other hand, unlike Poland, Germany had no special rights in Danzig, which certainly was painful, at least in a political sense.
Moreover, any Poland-Danzig conflicts were to be judged solely by the High Commissar of the League of Nation in Danzig.
Therefore, actually only 3 entities had rights in Danzig:
1) citizens of Danzig
2) Poland
3) League of Nations
but NOT Germany!
With no institutional grounds, you may wonder about powerful influence of Germany in Danzig…
Nevertheless, despite all these privileges, amounting to trading and legal immunity in Danzig, Poland was aware of its precarious position in Danzig, based only on law, actually. Therefore, Poland built its own new port in Gdynia.
As such, Danzig issue was not enough to move Poland to war. That should be clear from the fact that the German ultimatum of 31.08.1939 had only one single point out of 16 concerning Danzig. It was the other 15 that were designed to provide for a war.
‘…All this, however, on the condition that the Czechs would like to fight. Unfortunately, in this army there were 20% of Germans and the same number of Hungarians. Not a perfect combination in such situation.’
It might well have not come to that. Faced with an allied Poland and Czechoslovakia, and with a Britain and France encouraged by the prospect of a viable resistance to a German onslaught, I doubt if Hitler could have pushed through an actual attack. He would have had to either back off — or hopefully, as a viable solution — accept some sort of face-saving compromise.
There is the long-term problem that given Nazism, I suspect Germany was driven by a kind of revolutionary logic that made aggressive war almost inevitable. That’s the sort of thing that’s impossible to prove — but revolutionary societies seem to be attracted to aggression: Napoleonic France, Bolshevik Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China. One could add Israel as a kind of mini-me — even point out that the nascent Polish state itself was hardly pacific in 1918-1922. Tensions seem to be created that can only be discharged by turning outwards.
In a tense situation like 1938-39 the need for a high number of Polish custom officers in Danzig was obvious. It was made clear by Danzig sabotage (extreme delays and losses) of Polish military shipments during the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921. In the end, Poland had to rely on shipments through Romania and Hungary, so through the Black Sea !
Due to the Free City constiution of Danzig, the only reason for German complaints would be armed Polish state officials somehow terrorizing German (not Germans of Danzig) citizens in Danzig. But that didn’t happen.
It’s pathetic how Americans and the west in general concentrate on finding fault with others, especially the Soviet Union.
Right. Also about the Jupiter size hypocrisy of the “American” and European governments and their mercenary MSM, making such a big fuzz out of a few dozen Germans taken prisoners of killed trying to cross the Berlin Wall (one that was erected to prevent the “American” financial attack on the East German economy from ruining it) while they were killing themselves millions of innocent civilians in Asia, in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention the many more being killed and tortured by U.S. sponsored or installed military Juntas around the world. And that hasn’t stopped in time, “American” hypocrisy is probably the only thing that hasn’t gone stale and weaker since then. When U.S. planes were bombing Iraq and killing thousands and thousands of civilians, that was just business as usual. But then, when a couple of US pilots were taken POW and given a little work over, the outcry about “Iraq not respecting international conventions and the laws of civilized war” was heard across the universe.
Hitler was alcoholic and drug addict homosexual.
Trying to reason with sad little liar AnonFromTN is a waste of one’s time.
This CLOWN is precisely one of those Stalinist morons who, year 2021, claims, with a straight face, that it was REALLY the Germans, after all, who shot the Poles at Katyn and elsewhere. What Ron Unz saw in this pitiful fool only he knows… what about it eh, Ron?
I had thought this webzine had got rid of at least the vilest and scummiest of these people, such as the spammer FB, described by Unz himself as a complete lunatic. FB denies the gigantic man made Stalinist famines while claiming that millions had died of famine in the US before his other hero, FDR, came to rescue the day… Outstanding!
But FB’s “best” performance was when the creep got together with another German hating nut, and began cracking jokes about how German women had been enriched by being mass RAPED by the Red Army… said “Frau, komm!” was still a great pick up line in Germany today… nice people.
In fact, as you admitted to Unz himself, you have NEVER read Rezun.
You also admitted to having NEVER read Colonel Glantz’s supposed rebuttal of Rezun, although you kept yelling in every thread having to do with the German-Soviet war how Glantz’s work had refuted Rezun, which of course it never did.
In other words; YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL DELINQUENT.
Not to worry though, you got plenty of company.
Forrestal is just another fanatical Nazi dingbat which left side of the brain doesn’t know what the right side is thinking. If one follows his logic, Judeobolsheviks would be by now fighting each other in ever corner of the world, desperately trying to exterminate themselves.
On 22 June 1941 when the Germans attacked, Stalin had 23,000 tanks. Ten days later he had 19,000 odd, the majority of them obsolete. Though not all in the European theater, it must be remembered that there were strong Soviet forces in Siberia because Japan and the Soviet Union had fought a major battle a few years before which for all Stalin knew would be avenged as soon as the Soviets denuded their far eastern territories, and if Japan had attacked in the first months of Barbarossa then the defeat of the Soviet Union would have been likely.
The danger was clearly too great for Stalin to have been wise to weaken Moscow’s defenses, but if he did do that it shows that after being caught with his pants down through underestimating Hitler, Stalin was insouciant about the fighting power of the German army. He was soon to be disabused. I cannot believe he sent T34s or KV tanks to Iran which became a vital all weather supply route for US aid to Stalin (he needed all the aid he could get and was in fact going through manpower at an unsustainable rate according to Mosier). Immediately after Germany invaded, the reports of Stalin’s demeanor do not indicate that he was at all complacent; he retreated to his dacha for several days and seemed very unsure and nervous during a radio speech.
The General Staff not Hitler did that, I think the military experts knew their Clausewitz and were not needlessly dividing their forces but rather doing it for a very good reason. Army Group South encountered a million strong Soviet assemblage of armies in the Ukraine. Such an hostile force could hardy have been left to their own devices on the strategic flank of a single great advance to Moscow. Stalin was profligate with his troops, regarding divisions as similar to light bulbs inasmuch as they were expected to be finished after a limited time. One thing that I think underappreciated is that, relative to Russia, Germany was not so small back then, and in the European theater Germany had a achieved a concentration that initially gave them a significant numerical advantage. Three and a half million German /Axis troops invaded Russia.
Just this week my family returned from our annual pilgrimage to North Dakota to memorialize the graves of our grandfathers and grandmothers who were beaten, tortured and killed in the slave labor camps there in the ’30’s.
That mostly ended in 1931
Yeah, that would seem to be what happened after all the opponents who were willing to risk their lives had been shot or sent to forced labor camps. Kind of immoral even by commie standards to tout something like this.
How touching, little piffen.
Perhaps, while there in the Dakotas you might have stopped at this memorial too?
The Crazy Horse Memorial in the Black Hills, in Custer County, South Dakota
No? Didn’t go there?
How about here?
I don’t think anyone should take anything said by “FB” about Soviet Russia or the 1930s and 1940s very seriously. Last year, he claimed that millions(!!!) of Americans starved to death during our own Great Famine of the 1930s. Yet oddly enough, none of America’s very numerous leftists or Communists of that era noticed those horrifying events and said anything about them.
Here’s a comment I made at the time, and anyone interested can explore the long thread for further details:
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/what-does-the-empires-agony-mean-for-the-jewish-state-of-israel/?showcomments#comment-3908354
There are close to 1,200 comments in this thread.
Several posters far more familiar with the subject at hand have addressed both Glantz, a professional Historian and a US Army Colonel (ret) and the amateur hack job traitor to his homeland Rezun, who in order to earn his keep with his MI6 pimps, whored himself and manufactured some hallucination. Just what youse Hitler apologists needed. Enjoy it.
And as I have written to all you Hitler apologist Germans many times in many threads before: while you guys are desperately trying to rehabilitate the putrid corpse of Hitler, your country is being overrun by non-Germanic Muslims: courtesy of György Schwartz. See if youse Nazi-fanboys can do something about that, instead of singing the praises of Hitler and Nazis who are singularly responsible for what Germany has become today: a prostrated subject of Anglo-American GloboSorosistas, paying $10s of Billions in tribute to Israel and world Jewry, and paying, and paying,……, gifting Israel modern submarines, etc., etc. Germany in fact has become a free-money ATM for Israel and world Jewry. Your Dear Führer’s ghost is no doubt impressed.
“{In other words; YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL DELINQUENT.”}
OUCH! That one really hurt. CAPS and bold too.
Ouch. Ouch.
{“……you got plenty of company.”}
So do you.
Heil Hitler!
Sieg Heil!
LK is one of the greatest POS (piece of shit). He is Italian fascist.
About Italians!
I did have a German bos. He was telling me that he did have an uncle who was some kind of German Government liaison in Italy. One day just walking some Italian did stab him to death.
My former Boss did hate Italians with all his hearth and soul. Italians for him were underhanded scum.
I am following FB and he is correct most of the time. Concerning the number of dead he probably is exaggerating. But concerning number of dead every body is exaggerating every time.
Also even in these years considerable number of US homeless citizens die of malnutrition and exposure in Winter.
And nobody is even registering the count.
US is richest country in the world.
(Shame on US)
Wow, the ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists are really getting wound up hers. That’s pretty understandable — as they grow more and more frustrated by their own deep ignorance and crippling cognitive insufficiency, their virulent hatred and impotent rage becomes more and more inner directed.
Most unfortunate. All they have to do is try to be just a little bit tolerant, and attempt to educate themselves even slightly. But they won’t — it’s not in their nature.
Here I was kind enough to clear up an issue that was causing considerable confusion among the cognitively-compromised ranks of the ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologists — and what is their response? To sputter and spew yet more incoherent rage and hatred!
Sad!
Since — unlike you — I’m a very tolerant, patient, understanding person, I’ll give you another chance to educate yourself, by attempting to assist you in focusing your “thinking” just slightly.
Are you:
1. Attempting to dispute the veracity of the quotes that I cited from those 2 notorious “German ethnonationalists” and “Danzig irredentists” — Winston Churchill and Vladimir Putin — when they clearly cited the intrinsically-hebraic character of the totalitarian doctrine of bolshevism?
2. Admitting that those quotes are perfectly valid, and that they demonstrate that the semantic construct of “judeobolshevism” is clearly a well-founded, relevant reification… but simply whining: “B-b-but you can’t SAY that! Because NOT ALLOWED!”
3. Attempting — out of stupidity, laziness, and/ or deliberate disingenuousness — to conflate the concepts of the ideology of judeobolshevism and the ethnicities ‘jewish” and/ or “Russian?”
4. Attempting to deny the obvious fact that many of the shills in this thread are clearly ignorant, hate-filled apologists for judeobolshevism?
Now take a deep breath, then spew and sputter some more…
Reference poster [FB] comment #652:
https://www.unz.com/article/barbarossa-suvorovs-revisionism-goes-mainstream/?showcomments#comment-4657629
{“Yet, we have seen just such military-technical analysis from bona-fide historian David Glantz, who is in fact a military officer with expert knowledge of these subjects and whose analysis is very clear and unambiguous—the Russian force disposition on the eve of Barbarossa was purely defensive, and in fact in the midst of hurried preparations and deployments, which of course did not complete on time.”}
I had a short discussion with Mr.Unz about Major (ret US Army) Glantz and traitor Rezun books. Ron wrote that my assertion (based on my reading of several reviews by experts in the field) that Glantz had refuted Rezun’s conjecture was false.
Ron said he had read both books, and it was his learned opinion that Glantz had failed to refute Rezun. I have not read either book, nor intend to. So can’t say.
In any case, Ron and all others who swear by Rezun’s book: have any of you gone and checked the archival material that Rezun cites in his book? I highly doubt it. So all you guys rely on his word: Yes? Same as I rely on the words of various experts who have read Rezun’s book, and some of whom claim to have checked the archival material.
So all of you dinging me for not having read the books, are not much different from me – are you? How may of youse have, after reading Rezun’s book, actually verified the information in his archival references?
Nevertheless, to date, I haven’t read one coherent post from Hitler apologists as to why Stalin would risk attacking Nazi Germany? For what purpose? To gain what?
Land? Resources? USSR had more land than Stalin knew what to do with and more resources than all of Europe and then some.
Countries don’t go to war for some BS ideaology: they go to war to gain (steal) resources: land (to grow food), fishing rights, fresh water, hydrocarbons, strategic materials. To protect/control trade routes. And the intended victims of the theft fight to preserve what’s theirs.
UK just dispatched 2 warships (!) in a dispute about fishing rights with France.
As [FB] wrote, USSR was sending raw materials and oil to Germany by the trainload. I read somewhere long time ago about the absurd spectacle whereby Soviet trainloads of oil and raw materials were rolling West towards Nazi Germany, while Nazi panzers were rolling East on their way to Moscow. Beaurocratic inertia, I guess.
On the other hand Hitler had solid and sound grounds for his invasion.
Hitler, a WW1 vet, had firsthand knowledge of England’s highly successful naval blockade of Germany and her dire situation with food supplies. By some estimates more than 700,000 Germans died of malnutrition/starvation as a result of the blockade.
Hitler was determined that Germany would never ever again be so vulnerable. And in the East lay Germany’s “salvation”: vast, practically limitless, fertile lands of (West) USSR.
Or so Hitler hoped.
Post #652: {“Really, this whole idea of a Russian invasion of Germany is so preposterous that one would have to take leave of one’s senses to even consider it for more than a fleeting moment”}
Exactly.
My impression is that you’re a foreigner, and therefore totally ignorant of American history.
“FB” was claiming that “millions” of American starved to death during our own “Great Famine” of the 1930s. You’re probably unaware that the Communist Party and other leftists were very active during that period, and had numerous daily and weekly publications, with substantial circulations. Indeed, the near-complete archives of The New Masses and other Communist publications are available on this very website.
Yet even while “millions” of American were dying of starvation, none of those publications seem to have written a word about those massive events.
So either all of America’s Communists and other leftists were actually part of a huge conspiracy to conceal the famine, or “FB” is simply a total loon, with an extremely vivid imagination. Meanwhile, you and lots of the other commenters here are merely ignorant foreigners, who simply don’t know any better.
Countries don’t go to war for some BS ideaology: they go to war to gain (steal) resources: land (to grow food), fishing rights, fresh water, hydrocarbons, strategic materials. To protect/control trade routes. And the intended victims of the theft fight to preserve what’s theirs.
There is where you hit a wall. For these people (Hitler worshipers) Communism is all about ideology; about politics, not about economics. It’s all about imposing to others their cursed Bolshevik system and make of the entire planet a giant Communist prison, just like Islamic extremists want the world to become a giant Caliphate so we all live under sharia. In their obsessive narrative, it doesn’t matter if the Soviet Union had everything in its soil, if they didn’t need anything as natural resources from abroad, all what Stalin and his Judeobolsheviks wanted was to invade Europe to turn it into a continent wide Soviet Union. It is their own obsessions which they project unto others, just switching names and characters.
Those questions of verification and credibility were naturally the first things that came to my mind when I read Suvorov’s book a decade or so ago. However, the case seemed quite strong.
(1) Suvorov’s seminal work had been almost totally blacklisted in the Anglosphere for two decades, never republished and never discussed, even while he sold millions of copies in Russian, German, and many other languages. Obviously, there was a concerted effort to suppress him.
(2) In 2008 he was finally published in English by the prestigious Naval Academy Press of Annapolis. The international debate about his theory and his evidence had been fiercely raging for twenty years, and I thought unlikely that a highly-regarded military academic press would have broken the boycott and released his work if his evidence were ridiculous or fabricated.
(3) I don’t read Russian or German, but everyone pointed to the Glantz book as being the most powerful English-language refutation to Suvorov, so I read it and was extremely disappointed. Glantz merely devoted a couple of pages of his introduction to denouncing Suvorov in very general terms, and never once disputed any of Suvorov’s hundreds of very specific factual claims. Since Glantz had the benefit years of heated international debate, that seemed to confirm that all of Suvorov’s facts were correct, or at least could not easily be challenged.
(4) The current McMeekin book seems to completely settle the issue. McMeekin is a very solid and reputable scholar, and his book was widely praised by leading mainstream historians. McMeekin did a great deal of archival research, and seems to have almost totally confirmed Suvorov’s factual claims, even including those that had raised the greatest doubts with me.
For example, Suvorov claimed that the USSR had a *million* trained paratroopers, obviously a purely offensive force, and a total something like 100x larger than the rest of the world combined. When I published my original 2018 article, some people said that figure was total lunacy, and proved Suvorov was lying. His footnote referred to some particular filing box in the Kremlin archives, and since I don’t read Russian nor plan to visit Moscow, I couldn’t confirm his claim. But McMeekin said the same thing, and cited a big article in Pravda making that same claim, thereby confirming Suvorov.
Since Suvorov is still totally “radioactive” in the Anglosphere, McMeekin had to be extremely cautious, and only mentioned his name in a single sentence. But his book absolutely confirms the essential correctness of the Suvorov Hypothesis more than three decades after it appeared.
Sorry to point this out, but as far as ignorance goes, nobody in the world beats Americans. I’ve never seen a whole nation brainwashed to the point of ignorance so woeful that it makes them ready to believe any absurdity. The discussion of Rezun’s book is a good example: nobody familiar with history would take it seriously (with the exception of Hitler admirers, who would either take it seriously or pretend to, depending on whether they are dumb or dishonest, respectively).
Most Americans believe Russia targeted U.S. soldiers, want sanctions in response, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows/
Chris Kahn
July, 8, 2020
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A majority of Americans believe that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan last year amid negotiations to end the war, and more than half want to respond with new economic sanctions against Moscow, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.
Overall, 60% of Americans said they found reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers to be “very” or “somewhat” believable, while 21% said they were not credible and the rest were unsure”.
There you go.
There are two possibilities here with you.
You simply do not understand what was happening, and you do not understand what is happening now. Because simply you are not able to understand. Second, you are not willing to understand and you just shill your nonsense. You do not understand the basics. (The big picture.)
Detailed evaluations are worthless if you do not understand the big picture.
And you are not German I do guarantee it.
(You make me to work too hard.)
I do have a problem with your term judeobolshevism.
There is no such thing as judeobolshevism. That is idiotic nonsense.
So here is big picture.
Lenin made the Russian revolution by himself without any help from Jews.
After successful Russian revolution most of the Jews lifted up as flock of birds and settled in Russia.
The aim and goal of Jews was to rule the world and they now have seen the opportunity to rule the world through Marxist communist ideology. It was Lenin that made the important decision not the Jews. Lenin and also Stalin Used Jews to do the dirty work. The dirty work was to eliminate the opposition to the revolution. Naturally Jews did have almost free hand in their activities under cover of fighting counterrevolution.
I am upset to this day that Jews did kill indiscriminately all Russian nobility and most of Russian Intelligentsia. Large part of Russian nobility was of German descent, and almost all of Ukrainian nobility was of German descend.
So because Jews did see that Communism will be the world ideology they did remain faithful to Russia.
……………………………………………………………
After fall of Communism, which meant for Jews that through Communism they will not rule the world, they lifted up as flock of birds and they went mostly to US, some went to Israel and Western Europe.
Now Jews are betting that they will rule the world through USA
Now Russia did become obstacle for Jewish domination the world, so Jews adopted highly adversary position against Russia. They even want to rewrite history to minimize Russian achievements. And blame Russia for everything.
……………………………………………………………………….
So my conclusion is that because you are not German, You must be Jewish.
Well… while it is true that “AnonFromBrightonBeach” did try to claim that the Germans somehow forced the judeobolsheviks to massacre thousands of Poles at Katyn, it might be premature to conclude that he’s simply an ideologically consistent, unreconstructed tankie.
People who vigorously assert that kind of long-debunked claim may be simply ignorant, or they may be obsessed with a particular ideology — or they may be arguing in bad faith.
You might want to scope out Anon’s opinions on, say, the use of certain mountaineering tools in Mexico, or the advisability of a certain tribal homeland in Crimea, or even the toxicity of warfarin, before assuming that he’s arguing in good faith.
Irregardless of what one thinks of Suvorov’s thesis, I think it’s true that the sudden new found interest in him is solely for the purpose of putting Russia in a bad light.
What next? Are there going to be new found Suvorov like theories reported that Stalin, err., Czar Alexander, was about to invade all of Europe, hence Napoleon had to launch a pre-emptive strike in 1812 to save the Continent?
There are powerful people who want to bring the world’s population down to a ‘sustainable’ 500 million. Drumming up hatreds in the West towards Russia, and vice-versa in Russia towards the West, could just create the no win global conflagration that they desire to do just that.
In looking at the SU as being on the same trajectory as the Russian Empire, one can see the same drive to expand – despite having everything within its borders: Ore, land, sun. Hence Russia was eager to get the war going in 1914 according to her own declaration out of brotherly concern for Servia, but Russia’s war aims reveal another reality: to gain access and control over the Bosphorus, the Balkans, to eliminate the Central European power, Germany. In other words to move her borders westwards and expand her own controlled territory, which was already enormous. Stalin and his bolshevism was serving the same goals and they were still not welcomed by the peoples intended to become part of that empire. Perhaps it is naturally for great powers to want to expand, in any case it always happens, there is apparently never enough land and ore, hence they expand, and in the case of Russia under Stalin this happened under the banner of the Communist Internationale.
You just basically saying that the slav(e)s were retarded enough to follow a GigaKike (Lenin) and then the GigaKike wanted to create a Mega Yid Empire. Afterwarda the project fails and the slav(e)s are still reminiscing about what could have been, how slav(e)ic (((Bolshelvism)))) should have ruled the world.
Guess what, fuck them. They will always remain toilet cleaners.
Actually, slav(e)ic filth outnumbers muslims in any western European country, except maybe england or france in the future. Both are extremely annoying, ingrate, uncivilized beasts. But at least the arabs don’t pretend they are Germans.
Keep your chin up. Because you will get curbstomped when the Holohoax gets stale, and muttmerica implodes. See who will rescue you then.
This retard is going full Wakanda mode.
Did the soviets prospere bEFORE the war or AFTER they rediscovered the foreskin necronomicon and the crystal of shrunken jew balls?
You write about Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit” that “nobody familiar with history would take it seriously.”
My response: I take “The Chief Culprit” seriously, and I am familiar with World War II history. Is there anything specifically in Viktor Suvorov’s book that you think is wrong and would like to discuss?
Thanks.
FB seems to one of several on this thread who appear to be on a mission to preserve the Hollywood version of mad violent Hitler and his many victims.
What look like pre-prepared texts, possibly by a background team (in some cases incoherent due to breakup in transmission ?), unwillingless to consider evidence, blanket statements with obscure or no evidence presented … etc.
Commentor “AnonStarter” drew folks’ attention to the Act.IL program on Palestine Has the Right to Defend Itself (#716), which was spammed up by zio-trolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act.IL
There is of course a strong vested interest in zio’s to preserve the standard Hollywood mad Hitler, 6 million, gas chambers … seems evident on this forum.
I am close to “ignore” with Zara, regretfully.
Once amusing in a zany way, now very unfunny as a sad violent lunatic.
After a few tries, “don’t feed the trolls” is best policy imho.
Sad indeed.
I agree, by leaving the yellow star on AnonFromTN Ron Unz has turned it into a badge of shame. It is similar to how reverse discrimination and affirmative action have turned all blacks with higher level degrees into suspected buffoons.
Of course Ron Unz could at least occasionally insert some “More Tags” into FB’s inane and offensive comments, but I won’t hold my breath.
This is a photo of Danzig before its last election in 1935. You can notice many more swastika flags than Polish flags (I have found two or maybe three). This is a proof that Germans were not persecuted in Danzig.
What is striking is the complete lack of the Free City Danzig flags, or a lack of local identity/patriotism. The Polish banners simply call to voting for ‘the Polish list’.
Sure, most Americans are extremely ignorant of the outside world. But many foreigners are also totally ignorant about America and its history.
And they’re certainly not polite gentlemen.
I assume you live in Europe. I wonder what people like you will say during the inevitable Muslim revolution in Western Europe. Are you going to run to Argentina, or it’ll be easier to get in the car and drive east? During such a revolution 100% Arabs will not pretend to be Germans. The only question is who they will become these days.
Because of Global warming Russians will rule the world, because they will be the ones that will survive the Global warming. They will be ones that will repopulate the dyed out world.
I did make lengthy explanation, but it did not get through or it was deleted. I do not know.
American history is opulence and waste of resources. American history is guided by attitude who cares about tomorrow.
………………………………………………………………….
But tomorrow has become now!
Overview of Sephardim exclusivism:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-the-sephard_b_541033
Isn’t it strange that in the state of Israel Sephardim are minority?
Well, no, because this state was made as a trap for Askhenazim. Do Sephardim protest against Zionism? No. Do Druses (another descendants of fallen angels) protest against the state of Israel? No. It is their plan.
Modern Israel is a repetition of crusaders’ Kingdom of Jerusalem, centered around the holy year 1240 AD /5000 in Jewish calendar, which was to be the year of the end of the world, which has always been Sephardi obsession. Great effort was put in being in Jerusalem, which was regained for a period of 1229-1244. Rest assured that they found a new date since crusaders’ state, this time in improved Jewish version, exists again.
Even today Sephardim (Shas) want to escalate on Temple Mount, wheareas Askehnazim (United Torah Judaism) are against.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-ultra-orthodox-mk-to-netanyahu-keep-the-temple-mount-closed-to-jews/
Isaiah 9:6 change from Septuginta to Masoretic/Vulgata/Peshitta by Clement of Alexandria was effected by the same guy who choose a pigeon, a bird of Tanit as a sign of Christians (see my comment no 384) at
https://www.unz.com/article/sir-richard-francis-burton-explorer-linguist-race-realist/
‘Clement of Alexandria wrote in his Logos Paidogogos[2]”Αἱ δὲ σφραγῖδες ἡμῖν ἔστων πελειὰς ἢ ἰχθὺς ἢ ναῦς οὐριοδρομοῦσα ἢ λύρα μουσική, ᾗ κέχρηται Πολυκράτης, ἢ ἄγκυρα ναυτική,” (= “[when recommending symbols for Christians to use], let our seals be a dove or a fish or a ship running in a good wind or a musical lyre … or a ship’s anchor …”
Well, a dove, a fish and a ship are Phoenician symbols. It seems only fishes were finally accepted, but all those symbols are pre-Christian.’
Isaiah 9:6
‘His name shall be called Messenger of great wisdom, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health by Him.” Septuagint
‘his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Masoretic/Vulgate/Peshitta
Why ‘Messenger of great wisdom’ becomes bombastic ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ aka Moshiah….?!
http://www.matthewbryan.net/lxx4.html
Useful overview of differences in verses between Septuaginta and Masoretic:
http://www.matthewbryan.net/lxx3.html
Overall, you will see Masoretix text is obsessed with Messiah as king, exclusively scion of the House of David (whose father, Salomon, is credited to be the first freemason). Masoretic writers are obsessed with peace by breaking others, since they represent fallen angels in war with God.
The question: why Jewish scripture changed so much, from Septuaginta to Masoretix text?
Answer: because in the meantime biblical Judaism was taken over by Phoenicians, who far from being sincere converts (conversion is allowed in Judaism, unlike in the religions of fallen angels, e.g. Druses), introduced their own agenda, of their own kingdom of fallen angels on Earth.
Hitler’s liquidation of Ashenazim was completely misguided. Poland was a rather poor state with budget of one German land. Apparently all these Jews in Poland weren’t very rich. Hitler – correctly – rallied against ‘international Jew’, i.e. Sephardim, but never went after them. Why his followers never asked him about them can be ascribed only to bovine nature of Germans as well as to their Protestant bibles, which strictly follow the supremacist Masoretic text of the Pharisees.
But why German soldiers did not recognize that poor individuals speaking Yiddish only cannot be ‘international Jews’?
Why there was no de-judaization of Bible from Masoretic back to Septuaginta…?!
That are questions which needs asking.
Also: how is that that once Sephardim were dominant Jewry, and then Askhenazim became more numerous…?! Well, because of the strict Sephardi endogamy (also by Druses) which naturally limits their numbers. Endogamy which they practice despite Torah bans, one should add.
But weren’t descendants of Abraham to be numerous as sand?
Apparently Sephardim are not descendants of Abraham.
Stalin was a Marxist Leninist who thought that the capitalist powers would necessarily tear each other to pieces in a re-run of WW1. I cannot accept that the pact with Hitler and preparations Stalin made to attack Germany were ever envisioning the Soviet Union taking on an intact German army and doing almost all of the fighting for Churchill and Roosevelt; Stalin was far wilier that that. What he probably intended was waiting until a late stage of the war and getting a walkover against an exhausted Germany and maybe other capitalist powers, which is something similar to what he actually did when the USSR declared war on Japan. The victories of Germany in 1940 must have made Stalin suddenly cautious about war on Germany before the fighting power of Germany had been degraded; an invasion of Britain and associated deceptions is how Hitler explained away his military activities before the outbreak of hostilities in a letter to Stalin, according to What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa by David Murphy
There is evidence going back to his speeches and writings of the 20’s, private statements of intent in the 30s to the army, and drive deep into Russia once the war started that Hitler intended to make the Volga Germany’s Mississippi. In other words settle Germans in the space of European Russia where they could greatly expand demographically, and this was a long term objective of territorial aggrandizement that he knew could not be achieved peaceably. But he also knew he could not fight everyone at once, hence the pact with Stalin to take care of the West. Stalin simply underestimated the German armed forces when led by someone with such a Promethean nature. For his part, Hitler was never a warm hearted man, but he was incensed at what Stalin did to the centuries old communities of Volga Germans in August 1941, this was a complete reversal of everything Hitler was trying to achieve, Within weeks a fateful directive of Hitler for the expulsion of European Jews to the East was issued. And the army was given the Severity Order regarding treatment of Russian civilians and POWs.
True. Most Europeans, for example, are unaware that Theodore Roosvelt was almost as important in USA history as FDR.
The basic patter of USA history for people in Europe is mostly: Washington – Lincoln – Wilson – FDR. Only they got streets and squares named after them in Europe.
Your continued pathetic inability to directly address the very simple, straightforward points that I made [and provided extensive empirical support for] is duly noted.
I understand that you feel very strongly that the accurate, descriptive, perfectly-valid semantic construct of “judeobolshevism” triggers you into apoplectic rage for reasons that you are completely incapable of expressing in words in anything approaching a coherent fashion… but don’t you think it’s a little unfair to blame someone else for that failure?
Surely you realize that, no matter how intensely you feel your feelz, you cannot force other people to feel those same feelz with anything approaching the same intensity without making some effort to put forth a quasi-logical, empirically-supported argument as to why they should do so?
I mean, you openly acknowledge that “Jews did kill indiscriminately all Russian nobility and most of Russian Intelligentsia” — but then you try to claim that the process by which they committed that genocide had nothing to do with the semitic ideology or the totalitarian system of judeoboshevism… because, uh, you know, reasons.
In your “mind,” exactly how was this great crime committed, if not via the ideology and the totalitarian mechanisms of judeobolshevism, hmm? What, they used Orthodox Christianity to do it? What is your alternative proposed mechanism here?
You could start by providing an actual source for this long-debunked semitic canard:
And perhaps why you believe so strongly — in spite of the evidence — that Winston Churchill was actually an Axis secret agent who was strongly committed to the causes of German ethnonationalism and Danzig irredentism. And why that notoriously Russophobic individual Vladimir Putin agreed with Churchill on the judeobolshevism question…
Let the spewing and sputtering begin yet again!
In Babylon there was this tradition/festival of king-fool. A guy became a king for one day, only to be killed at the end of the day.
Why does Hitler remind me about this venerable tradition out of long bygone days….?
That’s one of many preposterous things most Americans believe. Frankly, I can’t even blame them. American elites succeeded in making the populace ignorant, and thus susceptible to their propaganda, which is so nonsensical that they can’t afford an informed population. The education in most public and charter schools would be considered inferior even in Nigeria. Only 2% of college students attended Ivy League colleges, and now those are actively destroyed by “woke” libtards. Very few good colleges maintain some level of honesty and objectiveness (MIT and CalTech come to mind, there are too few others). The only thing remaining are graduate programs in sciences (not “social science” BS) in a few dozed universities, but libtards are trying to destroy even those. The “news” reported by US MSM focus on Hollywood sluts and the like. When they “report” on real events, 90% is blatant lies, while the remaining 10% contains some truth twisted beyond recognition.
I am pretty consistent. I have always said that unrepentant, traitorous cunts deserve only to die a horrible death.
I think I will FLY East. Get as far away as possible from muttmerica and the tundra meth shithole called everything past the Oder. China would be nice but Vietnam and the rest of the SEA countries might be easier to get into. This is assuming a 100% SHTF, NO resistance scenario. I and the boys would be happy to fight if we won’t be the only people to hold our dick out.
You didn’t take my advice on asking your doctor about a medication change, did you? Most unfortunate.
What actual evidence can you cite in support of your strange claims? Were actual jews in actual positions of power during WW2 — like Baruch, Kaganovich, Morgenthau, White, etc. — really “crypto-Sephardim” who were merely pretending to be Ashkenazim in order to advand their Secret Sephardic Scheme™ to Crush the Ashkenazim?
lolwut? First you try to claim that all Ashkenazim [and goyim] in positions of power are secretly “crypto-Sephardim,” and now you’re claiming that the semitic supremacist settlers in Palestine are really “crypto-Christians?” You need a more coherent delusion — see medication recommendations above.
What actual data — not more insane, logorrheic, delusional ramblings — can you cite on the relative representation of Ashkenazim vs. Sephardim among US elites today?
Even 100 years ago in America, the relevant intra-ethnic conflict was much more yidn vs. yehudim than Ashkenazim vs. Sephardim. You know that, right?
And I’m not sure this really serves to advances your “argument” that Sneaky Sephardi Supremacists staged WW2 in order to take over the woild from the weak, powerless, gullible Ashkenazim:
>Then says: “once Sephardim were dominant Jewry, and then Askhenazim became more numerous”
>Links to “supporting” source that says* “Sephardim were not yet a non-entity on the Jewish stage, as they are today”
Well OK then. I’m convinced.
*Along with typical semitic slobbering about how “Wasn’t it great back in the old days, when the Moorish settler-colonialists were oppressing the evil White Christian goyiim in Spain?” and so forth.
Good point. In the end, each strong aggressor can wait for the right moment to seize the best opportunity. Such is a law of jungle. War was inevitable. As for Poland – best rule was not to fight alone right away or just enter the game as late as possible.
I have good friend Russian guy we played basketball together , he is working in CalTech Lab https://twitter.com/nanoassembly
he told me same thing you mention about education
That’s a silly point. The issue here is whether in late 1932 there existed such an intense ongoing struggle that it would have motivated Stalin to deliberately engineer a completely avoidable famine by artificial means. That, after all, is what the Cold War story of the Holodomor claims. It is not true. The disaster which came from the crop failure of 1932 was obviously not to Stalin’s benefit and would not have been something that he had any reason to bring about through conscious effort.
Or that they’re familiar with American symbology/ mythology in place of American history. Can’t really blame them for that, since it’s a natural consequence of post-WW2 “American” cultural hegemony — feeding them an even more simplified and distorted understanding of history than our own:
https://www.unz.com/ldinh/one-night-in-amerika/
Stalin, of course, was a big fan of Hollywood Westerns and Tarzan movies.
Baruch at least is the typical Sephardi name, e.g. Baruch Spinoza.
They often change names, so nothing is sure. Well, they are ‘nomads’. Why do you think we have such a positive view of nomadism promoted nowadays, for example, by Oscars this year (‘Nomadland’) ? Polish Askhenazim stayed for hundreds of years in one place, so it is not relevant for them.
The main argument for the story is the discrepancy of losses between Sephardim (minimal) and Askhenazim (huge) in Holocaust, plus financing of Hitler from USA, plus the fact that only Sephardim were really interested in actual Moshiah coming, by counting its time etc, and producing false Messiahs like Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank etc.
Nowadays Sephardi outlook was accepted by some Askhenazim, for example, Chabad Lubavitch.
Generally you can discern them by two things:
1) they follow Maimonides as the main legal authority. So it is for example with Chabad. On the other hand, Askhenazi traditions, especially Litvaks, do not revere Maimonides at all and even dislike him to some extent, as Maimonides promoted pantheistic concept of God. Likewise Spinoza.
2) they are obsessed with Moshiah, and specifically with Moshiah as the universal king of this world from the Davidic line.
Crusades were largely organized – to the extent that they could not go on without them – by city-states of Italy like Genova, Venice, Pisa, Amalfi, so Sephardi money. It was they that decided that the fourth crusade should rather take Constantinople than go to Palestine. So much for Christian morality; I mean how many of those ‘knights’ on boards refused to go against Byzantium ?!
The subject is mainly discussed in Hebrew literature but you can try, for example:
David Berger, ‘Sephardic and Askhenazic Messianism in the Middle Ages: an Assessment of the Historiographical Debate’, 2009
and different papers by Gerson D. Cohen, e.g. ‘Essential Papers on Messianic Movements and Personalities in Jewish History’, 1992.
OK, so now I expect that you will visit library before offending me again.
Ask yourself why the chief rabbi of Russia is from Milano, Italy, Sephardi stronghold…?
Not enough Jews in Russia to send to rabbinic school…?
Well, what about Russian diaspora in Israel… ?
Russia must be such a small country, hm, didn’t notice that.
Rabbi Berel Lazar surely wasn’t found by local Russian Jews, who apparently don’t study his messianic ideas. And yet SOMEONE sent him to Putin.
You read a lot but you do not understand anything.
Why Jews did kill Lenin and than they did kill Stalin?
And after killing Stalin they did start this ” Cult of personality” attack on dead Stalin under Khrushchev’s protection?
Russia from the time of inception was absolute dictatorship led by Czar. What Czar did say was unassailable. That was and is inborn fact in every Russian. That can be never changed by any means.
Russia will never change. Russia will never become a democracy. So Lenin actually did become a Czar. After Lenin, Stalin did become a Czar. Jews after death of Lenin did want Trotsky to become a Czar but it did not work out.
Regardless that Putin win the election, in the eyes of Russian peoples he is now the Czar.
This is the fact and it will never change. Russia will never be a democracy.
And it is a good thing because for Jews it is easy to take over the absolute power in democracy.
Just look at present US. (and cry)
Yidn vs yehudim is irrelvant, those guys do not speak Yiddish nor Hebrew really (except rabbis).
But what is relevant is that banks-shareholders of Federal Reserve are mainly in Italy and France.
Besides, endogamy is an important sign too…. well, what about FDR, who married his cousin…? Not really normal.
Those guys moved from Carthagine to Spain/Portugal to Italy, France,Turkey, Netherlands, Germany and then UK and USA.
They are ‘the synagogue of Satan, those who claim they are Jews but are not’ in Revelation of Saint John, which again comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls millieu.
“trained paratroopers”
Which tells un nothing about an alleged plan to strike first, never mind to attempt a Sovietization of the entire continent. Until the early 20th century it was common in warfare that one side might be forced to defend itself against attack at the onset of a campaign, yet be able to swiftly take the offense. After the defeat of 1871 the French resolved to do this if a future war with Germany happened. When 1914 came they tried and ending wasting huge numbers of soldiers who were sent marching into machine-guns. Between the wars military technology developed further, although the French were blind to this. They expected the Maginot Line to allow them to refight WWI. Instead they were quickly defeated by the new transportation vehicles.
German and Soviet planners had better grasp of the new technology, though not as good as they could have. Even Hitler wasn’t necessarily optimally prepared for the new war, but his officers had a better grasp of what it involved than the French did. Soviet commanders fell somewhere in between the French and German in their understanding. The Soviet assumption was that with the new methods of military offense, the form of entrenched warfare that prevailed for much 1914-8 would be irrelevant. But they failed to appreciate what a deep penetration an attacking enemy might achieve with a first strike.
All of the known evidence about the Soviet line-up is consistent with the view that Stalin and his staff expected that once a war had been launched by a German invasion then there would some either weeks or even months of hard fighting near the border. The German invasion would then be halted close to the frontier and a Soviet advance would begin. The obvious parallel here would be Pilsudski’s strike against the USSR in 1920 which led to the Soviet army turning things around and advancing on Warsaw. The Soviet forces were beaten back, but they managed to make it right up to Warsaw after Pilsudski had struck first.
On the surface there was no reason for Stalin not to think that a German first strike could lead to a Soviet march on Berlin. Politically that would have been more beneficial. The Winter War had already shown that Finnish troops fought hard when the Soviets struck first. Hence it would make more sense to let Hitler strike first and then turn him back ala Pilsudski. But the war was different now with the technology. That is obvious today but would not have been so in early 1941.
True definition of democracy is as follows.
Ability of qualifying demos to exercise cratos.
Nothing more
Look, I don’t need to read every book claiming that the Earth is flat to know that it’s not true. I don’t need to read every treatise on perpetuum mobile to know that it’s BS. We are not sequoias, we don’t live long enough to read every scrap of BS published. Similarly, I don’t need to read the whole Rezun’s book personally to know that it’s a load of old cobblers.
Author’s credibility. A person who voluntarily joined the communist party, voluntarily joined GRU in 1947, and then voluntarily became a traitor has zero credibility.
These “theories” (which are not Rezun’s, but Hitler’s and Goebbels’) were debunked many times (e.g., see comment # 345 and many others in this thread). The “documents” Rezun “quotes” are mostly figments of his imagination. When Rezun mentions anything true, like that the USSR built numerous airfields within 200 kilometers of Germany-occupied lands, he conveniently fails to mention that it was a small fraction of the airfields the USSR built at that time all over its territory. Considering that 2/3 of the territory was virtually uninhabited (huge Siberia, except for the southernmost part), this did not represent any significant concentration of the airfields in that area. Thus, you can selectively state the truth in a way that makes it a lie. Propagandists used this trick for centuries.
You write: “Author’s credibility. A person who voluntarily joined the communist party, voluntarily joined GRU in 1947, and then voluntarily became a traitor has zero credibility.”
My response: Like most Soviet citizens, Viktor Suvorov was a Communist in his younger days. He discovered how evil the Soviet Communist system was, and then left this evil system as an adult. None of this diminishes his credibility. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn went through a similar process (see my article at https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/2/7788 for more on Solzhenitsyn).
Most major public libraries have “The Chief Culprit.” You do need to read this book to understand what Suvorov actually says. Neither Gabriel Gorodetsky nor David Glantz have debunked Suvorov’s thesis (I know this because I have read both of these books).
As an ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik apologist, you may not be aware of this, but Mr. Apfelbaum [alias “Zinoviev”] is not really the best example of an upwardly-mobile “ethnic Russian.”
Unless your claim is that he’s a good illustration of the semitic supremacism inherent to judeobolshevism — the concept of eliminating the “best of the Russian goyim*” in order to replace them with an alien, hostile elite?
I guess that would make sense.
Judeobolshevik apologists don’t seem to understand that both “novels” and the movies based on them belong to a general narrative category known as “fiction” aka “made-up stories” or “deliberate lies.”
People who cite known lies as some sort of imagined “evidence” are either:
1. Seriously lacking in cognitive firepower, or
2. Liars themselves.
*See also Katyn and the “best of the Polish goyim”
Are you familiar with the esoteric concept sometimes known as “time,” by any chance? Or were you under the impression that WW2 is still going on just outside your window?
The most popular Communist periodical in the US in the first half of the 20th century was published in what language again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgen_Freiheit
But if you’re too ignorant to understand the reference, you may call them “German” and “Eastern European” jews if you like — the point is that they’re both Ashkenazim.
Read, and learn:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-immigration-to-america-three-waves/
Your continued pathetic failure to answer my very simple, straightforward questions is yet again noted — as is your meaningless blabbering about “Morgenthau was one o’ dem dere ‘crypto=Sephardis’! And dose semitic supremacist colonists in Palestine — ‘crypto-Christians’, every one!”
So you’re more of an ignorant, hate-filled judeobolshevik denialist than purely an apologist, it appears. Interesting.
It’s kind of pathetic that you’re entirely abandoning your former feeble, flailing, failed attempts to somehow “justify” your judeobolshevik denialism — but hardly surprising, given the twin handicaps of your crippling cognitive limitations and the total absence of facts to support your delusions.
Please spew some more incoherent, hate-filled rants. It’s kind of amusing, tbh.
There are many stupid absurd things that “Americans” believe, and I have to know that as I have been living for decades right besides them, just half an hour from the border and only a few more from their urban concentrations in the North east and have had my fill of it. You can be from any country and have a lot of complaints about your rulers, government, but “America” takes the cake when it is the only country that, from the richest economy on Earth, has become at the end the most indebted because most if not all the money has gone to feed an insatiable monster, their MIC, and its thirst for wars which have been all fought on lies and which have cost trillions, not to mention the thousands of dead, maimed and turned into walking zombies. They do know that Tonkin was a false flag, that the Iraq invasion was for the oil (the architects of that war even confessed it later…!), they know that neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any role in 911 yet they have never questioned the wisdom of these invasions and their incredibly high cost financial overall. Even worse, “Americans” are ready to meekly and dutifully follow their leaders again when they will tell them the next big lie and get them into their next big war.
I have a theory about that, which I call it the Theory of the Obvious, of why such is the state of thing in the U.S. and I call it so because you only have to read what is written at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. There the “American” elite tells the world who are her favorite kind of immigrant: the lowest of the social (educationally, economically, even intellectually) strata, the leftovers, those who society at large doesn’t even want among them.
Give me your poor,, your tired soul…..The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
BTW, right know Chile is living an unwanted invasion of the sort, from regional wretches, specially from Venezuela, Colombia and Haiti, and Chileans are furious, screaming for the authorities to stop it. And they are right, because which in the world could be the national elite who welcomes the least desirable segment of society from every other part of the world…? The answer is, again, obvious: the elite who wants to completely control their society, the one that wants to implement a dictatorship that won’t look like that one because people will follow them meekly and dutifully so they will call it a democracy. That is why the US elite has always wanted that kind of immigrant, which will pass his wisdom and smarts to the following generations. “the wretched refuse from everyone’s else teeming shore”. And it had worked wonders, even two centuries later, and here we are already in the 2020s, when up to 80% of “Americans” believe or at least don’t rule out the possibility that Putin has been paying the Taliban to kill U.S. troops, the same Putin who lets supplies to these troops pass through Russian territory and the same Taliban that has been doing just that (killing “Americans”) for the raw pleasure of it for two decades already. Like say, the U.K taking from its coffers badly needed funds to pay Soviet guerrillas during WW2, so they kill German invaders. And they believe it.
As for those big name universities in the US i don’t know, maybe the ones focused of scientific and technological learning are good but as for the rest, I have debated with guys who say they hold big degrees, masters and Doctors from something like Yale or Harvard and the dudes have shown to be extremely ignorant about History and Culture in general. I particularly remember one who claimed to be a summa cum laude Doctor in European History or something and he kept insisting to me that no, sir, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any African Black/Moor influence in European History during the last centuries. A subject that is even well explained in Wikipedia!
Yea, all major MSM wrote about “largely peaceful” BLM demos and then about “violent” Jan 6 “insurrection”. By your logic, these claims must be true.
This just shows who pays the musicians and therefore calls the tune. Would have further undermined the credibility, if there were a way down from zero.
Started reading Bellamy’s ‘Absolute War’. Vivid account. Thanks.
Two puzzling passages. Bellamy relates Admiral Wilhelm Canaris’s protests on murders of Soviet POWs, but goes on to say (page 27):
Canaris was long dead by IMT Nüremberg.
He was ignominiously executed for treason at Flossenburg KZ 9 April 1945 (stripped naked, marched to the gibbet, hanged – an SS witness remarked „Bei dem kleinen Admiral hat es sehr lange gedauert. Er ist ein paar Mal rauf und runter gezogen worden.“ [“It took a long time with the little admiral. He was pulled up and down a few times”].
Testimony was heard about long dead Canaris at Nüremberg, but surely the greater message was the price he paid in objecting to and working against régime criminality?
Second passage (page 32):
Indeed, Eric (retired) wrote ‘Der Totale Krieg’ 1935, but he was never a Generalfeldmarschall (he was a Generalquartiermeister, serving under Generalfeldmarschall Paul von Hindenburg). And his name was Erich Friedrich Wilhelm Ludendorff – no “von” Ludendorff nobility.
More revealing was Eric’s ‘The Next War’ paean in 1931 (eight years after he tried a Putsch with the Austrian gefeiter):
This from an incompetent failure (Ludendorff crafted Schlieffen plan logistics in 1905, forgot to include any contingency in case of delays); a man who killed millions. His ‘Spring Offensive’ 21 March – July 1918 killed 880,000 German landsers. He fled Germany in disguise (spectacles and false beard) for Sweden 26 Oct 1918 afraid of his own men.
Stay well iffen.
Uh, yes, most Americans are extremely ignorant, but that does not mean most non-Americans are any better, as demonstrated time and again by this clown without makeup, AnonFromTn.
What this “genius” wrote of Americans easily applies to himself and most Russians, in particular in regards to the so called “great patriotic war”, where even the way the war is called reeks of propaganda.
This from a guy who still blames the Germans for the Katyn executions!
I’m pretty sure you realize that AnonFromTn does not do this out of mere ignorance. This is pure BAD FAITH.
The guy is a complete JOKE. Typical Team Russia Internet activist… who lives in the US however…
“In looking at the SU as being on the same trajectory as the Russian Empire, one can see the same drive to expand – despite having everything within its borders”:
Typical tunnel vision, the one that makes you see ONLY what you want to see to confirm and make even more deeply rooted own pro-Western empires, prejudices, to reinforce your own personal believe system. And yet the answer, the obvious answer to the first part of your sentence lies right in the second.
What you conveniently forget here, like most if not all mouth foaming anti Russia/USSR Western shills and propagandists, is that for most of History it has been Russia/USSR the victim here, the one that has been invaded from barbarians from almost every surrounding land, the North and the South, precisely by those wanting to steal those natural riches you mention. I may even ask, which country in Europe has never gone into war with Russia or never tried invade her to grab a piece of her territory or all of it…? I am not a scholar but I can’t mention one single one, maybe Luxembourg or San Marino, if they are real countries. But for more than a millennia Russia has been invaded by barbarians from everywhere, the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols, Poland, there was even a war with the King of Sweden also, and yet for the revisionist imperials of West and their minions like you…It’s Russia/USSR the eternal aggressor…! the one which has been always willing to attack her neighbors to steal something from them and to enslave them! The one which all it has done was to defended herself from all those attempted armed robberies…!
Now, for everyone with a couple of open eyes and a mind not already rendered useless by blatant anti-Russia brainwashing disguised as education, the territorial moves by Stalin in the years before WW2 had a clear strategic meaning, something that has been dug out by Putin not long ago, when he stated very emphatically, that Russia will fight the next war in foreign territory. Russians know well what were the terrible consequences of having to fight an invading enemy within their own borders so Putin is decided for that to never happen again (and he has now the tools, “we’ll break your teeth”. a military superiority that Stalin could have only dreamed about) But the idea is the same and Stalin would have warmly approve what Putin is doing now because if he, Stalin, couldn’t build Sarmats and Avangards, then the least he could do was to build a land shield around the Soviet Union. As we know, it didn’t work very well at the end but he tried. When the Finns saw their land invaded by the Red Army they knew well what Stalin was after so they had an advantage of sorts in the battle field because they knew what the enemy was thinking, its limited objectives. They understood well what many brainwashed anti Russia shills refuse to see now, that Stalin was simply building his defenses in case Germany, and the rest of Europe, invaded, once again! the Soviet Union. The same with his annexation of the Baltic States, which he did because he knew, as everyone else, that such was the usual route for invaders from the West, to bypass the Pripet Swamps Once again, an strategic grab of foreign land. He left most of Finland alone and in the end he left Austria go, because he already had his land shield around the USSR, which he united and fortified in the Warsaw Pact. All that is clear and explains why “Stalin was on a expansion orgy” and everyone with open eyes and a clear mind understands it, but of course none of the usual brainwashed sheep of the West of which you are part.
I confess I was wrong and you are right.
But than!
Isn’t England Judeobolshevik from the times of Cromwell to this day?
Isn’t France judeobolshevick from the times of french revolution to this day?
Isn’t Germany judeobolhevic, after all it is run by Jew Merkel?
Isn’t all western and eastern Europe judeobolshevic now when Brussels is running everything?
Isn’t US judeobolshevic now when Jews say jump Americans ask how high.
How come that does not bother you if I may ask!!!!
John Wear, you are dealing with a Russian Internet activist, he does not give a damn about any facts at odds with “the great patriotic war” propaganda. To give you just an idea of what a complete intellectual delinquent AnonFromTn is, he claims the Germans shot the Poles at Katyn, and that the Wehrmacht lost more men fighting for the Pavlov’s house than during the entirety of the French campaign in 1940! This is just not a serious person.
So, Anon hates Rezun, okay, Anon is a Russian, so fluent in Russian, why does he not get some of the Russian authors who never defected, some even with pro Soviet tendencies, who researched the partially opened archives and came roughly to the same conclusions as Suvorov? Because he is not interested in the truth at all. Just a cheap internet propagandist.
For example, Albert Weeks is a US historian & former Professor of International Affairs, fluent in Russian, who has closely followed the Russian historians’ disputes which arose [after the fall of the Soviet Union and the partial opening of archives] over the Stalin regime’s offensive war plans against NS Germany. Despite being very ignorant of the German side, basically repeating the usual anti-Hitler line, professor Weeks nevertheless concedes that several Russian historians and former Red Army and intel veterans have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning to attack.
Not only that but several of these Russian historians and military people have/had connections to the Russian Ministry of Defense and some are of a pro-Soviet inclination:
When I said most major public libraries have “The Chief Culprit”, I was telling you that you could read this book without spending money to purchase it. I was encouraging you to read the book. I did not attempt to imply that this means that everything in the book is true.
“planning eventually to get the preemptive jump on the Wehrmacht.”
This, of course, is vastly different from what Rezun claims. A preemptive jump on the Wehrmacht would entail reaching out to Churchill and Roosevelt to come to an agreement on how Allied and Soviet forced should ultimately be distributed. The Rezun-thesis is that Stalin was preparing to blindly conquer the whole of Europe. As the preemptive thesis, the best evidence today still supports the conclusion did not think himself ready for such, and probably would not for another few years. But even if he had decided in 1941 at the last minute to try to strike before Hitler, there would have been no wholesale Sovietization of Europe as Rezun claims. More likely is that Churchill would have demanded a withdrawal from Poland and Stalin would have followed this demand.
The only fact is that Soviet army beat the shit out of Wehrmacht. All the rest is just bitter worthless blabbing. That proves that Russian race is far superior to German race. Period.
Don’t worry about James Forrestal. He’s busy trying to find another high window/roof from which to leap (good luck James – remember, the higher the better!).
Differ with your:
The First (only successful) Crusade was preached in Clermont (France) 1095. Four armies transited largely over-land. Genoa, Venice, Pisa played little/no part. Sorry.
And the Jewish race is far superior to any other race because they do control everything.
So all your blabbing is not worth one miau of the cat.
Was your article (doubtless posted on your own web site) “long” enough? That’s the real question. Perhaps a few more sentences, a few more paragraphs? Nothing below the fold, of course. Think about it.
As for WW2, are you sure it wasn’t Fala, FDR’s Scottish terrier? Instructing FDR against innocent NSDAP Germany because of a grudge against Hitler’s Alsatian bitch Blondi (a gift from Martin Bormann)?
“Most major public libraries have “The Chief Culprit””: That means to me that you can check it out or read there.
No point responding to the nazi Strolch called Fox.
Apfelbaum has nothing to do with Alexander Zinoviev.
He was born to a Russian Orthodox peasant family of 11 children, who had nothing to do with Jews. Zinoviev became a prominent philospher and writer, before falling out with the regime and becoming a dissident, and eventually getting kicked out of the country.
Most of his brothers and sisters achieved similar upward mobility, becoming doctors, engineers officers etc.
The same social class in the US, the landless tenant farmers and ‘Okies’ never got those chances to move up the ladder—although FDR did a lot to improve their lot in life.
The whole nonsense that is blathered about here about here by people who have only ever been indoctrinated INTENSIVELY by the US education and propaganda machine—plus the ordinary folks being none too educated to begin with is completely laughable.
Even Unz, who considers himself quite a broad-minded intellectual, is basically an indoctrinated American, operating within a quite narrow Overton window, within which he feels comfortable.
Ask yourself why you’re so pathetically incapable of answering my simple, straightforward questions, and are reduced to meaningless blabbering instead.
And you’re still having a lot of difficulty with this whole “time” concept. What actual evidence do you have to support your delusional claim that Rabbi Berel Lazar was somehow involved in planning your imaginary Sephardic supremacist WW2 plot? You do realize that he wasn’t even born until 20 years after the war, don’t you? Do you think that “Moshiach” Schneerson* has somehow granted him magical time-traveling powers?
[Why would a allegedly Sephardic Supremacist/ eliminationist anti-Ashkenazicist pray to an Ashkenazi false messiah, anyway? Seems kind of… implausible]
Not trying to defend petermix or whatever he is called but your statement
Geography isn’t your strong suit, is it? Otherwise you would know that most of the Germans were expelled, and in many cases raped or murdered, by the same Eastern Europeans, Czechs and Poles, that were so timid and fearful of the Red Army.
is clearly stupid. If you want to boast about your geography it is inopportune to speak of Czechs as Eastern Europeans. You may notice that Prague is less the one degree of longitude east of the eastern edge of Berlin and Plzen is west of Berlin.
Who was timid and fearful of the Red Army? Your writing makes no sense.
>4 exclamation points
>I’m “bothered”
Huh
I realize that for you, the process of “thinking” and attempting to express those “thoughts” involves entering a state of “quiet contemplation”, then simply spewing inchoate feelz in random directions until you run out of steam.
But if I were to rephrase your question in a slightly more rational, less histrionic form, I assume the idea that you were incoherently attempting to convey might be expressed as something along the lines of:
“Why are you mostly talking about the judeobolshevik empire, Germany, and their conflict during WW2… when the article that you’re commenting on is about the judeobolshevik empire, Germany, and their conflict during WW2?”
Sometimes if you take the time to formulate a coherent, relevant question — it answers itself. Funny how that works.
The article posted by Ron Unz had as its topic the thesis by Suvorov that Barbarossa constituted a pre-emptive strike against an expected massive and overwhelming attack against primarily the German Eastern front, and extending north and south. Since there is an extensive list of facts and findings from after the attack had occurred giving support to this thesis, as well as the general development from before, beginning in summer of 1940 and including the visit of Molotov in Berlin following von Ribbentrop’s invitation, such a thesis deserves to be seriously considered.
You give as a reason for the SU’s annexation (not just occupation) of the Baltic States security reasons for the SU. Did this also pertain to occupying the Bukovina and Bessrabia? And why did the SU occupy the greater half of Poland in September of 1939 after the German forces had halted at the agreed-upon line of demarcation in case an armed conflict were to occur. As far as I remember there was provision for the Soviet Union to attack Poland in case of a war between Germany and Poland.
If you can cite security reasons for the incursion of the Red Army into an independent country, I don’t see why Germany couldn’t cite security reasons for Barbarossa (and that is what essentially happened). If Germany felt that a growing military menace was building up at her eastern border from a country that doesn’t have qualms to send its arms in other countries, why do you in principal object if the tables are turned for once? Since the menace of Bolshevism was felt throughout Europe, Germany was not alone in the concern of move against the SU, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy sent their own troops outright, and volunteers from most European countries joined in the fight.
You need not appeal to “open eyes and an open mind” to remind others to see things through your eyes.
That the established and self-serving narratives of the Second World War are slowly eroding is a development to be welcomed. I also add that I find it pathetic that a good part of the world is making its self-image depend on overcoming the defenses of a quite small country located in Central Europe. Look at a globe if you don’t believe it.
Uh huh. And Schwersenz was in Prussia— a veritable hotbed of Sephardic Supremacist anti-Ashkenazicists in the 1800s, I hear…
Your pathetic inability to link to even a single source for your incoherent, rambling delusions is yet again noted. Daily reminder — you have yet to substantiate the actual existence of even one of your imaginary “Sephardic Supremacist Eliminationist anti-Ashkenazicist” jews in a position of significant power in WW2.
America is a regional hegemon, which does not want any peers. Ways would be found to intervene, and they were.
Since there is an extensive list of facts and findings from after the attack had occurred giving support to this thesis,
No, they are not. A million parachutists…? Come on. Stalin’s detailed attention to offensive war and to the capabilities and preparedness of Soviet Armed forces for that eventuality…? And what military chief doesn’t do that when there is a potential for armed conflict with foreign powers…? Sorry, but after more than a thousand posts in this thread I see that Suvorov’s theory is as dead in the water as it was at the beginning. Of course Suvorovists will never recognize the obvious and sensibly give up.
In any case your follow up questions exposes you as a very naive individual or just as someone who is taking me for a moron. So Stalin’s annexation of the Baltic States proves that he wasn’t simply trying to build a land shield around the USSR but that he had another intentions. Wow, by the same token China wasn’t building a Great Wall in stone just to protect herself from the Mongols, because in that case I guess they would have built a wall with something less durable, say logs…! they have only a temporary use as we all know.
“And why did the SU occupy the greater half of Poland in September of 1939 after the German forces had halted at the agreed-upon line of demarcation in case an armed conflict were to occur. As far as I remember there was provision for the Soviet Union to attack Poland in case of a war between Germany and Poland”.
And what is the part you don’t understand in all that…? That half of Poland Stalin took was part of the land shield I was talking about. As for Bessarabia:
“…Then Russia, whose interest in the area had developed during the 18th century (it had occupied the region five times between 1711 and 1812), acquired Bessarabia and half of Moldavia (Treaty of Bucharest, 1812). The name Bessarabia was applied to the entire region. Russia retained control of the region until World War I (with the exception of a strip of southern Bessarabia, which was in Moldavia’s possession from 1856 to 1878). During the beginning of the 19th century, Russia granted Bessarabia autonomy (1818–28) and allowed it a Moldavian governor and archbishop. But by the end of the century, Russification in both the civil and ecclesiastical administrations was the dominant policy…….A nationalist movement developed in Bessarabia after the Russian Revolution of 1905; and, in November 1917 (after the Russian revolutions of 1917), a council (sfatul țărei) was established. It declared Bessarabia’s independence on Jan. 24, 1918, and voted to unite with Romania in December. The Treaty of Paris (Oct. 28, 1920) confirmed this union, but the Soviet Union never recognized Romania’s right to the province”
Wow, So Bessarabia was part of Russia and Russia had given it some sort of autonomy and then they tried to break away and the Soviet Union wouldn’t let them. Wow, it sounds a lot like the “American” Civil war in a smaller scale and very much alike with what happens in Spain with Catalonia and the Basques. So I guess when the West and its minions do it, it’s OK, but not when others are the ones doing it also. Like everything else. The Soviet Union had no right to take Bessarabia back, as Russia has no right to get Crimea back.
It’s like a NeoNazi theme park every time articles like this are published here. The one stoking it all cannot be accused of being a NeoNazi, for obvious reasons. Maybe he really is searching for the truth or ???
Obviously, the Church, under the cover of Holy Grail mythology, also wanted to be in Jerusalem during the end times. The Templars put a great effort into conquering the Mount Tabor, mistaking it for the mount of fallen angels, the Mount Hermion. Bernard of Clairvaux and Templars founders were pals from Champagne, a hotbed of catharism and occultism almost like Occitania, just better hidden.
The Italian cities were running everyday transports to the Holy Land and even got their own districts in cities there. The failed crusades were important too as they put stress on Muslims. Anyway, after the non-event of 1240, everything is rolled back pretty fast, Accra falls in 1291, and Templars are liquidated by Philip the Fair. But the German order of Holy Mary starts to build their own Assasin-like state in Poland, just without this fancy oriental flair…. Thus Poland, which did not participate in Crusades, was one of its biggest victims.
BTW, did you notice that the last crusade is attacking Tunis, i.e. Carthagine?
Tunis was finally taken by Charles V in 1535, obviously in cooperation with Genova.
What about Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Delano sounds Sephardic to me, Roosevelt also sounds suspicious due to presence of Roose which evokes Rosicrucians.
Well, FDR & his coterie decided to do nothing to stop deportations to Auschwitz when the Polish goverment in exile brought this issue to the table. What was needed was 50 bombers per month to bomb railways around Auschwitz. But apparently, ‘the arsenal of democracy’ had nothing to spare. I remember reading something about it by Neuter Karta or some other anti-Zionist Jews, or it was the matter of paying money for Hungarian Jews lifes.
Another such a fateful American decision was to deny Churchill plan of invading Balkans in favour of invading Italy, which was an isolated island from the strategic point of view and really far away from Germany which was behind Alps. Invading Balkans would probably save Hungarian and other Balkan Jews who were deported in the late phase of war, and provide highway to Germany through plains instead mountains like Alps. Germany has never been invaded from the South (Romans entered from France, i.e. from West), so it was an entirely new idea.
Anyway, Phoenician conspiracy is very deep, and created even rock music.
Just consider such bands like:
‘Genesis’: obviously reference to the first book of Bible, where you can read about Cain, pre-Adamites and fallen angels, among else
‘Deep Purple’: deep Phoenician conspiracy
‘The Beatles’: in reality, The Scarabs (Egyptian symbol)
The Eurovision was just won (unjustly, if you ask me) by Italo-Danish band named ‘Maneskin’ (moonlight) singing about Icarus. In reality, worshippers of Tanit (symbolized by moon) singing about the fallen angel. And why the highest Danish order is ‘Elephant order’? Remembrance of Hannibal?
No wonder some Lovecraft started to see everywhere Phoenician god Dagon.
But do not lose your hope – since we are apparently unable to do it, aliens are coming to trash the Phoenician empire. Just do not stand in their way…
What about the 5-pointed star, really the covert Tanit symbol, on so many flags….? Singapore, Pakistan, Turkey, USA, New Zealand, China, Gabon, Algieria, Tunisia, Italy, Copenhagen,Hong Kong….
Why everybody loves 5-pointed star so much….? Even Pope Francis had 5-pointed star in his coat of arms, only to change it for 8-pointed star (Ishtar symbol) when he became a pope.
Phoenicians are (almost) everywhere.
What about the six pointed Star of David on the Catholic Santa Croce?
a withdrawal from Poland and Stalin would have followed this demand.
Yeah, just like Stalin withdrew from the whole of Eastern Europe after the War.
FDR and his advisors played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. If you have an interest, you can read my article at https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6450 on this subject.
cannot be accused of being a NeoNazi, for obvious reasons. Maybe he really is searching for the truth or ???
Maybe he is a self-hating Jew, a term not invented by Nazis, but by a Jew and used almost exclusively by Jews.
America is a regional hegemon,
Regional?
Regional!
The issue here is whether in late 1932 there existed such an intense ongoing struggle that it would have motivated Stalin to deliberately engineer a completely avoidable famine by artificial means.
No it is not.
The issues are:
The murderous, violently forced collectivization contributed to famine conditions and he was responsible.
The violent campaign against Ukrainian Nationalism, even peaceful actions, contributed to famine conditions and he was responsible.
He could have accepted outside aid to The Ukraine, but he didn’t.
He could have believed his own commie advisors who told him what he was doing to The Ukraine, but he didn’t. (Or, more likely, did, and just didn’t care, or even more likely, thought that it was great.)
The commies seized all the grain, even the seed corn, and were supposed to “return” enough for survival and for planting. For some unknown reasons The Ukraine came up short, and yes, he was responsible.
In 1931 he unleased Pol Pot/Red Guard zealots on the Ukraine who not only seized the grain, but anything else that was edible.
The weather and other growing conditions could have contributed to famine conditions. I don’t believe he should be held responsible for this, except according to the logic of cult worshipers, who no doubt believed that he could control the weather, we would be right to blame him.
The Seal of Solomon, known as the star of his father, David.
The sign of Phoenician/Pharisee/Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism.
Again: why would Salomon/David be the most important character in Judaism…?
It is to stress the messianic element.
It is not a legitimate – i.e. biblical – symbol of Judaism. That is menorah, 7 – pointed candlestick.
Notice yellow stars of Davids which Jews had to wear were a bit like yellow crosses which once Cathars had to wear. It is kind of reversal.
Some years ago, I was surprised to discover that I know American history better than most people born and bred in the US. I was also surprised to find that I know the Bible much better than the people claiming to be Christians. I am not surprised any longer.
The reputation of Americans is truly global. When you mention Volga to Europeans and start explaining that it’s a big river in Russia, usual response is “you don’t need to explain, I am not an American”.
I’ve already pointed out the obvious, but liars on this board simply recycle things when time has passed. The context of 1945 is vastly different from 1941. In 1945 Britain was approaching bankruptcy, despite having won a military victory in the biggest war in history. The USSR had suffered enormous bloodshed and devastation, but had managed to carry its armies into the heart of Europe. Nobody was really eager to kick up too much trouble about anything at that point. Churchill did, in fact, propose a war against the USSR over Poland in early 1945 to his chiefs of staff. They rejected the idea as unrealistic. The details are in Jonathan Walker, Operation Unthinkable.
However the situation would have been 180-degrees different if Stalin had struck across Europe in 1941 or even 1942. At this point Britain still had plenty of war-making energies left. The US had not even begun to mobilize its war-potential, and Roosevelt was clearly looking for an opportunity to do this. More than that, no great victory had been won by Churchill yet. In 1945 Churchill could denounce the Iron Curtain over eastern Europe, while still celebrating a great victory over the Axis. If Stalin had acted according to the Rezun-script, there would have been no such great victory for Churchill to celebrate. Instead, former isolationists like Charles Lindbergh would now be calling attention to the monumental snafu suffered under Churchill/Roosevelt as Stalin’s armies marched across Europe.
A further wrinkle is that there would probably have been no Pearl Harbor, but rather a Japanese attack on the USSR. When Japan first started reaching out to Germany around 1937 the Japanese interest in an ally against the USSR. Once Hitler had decided that a conflict with Britain was likely he had to persuade Japan to accept the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which they did not really like at first. When Hitler launched Barbarossa Japan was at first confident (as was Hitler) that the USSR would fall rather swiftly and hence turned towards southeast Asia and the Pacific for a confrontation with the US and UK. At the same time, the Roosevelt administration was able to push through sanctions on Japan as part of a growing tendency to confront the Axis powers.
All of this would have changed radically if Stalin had tried carrying out the Rezun-script. Not only would Japan’s signed agreements with Germany obligate it strike at the USSR, but it’s almost certainly the case that the Tokyo leadership would have preferred to do this rather attack Pearl Harbor and risk being over-extended in the Pacific while Stalin consolidates a huge empire behind their back. So Japan would have gone to war with the USSR right after a hypothetical strike by Stalin across Europe ala Rezun. Churchill himself would likely have sought an alliance with Japan as soon as he saw Stalin achieving a rapid victory over Hitler. Roosevelt would also have to show himself willing to make demands of withdrawal on Stalin after Hitler’s defeat, or else be discredited in public.
Obviously the situation in 1945 was a different world from what would have happened in 1941 if Stalin had followed the Rezun-script. It means nothing to make comparisons. This has always been the biggest lie at the heart of the Rezun-hoax. There is no actual attempt to follow through logical implications of “what if?” Rezun simply assumes that his audience is dumb enough that a rapid Soviet advance across Europe in 1941 would have the same response which the new adjusted spheres of influence that took shape in 1945 had. Obviously they would not have, and Stalin himself was a smart enough politician to know that.
Some people play Dumb in an intelligent, crafty way, others don’t, and for yet some others it’s not mere play….
The shield of David was originally a general magic symbol – used especially in Spain. Only in 14th century the symbol became specifically Jewish.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/magen-david
‘The ornamental use of the hexagram continued in the Middle Ages, especially in Muslim and Christian countries. The kings of Navarre used it on their seals (10th and 11th centuries) and (like the pentagram) it was frequently employed on notarial signs in Spain, France, Denmark, and Germany, by Christian and Jewish notaries alike. Sometimes drawn with slightly curved lines, it appears in early Byzantine and many medieval European churches, as, for example, on a stone from an early church in Tiberias (preserved in the Municipal Museum) and on the entrance to the Cathedrals of Burgos, Valencia, and Lerida. Examples are also found on objects used in the church, sometimes in a slanted position; as on the marble bishop’s throne (c. 1266) in the Cathedral of Anagni. Probably in imitation of church usage – and certainly not as a specifically Jewish symbol – the hexagram is found on some synagogues from the later Middle Ages, for example, in Hamelin (Germany, c. 1280) and Budweis (Bohemia, probably 14th century). In Arab sources the hexagram, along with other geometrical ornaments, was widely used under the designation “seal of Solomon,” a term which was also taken over by many Jewish groups.’
‘The official use of the shield of David can be traced to Prague, from where it spread in the 17th and 18th centuries through Moravia and Austria and later to southern Germany and Holland. In 1354, Charles IV granted the Prague community the privilege of bearing its own flag – later called in documents “King David’s flag” – on which the hexagram was depicted. It therefore became an official emblem, probably chosen because of its significance as a symbol of the days of old when King David, as it were, wore it on his shield.’
Suvorov’s first book The Liberators portrayed the Soviet army that he knew so well as perma-inebriated. disorganized and poorly motivated peasants led by arrogantly mediocre at best officers. Some German Cold War generals believed in view of the low quality troops a Soviet 5:1 superity would not be enough especially as they had rigid comand and control methods. Many more observers in the 80’s thought a Soviet conventional offensive would end in a massive traffic jam as the Soviets tank divisions’ vast logistical tail would become gridlocks in what was by then a highly built up North West European Plain. Away, Suvorov’s book did little to bolster the idea of a threat of the USSR attempting to use its–on paper– decisive superiority , and did not go down well with either with his new paymasters or the militaria readers. Changing tack, he started writing about a Soviet war machine, which was not only King Kong in terms of the quantity of armaments, but also a true master of Machiavellian manipulation and behind the lines operations including proxy terrorism and strategic assassination’s to soften up the West before the hostilities officially began by swarms of absolutely sober soldiers of Olympic athleticism who knew no fear:
Traitor-with-a-hero’s name-as-pseudonym Suvorov’s thesis that Stalin was about to attack the world’s most professionally skilled and formidably cohesive army, battle hardened and at full strength shows how deluded he became about the martial virtues of his country the longer he was out of it. Unless the bulk of the German army was fighting in Britain after a cross channel invasion, for Stalin to decide in 1941 that rather than waiting for America entering the war and the Germany army having seven bells knocked out of it, this was the moment to take on the Reich panzers and 88mm guns that had made mincemeat of the French is extremely dubious. Quite apart from the materiale, manpower and interior lines of communication advantages, the Germans would be fighting to defend their own country actually in it, and as the allies found out when they entered Germany proper towards the end of the war, the enemy will make supplementary efforts on their own land.
One more thing, Suvorov stole more than his name, his thesis in Icebreaker is appropriated and adapted from the Austrian Professor Ernst Topitsch’s Stalin’s War. I have read the English language version, which had a new forward which the prof aspersed Reznun for the plagiarism. I don’t agree with Topitsch’s ideas, but it is at least conceivable that Stalin might have thought the space and weather of Russia would defeat Hitler as it had Napoleon (although the vast majority of Napoleon’s army died from typhus while on the summer march to Moscow). Hitler drawn into attacking by Stalin confident of winning on his own ground with the advantages of short lines of communication and general winter is only tenable if you think Stalin in the aftermath of 1940’s awesome blitzkrieg, Stalin did not think the Germans could possibly have counterattacked and won.
As I said, the extent of food requisitions was obviously too small to account for famine if not for the food shortage caused by natural disaster. Ukrainian nationalism was never a primary worry of Stalin’s. The political movements such as OUN were based on West Ukraine, which was part of Poland at the time. When WWII came the OUN didn’t manage to win very much support in east Ukraine. The myth that Stalin tried to create a famine in order to break Ukrainian nationalism was just part of later Cold War propaganda.
It should also be noted that, despite the crop failure of 1932, the longer trend did show that agricultural production did improve because of collectivization. Likewise, agricultural production fell in both Russia and Ukraine after 1991. The collective farms as such were not a bad idea in themselves, although the way they were pushed through was reckless in 1928-31. However the later famine of 1932-3 is a more complicated phenomenon than is allowed for by Cold War authors.
Quite obviously there is no reason to think that Kolchak, Wrangel Semyonov or any of the White leaders would gave done a better job. But I’ll readily agree that it would have been better if Stalin’s opponents within the party (Trotsky, Bukharin et al) had not so badly underestimated him. Although it’s not clear what part of the famine if any could have been avoided with or without collectivization (the evidence of rustic plant disease is not something to be brushed off as caused by collectivization), but I can agree that it would have been better if a unified opposition had existed in the party. That wouldn’t have guaranteed an avoidance of the actual crisis of crop failure, but it might have enabled a more cool-headed assessment of the problems.
Like I said in response to another poster above, the original motive for Stalin’s decision in favor forcing collectivization through rapidly was that he wanted to unseat Bukharin and Trotsky. Having hewed to the Right of the party while aligned with Bukharin until Trotsky was exiled, Stalin then shifted in 1928 to a far Left stance in order to attack Bukharin while upstaging Trotsky (who thought that collectivization of agriculture would have to wait until after industrialization). This was not a carefully planned policy, but still it did not involve any intent of creating a famine in 1933.
Read the works of David Stahel and John Mosier. Stalin was sending out peace feelers in early October. The Russians were on the ropes and Stalin was scared.
You say you have read “Stalin’s War” by Ernst Topitsch, and that Suvorov stole Topitsch’s thesis in this book. Have you taken the time to read Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit”?
I’ll admit I haven’t read Topitsch’s 1987 book, which based on the Amazon summary does seem to cover some of the same ground as Suvorov’s analysis. But you should be aware that Suvorov had first presented his theories in a 1985 article in The Journal of the Royal United Services Institute. Without reading that original article or Topitsch’s book, I can’t take a conclusive position on the plagiarism accusation, but it seems very doubtful to me.
Given Suvorov’s fanatic ideological foes and the very high profile of his theories in the German-language world, if credible accusations of plagiarism could have been used to discredit him, they surely would have been made decades ago.
That’s exactly the reason I feel confident that 99.8% of everything in Irving is correct. His bitter enemies deployed $13 million and 40 researchers to find and highlight every single mistake he ever made.
While it can be interesting to go over old documents in which this or that ambassador is on a rant, nothing in there has much bearing on the actual causes of war in 1939. The one thing which may be worth addressing (as it might almost appear to offer an argument) is when they cite Roosevelt’s note to Bullitt commenting that the US would not be able to aid the Allies in a potential future war with Germany if Hitler was allowed to attack Poland. Yes, and so what?
Roosevelt was just honestly describing the political context. If it had happened that Hitler attacked Poland, and if the Allies had taken no action over this, and if subsequently a year or so later a new war had developed between the Allies and Hitler, then it is absolutely certain that isolationists like Lindbergh would have argued that the US should not involve itself in the war and to make this argument they would have cited the earlier failure of the Allies to act over Poland. The fact that Roosevelt told Bullitt to make this clear to the Allies does not imply that Roosevelt was the cause of the crisis over Hitler’s attack on Poland. It simply shows that Roosevelt was giving the leaders of these countries an honest description of the US political context.
From the way that some people ramble about things like this you would think that Roosevelt was a dictator ala Hitler or Stalin. While critics sometimes accused him of wanting to be such, the fact is that he had never had such power. Roosevelt was just telling the straight truth when he said that he could not guarantee any future aid to Britain and France if they passed on Poland now and then wanted aid later in a war with Germany over something else. To call this evidence of Roosevelt’s great conspiracy to create war in Europe is laughable. Go back and read the documents where Hitler notes Danzig is not the issue and that living space is the matter at hand in the conflict with Poland. Get yourself Volume 3 of the Max Domarus series for that and related material. Roosevelt did nothing to cause this crisis. It was all on Hitler.
Oh sure. I didn’t want to stray off topic too much with the American Famine of the 1930s—just to counter some of the silly narrative about how Stalin ‘starved millions’—while all the pesants loved him.
But consider this:
Africa to the rescue for starving Americana—at least symbolically.
BUT… a famine does not actually mean people starving to death. It simply means people don’t get enough to eat. That causes things like premature death, infant mortality etc. The population as a whole is affected. I have already given here undisputable numbers from the US Census Bureau that show a population shortfall of 10 million in the 1930s.
Those figures are not in any kind of dispute.
This topic seems to be a hot-button issue for Unz, who has attacked me viciously here. Again, I don’t want to derail the topic of conversation, which is the laughable notion that the Nazis bear no guilt for starting an illegal war of aggression in which they destroyed millions of white people of the Slavic race.
Amen and thanks God.
Stalin was the beast and Hitler was holy sacrificial lamb.
I like to make everybody happy.
I have Topitsch’s Stalins Krieg, ed.1985, and have also looked at the 1987 English version of it, which contains a postscript, briefly discussing Suvorov.
There are no accusations of plagiarism, in fact, Topitsch specifically praises Suvorovs articles, mentioned by you, as having made a great contribution to the understanding of the Soviet military deployments.
So it seems to me that the neoconservative activist, “Sean”, is LYING.
Menorah as a symbol of faithfulness was adopted by Jews after Maccabees brother uprising against Greek rule.
Rezun and Topitsch actually take different approaches, despite some similarities in the underlying ideas. There’s no reason to believe that Rezun was plagiarizing off of Topitsch. I first had read Rezun’s Icebreaker, then later on Topitsch, Stalin’s War. Despite some commonalities, there was no reason to suspect plagiarism from either end.
Although I had originally started by looking at reviews which assessed Rezun from a purely military perspective such as this one:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160702210306/english.battlefield.ru/analytics/132-failed-historian.html
I found from reading carefully through the Rezun, Topitsch books that their biggest fallacy was always at the level of political analysis. The errors about military data which Rezun made in his early books may have been partly corrected in a more recent book. But the real basic lie is that he projects Hitler’s arrogance onto Stalin drawing up a political profile which doesn’t match. Instead of presenting Stalin as a cagey politician who now how to stand back and let his rivals fight it out while preparing to move in as the peace-maker after the fight and consolidating power in his hands, we get a profile of Stalin as a reckless moron who would have challenged Churchill, Roosevelt and Hirohito to stop him from eating up Eurasia. That is not Stalin at all.
In the original German edition, it was Topitsch’s 1985 book, he was of course complaining in the later English language edition about ‘Suvorov’ plagiarizing something that had already been published. Professor Rolf-Dieter Müller mentioned the 1985 date of publication his Hitler’s War in the East 1941−1945: A Critical Assessment. Even if that is a typo, he makes a point of noting the priority of Topitsch. Perhaps the top historian of the WW2 German military campaigns, Müller says Topitsch and his imitators were wide of the mark, as research by Pietrow has shown
I think the context of 1985 is important inasmuch there was a Soviet preponderance that led many to worry about them launching a ‘standing start’ surprise attack . Suvorov was responsible for the myth that swarms of highly trained GRU infiltrators (spetsnaz) would attack key Nato bases before hostilities, and he was taken very seriously about the Soviets having huge numbers of special forces. So there was a market for historical parallels with a Soviet plan to take the West by surprise.
The German ambassador in Moscow warned Stalin that Hitler was going to attack. Soviet intelligence had excellent sources (What Stalin Knew p.76.) Stalin thought capitalist powers would turn on each other in line with communist theory. Those Soviet intelligence officers foolish enough to tell him different were marked for death. The top ranking one warned of an impending attack and was dismissed; he was arrested after the invasion and then shot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Proskurov
Some people play Dumb in an intelligent, crafty way, others don’t,
I don’t really know about those games you mention as I have never tried to take lightly such serious matters. In any case I am done here as I have no reason to give this crazy “theory” any more thought, not that I have it given it much anyway. This is the kind of wacky contraption without any hold on reality which I can easily dismiss with a shrug of shoulders, very early in the discussion. Like, say, the one which says that the same people who can’t even put a rat on an Earth orbit in 2021 were sending tens of people to the Moon half a century ago, like to a Mediterranean tour or that “America” is engaged in promoting and protecting democracy and human rights in the world. That kind of thing.
This is typical of many discussions at UR. You cannot refute my factual point, so you tell me to go read a book.
Stalin sent those three armies with 1000 tanks to attack Iran in late August 1941, not only to deny oil to the Germans, but also to open and secure the only all-weather supply route to the Soviet Union, the so-called Persian Corridor.
Stalin was planning on a long war, indeed counting on it, during which time the Soviet Union would get a lot of goodies from the United States via Lend Lease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor
Having learned the hard way about the difficulty of a land war in Asia, MacArthur privately warned Kennedy against Vietnam.
Stalin was planning on a long war, indeed counting on it, during which time the Soviet Union would get a lot of goodies from the United States via Lend Lease.
Right. Stalin just loved the prospect of spending still many years sending precious Soviet gold to the West to get equipment and supplies that would promptly disappear as water on the desert sands anyway, he couldn’t wait for the war to drag on forever…!
You write: “Roosevelt did nothing to cause this crisis. It was all on Hitler.”
My response: I don’t agree with your statement. If you have an interest, I have written three articles on how Roosevelt helped get the United States into World War II:
1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6450
2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/4/7534
3. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4882.
I don’t even know what your “factual point” is. I’m well aware of the history of this region in World War II. Some date the start of the Cold War to Stalin’s moves here in 1946.
Speaking of books, have you read Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit? He’s fucking bat-shit crazy. McMeekin (an actual historian) is right to give his “thesis” short shrift. McMeekin’s Stalin’s War is an outstanding work.
And I find it amusing that Laurence Guyenot only heard about Suvorov in 2018 and feels qualified to write about Barbarossa. How did he miss this.
I was told of Icebreaker circa 1993 in a Defense Studies course I was taking by an East German professor whose story is as interesting as Suvorov’s. I read that and Inside the Aquarium a quarter of century ago.
My only criticism of McMeekin is he uses a watered down version of Suvorov’s straw man in his introduction as an aim of the book.
It is a straw man because nobody believes Stalin was a savior except for The Saker and Andrei Martyanov. Read any decent biography of Stalin written in the last 50 years.
It never ceases to amaze me that every proponent of Suvorov on UNZ is an overt Hitler apologist and they ignore the 98% of the rest of these books that contradict their entire world views.
This is a horrible review of McMeekin’s history. It is more like a resentment that Suvorov’s delusional narrative isn’t taken as seriously. Which in itself is delusional. But if that weren’t the case here at conspiracy-theory, sorry…”thesis” -central I’d think something was wrong.
And, no, AJP Taylor said nothing of the sort that Guyenot claims. Read Taylor’s Origins while you are at it.
Where have you been?
Absolutely true about the Pol-Am and German -Am cultural clubs. Glad you brought it up and it’s gratifying to know that someone is aware of it. So many facts of that era contradict the Allied propaganda, that is even used in many so-called authoritative books written about WW2, even today.
Mr Wear, I read approximately 80% of your first chapter and found you do not make your case, with any creditable evidence. In fact, a large portion of the missive had little or nothing to do with why Hitler attack first. There was also extensive points that were miss leading or nonfactual.
Any reader would become suspect immediately, with your pronouncement that the CCCP had not only the best military in world but was the acme of combat equipment.
What is needed is more supporting evidence in forms of offense planning documents and high ranking officers corroborating your theory. Only a single general and a low ranking GPU officer, both with little or no access to top secret plans.
Let’s go directly to the first source himself.
http://der-fuehrer.org/meinkampf/english/Mein%20Kampf%20(Ford%20Translation).pdf
[444]
“State frontiers are made by men and changed by men. The fact that a nation successfully gains an immense territory does not establish a holy right to keep it for eternity. Gaining this territory only proves the might of the conquerors and the weakness of those who tolerate them. This strength alone establishes the right to keep the territory.”
[449]
“Therefore, 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.
Additionally, we must also consider the following.1. The present rulers of Russia have no intention of entering into a genuine alliance or of honoring itif they did. We must not forget that the rulers of present day Russia are bloodstained common criminals. We are dealing with the scum of humanity who used the conditions of a tragic hour to overrun a large state, kill and root out millions of its leading intellectuals in a wild thirst for blood, and now, for almost ten years, they have exercised the cruelest tyranny of all times.”
Not only did Hitler predict his own demise but showed his absolute disdain and contempt for Bolsheviks. There was no room for co-existence with Stalin and his gang of Communist vagabonds. The Polish Treaty was merely window dressing.
I don’t think Unz is a self-hating Jew. That is a term that is invented by Jews that want to diss other Jews that don’t agree with them. It’s basically meaningless.
Unz is is just one of these reactionary ideologists who want to explore the ideology of Nazism. This is not unusual in the Jewish community—-or in the historiographical research community. The burning question is how could an entire people, the Germans, come to hate Jews so much?
Of course, part of it was envy which always drives hate, where German Jews did have a lot of success. The same is true in America today, where many of the Unz commentariat lay the blame on the country’s decline on the prominent Jews in finance and media.
Unz is basically an indoctrinated American. he can’t escape that. He lacks perspective—which is a very dear commodity.
Do you know the reason why the Suvorov “thesis” is constantly referred to and praised here but nobody discusses the details of “The Chief Culprit” or quotes from it? I do.
You write: “Mr Wear, I read approximately 80% of your first chapter and found you do not make your case, with any creditable evidence.”
My response: I think your next step is to read all of “The Chief Culprit”. Suvorov makes a very convincing case that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive.
You write: “Any reader would become suspect immediately, with your pronouncement that the CCCP had not only the best military in world but was the acme of combat equipment.”
My response: If Stalin had been allowed to invade Europe, he would have had about 24,000 tanks in his initial invasion. This invasion could not have been stopped. I recommend you read the rest of my Chapter One of “Germany’s War”. On pages 55-56 of Chapter One of my book, I quote excerpts of Hitler’s speech on December 11, 1941, which explains why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
You quote Hitler as saying: “The present rulers of Russia have no intention of entering into a genuine alliance or of honoring it if they did. We must not forget that the rulers of present day Russia are bloodstained common criminals. We are dealing with the scum of humanity who used the conditions of a tragic hour to overrun a large state, kill and root out millions of its leading intellectuals in a wild thirst for blood, and now, for almost ten years, they have exercised the cruelest tyranny of all times….Therefore, 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.”
My response: I am familiar with these quotes from Mein Kampf. In fact, I use them in Chapter Four, page 165 of my book “Germany’s War”. I also explain why Hitler formed his alliance with the Soviet Union. You might want to read Chapter Four of my book for more information.
Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 because the Soviet Union was getting ready to launch a massive invasion of all of Europe. If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union, all of Europe would have been lost.
You write: “Not only did Hitler predict his own demise but showed his absolute disdain and contempt for Bolsheviks. There was no room for co-existence with Stalin and his gang of Communist vagabonds. The Polish Treaty was merely window dressing.”
My response: I explain why Hitler entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop in Chapter Four, page 166 of my book “Germany’s War”. My book is available on Ron Unz’s website.
It is more like a resentment that Suvorov’s delusional narrative isn’t taken as seriously. Which in itself is delusional.
I’d say that deep resentment is the twin brother of the present day resentment in pro-NATO imperial circles in the US and Europe that the wide world is not in any way outraged as they themselves say to be, by what the government of Belarus has just done and by the fact that most of us simply think that the NATO family has done far worse in the past–if what Belarus did was even bad after all.
BTW, why UNZ is not opening a thread on that subject..?
For starters I would just go with Suvorov’s claim that Stalin figured out between 1924 and 1927 that Hitler and the Nazis would rise to power.
He had Mein Kampf translated into Russian and predicted all the events that actually happened in the late 1930s in 1927. And so it was Stalin that supported him and orchestrated and manipulated elections in Germany in 1933 and was pulling the strings all the way until 1941.
And you know I’m not making that up.
Jus sayin
What a very odd claim! Obviously, McMeekin’s outstanding book covers the entire war period, but the couple of chapters dealing with Barbarossa and its antecedents conform almost exactly to the Suvorov Hypothesis, at least when compared to 99% of the other Western history books written about WWII.
Indeed, as I mentioned above, McMeekin’s very diligent archival research confirms a number of Suvorov’s most remarkable factual claims, including those that I myself had somewhat doubted.
The only reason McMeekin restricts his mention of Suvorov to just a single sentence is that Suvorov is still “radioactive” and too many mentions might have doomed McMeekin’s book or at least ensured that no one ever heard of it. It’s obviously much more important to promote the Suvorov Hypothesis into mainstream historiography than to name-drop its creator. I actually sent McMeekin a congratulatory note saying that after three decades he’d finally managed to bring Suvorov in from the cold, threading the needle in just the right fashion.
Everyone who spends any time on this website knows that you’re just some ignorant Neocon shill, but putting a flashing neon sign on your head announcing that fact just isn’t smart tactics.
Suvorov in “The Chief Culprit” writes that Stalin did support Hitler’s rise to power, and also helped Germany build up its military. At the bottom of page 22 of “The Chief Culprit”, Suvorov writes: “Stalin knew: if Hitler went to war against France and Britain, the question of lands in the east would fade on its own.” Stalin’s idea was that Germany, France and Britain would deplete their forces in a major war, and then the Soviet Union could easily conquer all of Europe.
Stalin did not know that Germany would quickly defeat France and drive Britain off of the European continent. Suvorov writes at the bottom of page 18 of his book: “Stalin prepared Germany for a second world war. Without Stalin’s help, Germany could not arm itself and destroy Europe. Obviously, when arming Germany, Stalin was not planning that all this would be used against him.”
What speeches or proclamations of Hitler are you specifically referring to when you repeatedly mention Volume III of Domarus’ Hitler’s Speeches and Proclamations?
Are you referring to the English translation or the German original? The German version is subtitled “Commented on by a German Contemporary” (“Kommentiert von einem deutschen Zeitgenossen”), the English version says “Chronicle of a Dictatorship”. These subtitles suggest a similar diction to yours.
Of course Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev (October 29, 1922 – May 10, 2006) has nothing to do with Grigory Yevseyevich Zinoviev (born Hirsch Apfelbaum, 23 September [O.S. 11 September] 1883 – 25 August 1936). James was talking about Grigory.
Arthur MacBride:
There are actually plenty of other interests, besides those of the Zionists/Organized Jewry, in preserving the official, but false, WW2 narrative, the holocaust propaganda included. Though, to be exact, there are several flavors of the official propaganda tailored to the interests of each specific country. The American, Brits, Anglos in general, French, Poles, Russians all wish to preserve their fraudulent WW2 narratives for a variety of reasons. And given that Germany ceased to be a sovereign country at the end of the war, this includes the German elites as well.
Since the article deals with the Stalinist regime responsibilities in the war, let’s focus on the case of modern Russia, to understand just how completely impossible it is to breach the wall of war propaganda in that country. The Russians defend their “great patriotic war” myths with the same alacrity and fanaticism as the Jews defend their holocaust religion…
As Russian historian Nikolay Koposov said:
Another Russian historian, B. Sokolov, states:
He was preparing to take advantage of a war between the capitalist powers and gain more than the bits of Finland and Romania he had already grabbed; yes, but that is quite a bit different from what Suvorov’s ‘original’ thesis was. Icebreaker suggests in 1941 Stalin possessed such overwhelmingly powerful forces that had Stalin attacked the German army would have been crushed, but Hitler hitting the Soviets completely reversed this. It was a defense against the charge of waging aggressive war that German generals faced in international trials, but in his Cold War era writings Suvorov was trying to build up an image of the Soviet Union as a state which amassed offensive capability that it kept secret so it could make a surprise attack. In later writings, Suvorov (and now McMeekin) have moved very close to Ernst Topitsch’s position and imply Stalin was so confident in the ability of the Soviet Union to defeat an invasion that he wasn’t worried about Hitler attacking; Stalin wanted a general war because he knew he would win territory in the end. Maybe this was a part of Stalin’s thinking, but if he thought that even a little bit he was wrong.
Following the Treaty of Rapallo 1922 Weimar Germany was the dominant party in the military component of its close cooperation with Soviet Russia. All the Soviet Union did was provide places where the German military could get away from prying Allied eyes and perfect the tactics of using mobile forces and aircraft. The Russians got help with forming a General Staff and access to German military technology. Guderian was a leading light of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_tank_school
The Weimar Soviet cooperation was from 1922–33, so it would be accurate to say that post WW1 the Germans built up the Soviet Union militarily. Stalin was extremely taken with German work discipline and planned to use Germans to raise the level of the Russian population if things devopered to as he hoped and permitted a walkover Suvorov as a Russian wants to believe that his people were a lot more capable than there is evidence for before, during or after WW2. McMeekin have never been a pro Russian, he thinks they started WW1 as well as WW2. While Russia /the Soviet Union was by no means innocent in either war there were other great powers in the mix. In his The Anglo American Establishment Quigley notes that Chamberlain’s willingness to cede Germany territory in Poland was aimed at facilitating a war between between the USSR and Germany by giving them a common border.
When Stalin and Hitler formed their pact, the foreign policy experts of England decided war was necessary and the guarantee of Polish independence was issued. Chamberlain was no different to Stalin’s bete noire Churchill and the British Foreign Office in regarding the Soviet Union rather than Nazi Germany as the main problem, and the Soviets being allied with Germany was what made peace with Germany unacceptable. Indeed, Quigley notes that Chamberlain attempted to combine a declared war but unfought war with Nazi Germany with an undeclared but actually fought war with the Soviet Union on the pretext of helping Finland in the Winter War with Stalin. The United Kingdom and France were well forward with preparations for sending an expeditionary force to Finland against the Soviet Union during the Winter War, which started on 30 November 1939.
I think only emphasising the harm they did to Slavs and how evil they were in general is not of great concern to Nazi residues. These genocidal inclinations are in their core ideology. The most important fact about Nazis and their still living residues is that theirs is an ideology of losers, mediocre half-cooked bullshit that can only convince the stupidest and weakest of white people. I believe the Nazis are the biggest losers of all of history. Has there been any other greater defeat in history than the defeat suffered by Germany 1943-1945? Perhaps Japan 1942-1945? To this day Germany (and Japan) is a nation of eunuchs, totally tamed and neutered.
The other aspect about the Nazis that I find disgusting, apart from their weakness and being such pathetic losers, is their convoluted parafernalia, their massive shows of obedience, their marching with torches like freaking orcs, their colorful symbology, their ridiculous fashion, their strident speeches, the theatrics, it is like suddenly the Germans became tropical chieftains with panzer brigades. Can they not be more circumspect? Why so much marching with torches? Why blindly following an Austrain corporal as Supreme Leader? Could they not find someone more worthy?
I think this thesis of 1941 German invasion of Soviet Union being some sort of pre emptive attack against a coming Soviet invasion of Europe has been around for far longer than 1985.
For example on the wikipedia page of German historian Andreas Hillgruber, we read:
“…Hillgruber’s writings on the Soviet Union show certain constancies as well as changes over the years. He always argued that the Soviet Union was a brutal, expansionary, totalitarian power, in many ways similar to Nazi Germany.
But, on the other hand, he argued that Moscow’s foreign policy was conducted in a way that was rational and realistic, while the foreign policy of Berlin during the Nazi era was completely irrational and unrealistic.
The turning point in Hillgruber’s attitude came in 1953-1954 when he was involved in a debate with Gerhard Weinberg and Hans Rothfels on the pages of the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte.
Together with Hans-Günther Seraphim, Hillgruber had argued that Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, had been a “preventive war”, forced on Hitler to prevent an imminent Soviet attack on Germany.
So effectively did Weinberg and Rothfels demolish Hillgruber’s arguments that he repudiated his previous views…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Hillgruber
Six pointed symbols certainly belong to the Basque tradition. By the way, the kingdom of Navarre (one with seal of Solomon in seal) once ruled parts of Basques land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilarri
Lauburu is the European swastika. Curious that it is not a common knowledge. Maybe because it would disclose that swastika is not the symbol of Aryans, but actually of their opponents…?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauburu
Hitler met with Franco on 23.X.1940 in Hendaye. 23 is one of the favourite numbers of freemasons (the number of the future world as it is the first non-existent chapter of St John Revelation), on 23.12. Federal Reserve was Born. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed on 23.08.1939, the day Poland was to be attacked initially.
USSR was attacked on 22.08 – pretty close to 23.08, but maybe the numerological trace started to be suspicious to some and needed to be obfuscated a bit.
Hendaye itself is of great occult significance due to the famous Hendaye cross, allegedly representing the turning of zodiacal ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Cross_of_Hendaye
Hitler was an astrology buff, so he probably didn’t choose Hendaye by accident.
All this This discussion is pointless and worthless. So even if the side of Hitlers apologist would win
(in eternal time) it still does does not mean (and worth) anything. Russia is not a France.
Hitler did win one battle and French folded like toilet paper. Russians would keep fighting.
Napoleon did experienced that. Russians would keep fighting until last able body man. Even if Germans would take all three large cities, Russians would keep fighting. Russia is huge country and Germans could not ocupie Russia forever.
…………………………………………………………..
So discussion should be about what was Hitler thinking.? What was his plan to do with Russia?
Corrigendum:
Germany obviously attacked USSR on 22.06, not on 22.08.
Sorry for a typo.
Now something you can’t make: swastika and the seal of Solomon TOGETHER, as they rightly belong together (to those in the know).
The flag of the Basque Nationalist Action:
The German nation was a peaceful collection of numerous princely states, and got marched over by foreign armies especially the French. For centuries Germans were surrounded by enemies who used it as the venue for their quarrels. Then Germany united and gave them a taste of their own medicine. Ideology may be important for domestic matters, but externally it is irrelevant to how states–democratic or otherwise–behave, which is always geopolitical dog eat dog.
The Thirty Years War. The Reformation is where Germany went wrong according to Hitler, who was brought up as a Catholic got his movement off the ground in heavily Catholic Bavaria, and scandalized the far right by his willingness to compromise with the Church.
The idea that Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was aimed at pushing Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union was first argued by the American historian Frederick L. Schuman in 1938.
He published a book in 1939 flashing out his thesis:
Europe on the eve
https://archive.org/details/europeoneve0000schu
Of course this line was the standard political line of the USSR as well.
In 1948 USSR published a pamphlet on this topic:
Falsifiers of History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiers_of_History
Since then many books have been published on this thesis including:
In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion
The Munich Conspiracy
https://archive.org/details/TheMunichConspiracy
The most accurate account in my view remains Carroll Quigley’s chapters of the topic in his book Tragedy and Hope.
Correspondent: What is the significance of the Treaty of Non-Aggression Between the Soviet Union and Germany?
Mao Tse-tung: The Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the growing socialist strength of the Soviet Union and the policy of peace persistently followed by the Soviet government.
The treaty has shattered the intrigues by which the reactionary international bourgeoisie represented by Chamberlain and Daladier sought to instigate a Soviet-German war, has broken the encirclement of the Soviet Union by the German-Italian-Japanese anti-Communist bloc, strengthened peace between the Soviet Union and Germany, and safeguarded the progress of socialist construction in the Soviet Union.
In the East it deals a blow to Japan and helps China; it strengthens the position of China’s forces of resistance to Japan and deals a blow to the capitulators. All this provides a basis for helping the people throughout the world to win freedom and liberation. Such is the full political significance of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty.
Question: Some people do not realize yet that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks, but think that the Soviet-German treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please explain why the Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?
Answer: The talks failed purely because the British and French governments were insincere. In recent years the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and primarily that of Britain and France, have consistently pursued the reactionary policy of “non-intervention” towards aggression by fascist Germany, Italy and Japan.
Their purpose is to connive at wars of aggression and to profit by them.
Thus Britain and France flatly rejected the Soviet Union’s repeated proposals for a genuine front against aggression; standing on the side-lines, they took a “non-interventionist” position and connived at German, Italian and Japanese aggression.
Their aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had worn each other out.
In pursuit of this reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and Germany.
Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet Union. This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost patience. But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states, so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack, and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist International and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty.
The policy of “non-intervention” pursued by international and primarily Anglo-French reaction is a policy of “sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight”, a downright imperialist policy of profiting at others’ expense.
This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
From now on the situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and the German-Italian bloc. As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our Party, “The inevitable result of Chamberlain’s policy will be like ‘lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own toes’.” Chamberlain started with the aim of injuring others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law of development which governs all reactionary policies…
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm
In the anglo saxon world, this thesis is extremely unpopular and mostly dismissed as Soviet propaganda and no one really cares about it although it is the truth in my view.
Rezun is a defector and there is a well known tendency for them to get more and more wild in their stories the longer they are in the West in an attempt to stay relevant. There are always those willing to believe r the Russian’s are ten feet tall. For instance, Angleton was fooled by Golitsyn’s outlandish speculations.
Topitsch portrayed Stalin as a master manipulator and warlord, and McMeakin has come to agree. I am not convinced. For me, Stalin’s rise had more to do with Lenin’s naivety and concern over how Jewish the regieme was starting to look. Fighting at the gates to Moscow mere weeks after Hitler crossed the border hardly and only being saved by the a Japan decision not to intervene hardly suggests Stalin was an effective leader of Russia. Nor did his habit of shooting anyone who gave him accurate intelligence he didn’t like, which meant he was comically surprised by Barbarossa.
In late 1932 Hitler gave the New York American an interview in which he proposed a collective undertaking of the advanced European countries to stop transferring technology to India and China . Hitler said the Western economies would be destroyed if those backward states became industrialised. Germany is currently selling vast amount of capital goods to China. Hitler made a mistake in excluding Ernst Hanfstaengl, he was a valuable advisor on America.
I was talking about the Nazis, not about the German nation in general. The Germans can be quite peaceful, as witnessed by their docility since 1945.
The 30 yrs war, did it lead to the a situation where Germany had foreing military bases inside her territory for over 70 yrs?
German army units were half way to Moscow, and Russian trains loaded with anthracite and iron ore
were still going to Germany.
…………………………………………………
Doesn’t that logically defy all Rezen idiotic theories?
Politicians and Military brass of every country love to discuss (corresponding also) all kind of scenarios and response to every possibility, But history would be very pathetic if historians would take those discussions as a fact. That would be totally false History.
Putin recently wrote an article about WW2:
Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it.
—Vladimir Putin; 75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future
There is a thread on Karlin’s blog.
This guy is literally saying “Please don’t look at old documents [i.e. primary sources] — look at the current version of The Narrative only!”
Because looking at the actual evidence that narrative is based upon would only “confuse” people, apparently. Obvious bad faith is obvious. He clearly doesn’t believe what he’s saying — why should he expect anyone else to?
This is the same guy that tried to tell me that FDR would never have deliberately allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor — because WW1-era battleships had magical time-traveling, rubber-raiding capabilities that made them absolutely indispensable to his plans.
I’ve already referred on this board to the places where Hitler’s memos describe his aim of colonizing Poland for living space and turning the Poles into simple laborers. I won’t repeat everything here. Just go read the stuff yourself. Hitler’s aims in conquering Poland had nothing to do with Roosevelt.
What a liar you are. I’ve pointed out that if one actually reads the old documents which are assemnled by Max Domarus then one easily runs across the evidence that Hitler’s motives in crushing Poland had nothing to do with Danzig. Go actually read the stuff yourself. Your problem is that you don’t actually read any old documents except propaganda put out by Goebbels which promotes fake stories like the 58,000 attributed to the massacre which was triggered off by Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
You’re own choice of words there is a very clever example of bait-and-switch propaganda. Here you tell us that “Roosevelt helped get the United States into World War II.” Now I don’t know of a single historian who would dispute that. Many of the most pro-FDR historians anywhere on record will gladly agree with that much. I don’t myself subscribe to any such cult of Roosevelt the way Ronald Reagan did (“he was a great war leader” in the Gipper’s words). But if this was the only argument one had to make there would be nothing to dispute.
Rather the issue is that Roosevelt had nothing to do with creating the crisis over Poland which was born out of Hitler’s drive to the east for living space. Likewise Roosevelt did not create the conundrum which faced Britain and France, he simply gave these countries an honest statement of what he could and could not do. Hitler’s choice to occupy the remnants of Czechoslovakia after he earlier signed the Munich Agreement placed Britain and France in a tight spot. No Polish government could ever allow itself to accept an agreement over Danzig that similar to Munich, after seeing how Hitler tore up the latter. So if Britain and France were to retain credibility as allies in the future they would have to be ready to support the Poles in a rejection of Hitler’s claims on Danzig. If they did not then Roosevelt would not be able to easily persuade the US public in any future confrontation that the US should support the Allies, and Roosevelt made that clear. But the outbreak of war in 1939 was because of Hitler pushing demands, not because of anything Roosevelt did.
Putin is giving Stalin too much credit for what was foolhardiness. It was Chamberlain’s stratagem to remove the buffer state of Poland from between Germany and the Soviet Union. Stalin chose to do it, and incurred catastrophic losses en route to a confrontation with the West. I think the mistake was due to Stalin being used to dealing with party members from an unchallengeable position; he had not pulled himself up by his bootstraps, but rather hit the jackpot courtesy of Lenin who unwittingly put him into the key position of appointing Party representatives all over the USSR, as a consequence they regarded Stalin as their patron and backed him. Thereafter, Stalin had free run and eliminated anyone who tried to come to the front and be a potential rival figure. Imperial Russian Army general’s daughter Alexandria Kollontai was the only one of the original Bolshevik committee apart from Stalin who was not dead or in exile and she was ambassador to Sweden.
Any minion who expressed opposing viewpoints to Stalin on any matter, even after ostensible being invited to comment, was signing his own death warrant. This was effective for boosting Stalin’s opinion of his own rightness, but was isolating himself from further expression of dissent from his viewpoints by anyone who did not want to have a sudden ending a la Proskurov. While Stalin was a cat among mice his methods served him well. However in 1939 he was dealing with Germany’s Cesare Borgia. A false sense of certainty misled Stalin, but he only had himself to blame.
Stalin thought that Hitler would go West and become bogged down in a bloody stalemate. which would eventually give the Soviet Union an opportunity to catch an enervated Germany with its pants down. It can be argued that Stalin had the measure of Hitler, but underestimated the German army’s fighting power, without which Hitler’s Machiavellianism would not have mattered very much. Although leading a country that had been backward for half a millennium, Stalin was a Marxist who believed Soviet society was specially advanced and a lot more capable in every way than it actually was. Germany had always been a cutting edge country in culture and science, not drunken wife beaters. It was not ideology or malevolence that enabled them to excel in military science. As evidenced by the dearth of excess deaths during the pandemic, Germans are a remarkably productive and thorough people. As a result their performance tends to be … really quite good.
What a silly propagandist you are.
Court historian Richard Overy, “1939: Countdown to War” – 2009
British historian A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War
It’s worth noting the inconsistencies which crop up between this
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6807
and other items which you list above. In the one which I’ve listed here we’re told that Harry Dexter White was the master conspirator who wrote the Hull Note of November 26, 1941, and discarded a possible modus vivendi. Yet in the links which you give above we are told that Roosevelt was scheming for war with Japan as early as March 1941. There’s obviously a contradiction between these 2 pieces of writing. If Roosevelt was really scheming for war in March, then there’s no reason to think that a modus vivendi was narrowly averted in November through the underhanded scheming of White. So which is it?
Realistically, Roosevelt, Hull, Stimson, Marshall were obviously aiming to bring the US into the war early on. They did not need White to egg them on to this. As far as the alleged modus vivendi with Japan was concerned, both Britain (Winston Churchill) and China (Chiang Kai-Shek) were strongly opposed to it. So it’s not as if White was some solitary agent trying to nix the modus vivendi in favor of the Hull Note behind everyone’s back the way that John Koster implies in the passage quoted (“White, acting under orders of Soviet intelligence, pulled the strings”). White did not have to pull any strings to advocate a hard line against Japan. So way imply that he did?
From comparing the 2 very different sounding pieces which you’ve put together this sounds like an other effort to inflate the influence of Soviet agents like White in order to dodge the awkward implications of the Rezun-scenario. Whenever the Rezun-script is honestly diagnosed it becomes obvious that doing something as foolish as what Rezun claims (invaded Europe in July 1939 with the intent of conquering and Sovietizing the whole continent) would simply have resulted in Allied war against the USSR. There probably never have been any Hull Note. Instead Japan would have followed its alliance with Germany by going to war against the USSR. If Stalin achieved a rapid victory over Hitler (as Rezun asserts he would have) then Churchill would have started promptly demanding a Soviet withdrawal from Europe. In no time at all there likely a Tokyo-London-Washington alliance against Moscow. If not that, then certainly an Allied war against the USSR with perhaps a parallel war between the Allies and Japan.
Stalin would certainly never have done anything this stupidly reckless. But the argument which Rezunists seem to want to use is that Soviet agents like White or Lauchlin Currie were so pervasively influential in the US and UK that they could have neutralized any Allied response to Stalin in a Rezun scenario. That’s absurd, but it seems to be the only point of exaggerating White’s influence as if he were the cause of the Hull Note.
If you want the truth, and the all truth about Historical documents, You must see the movie
“Galaxy Quest” That movie was made especially for you and likes like you.
Enjoy the movie!!!!
In regard to why Hitler invaded Poland, you might want to read my article at https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391. Hitler’s invasion of Poland was not about his desire for living space.
I’ll go back to Hitler’s own recorded statements:
“It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East…”
— From the memorandum recorded by Lt. Col. Schmidt on May 23 in the New Reich Chancellery.
I’m not going to bother typing out a whole historical document here. One can find it easily enough in Volume 3 of the Domarus series. An actual reading of Hitler’s own records makes clear that expansion of living space was always his prime aim. This is what led to his October 2 conference with Bormann, Frank and Schirach in the Reich Chancellery:
“Once more the Fuehrer underlined that there must be but one master for the Poles, and this is the German: two masters could not and must not exist next to each other, hence all representatives of the Polish intelligentsia are to be killed. This may sound harsh, but it is the law of life.”
— From Bormann’s notes on Hitler’s exposition at the conference.
These were the types which motivated Hitler to conquer eastern Europe.
You write: “Realistically, Roosevelt, Hull, Stimson, Marshall were obviously aiming to bring the US into the war early on. They did not need White to egg them on to this.”
My response: I agree with you that FDR and his administration did everything they could to bring the United States into World War II. The Roosevelt administration probably would have gotten the United States into war if Harry Dexter White had never lived. FDR’s shoot-on-sight policy against German and Italian shipping, the leaking of the Rainbow Five Plan, and his economic sanctions against Japan were all designed to bring about war with Germany and Japan.
Historian Harry Elmer Barnes summarizes President Roosevelt’s efforts to involve the United States in World War II:
“Roosevelt ‘lied the United States into war.’ He went as far as he dared in illegal efforts, such as convoying vessels carrying munitions, to provoke Germany and Italy to make war on the United States. Failing in this, he turned to a successful attempt to enter the War through the back door of Japan. He rejected repeated and sincere Japanese proposals that even Hull admitted protected all the vital interests of the United States in the Far East, by his economic strangulation in the summer of 1941 forced the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor, took steps to prevent the Pearl Harbor commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, from having their own decoding facilities to detect a Japanese attack, kept Short and Kimmel from receiving the decoded Japanese intercepts that Washington picked up and indicated that war might come at any moment, and ordered General Marshall and Admiral Stark not to send any warning to Short and Kimmel before noon on December 7th, when Roosevelt knew that any warning sent would be too late to avert the Japanese attack at 1:00 P.M., Washington time.”
Historian Klaus Fischer writes that Roosevelt implemented numerous actions in 1941 that prepared the United States to enter World War II:
“Roosevelt’s actions against both Germany and Japan were positively provocative, including the previously mentioned programs of cash and carry, lend-lease, neutrality zones, restoring conscription, increased defense appropriations, and secret war plans. In March 1941 Roosevelt informed the British that they could have their ships repaired in American docks, and that same month the president ordered the seizure of all Axis vessels in American ports. On April 10, Roosevelt extended the security zone all the way to the eastern coast of Greenland, negotiating the use of military bases on the island with a Danish official who did not have approval from his home government. If we add the various economic sanctions the president imposed on Japan, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Roosevelt was preparing the nation for war.”
However, I don’t agree with you that an attack by the Soviet Union against Europe would have gotten the United States into war. The American public was very much against the United States entering into another war in Europe (they had very bad feelings from the American entry into World War I). It took Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor for the American public to support war against Japan and Germany.
Nothing in there has any bearing on what I had pointed. Overy correctly mentions that the old idea (popular during the war) that Hitler had started World War II in a bid to conquer a vast world empire is not accepted by anyone today. As I’ve said on this board already, Hitler was more of a gambler than a conspirator. He did not follow tightly fixed plans but was ready to maneuver in an off-the-cuff. World War II broke out from reckless moves, not a plan to start a world war.
Hitler had always placed a drive to the east for living space at the heart of his aims, with Russia as the main target. If Poland had agreed to join Hitler in a partnership against the USSR he would have treated Poland as a client state, instead of directly targeting it for conquest as part of the living space agenda. But the Poles refused to join Hitler in his drive to the east. So Hitler dug up Danzig. Yes, there were Germans in Tyrol who Hitler wrote off as part of an agreement with Mussolini. If historical circumstances with Poland had been different then Hitler might easily have written off Danzig in the same way. But Poland’s refusal to join an alliance against Russia meant that Hitler was committed to targeting Poland for much more than Danzig.
Nothing that is anywhere said by Overy or Taylor contradicts this. With Taylor especially one must be aware that when he was writing it was common for people to assume that Hitler had entered the Chancellery in 1933 with the intent of starting a general world war a few years later. Taylor therefore spent a great deal of energy elaborating on the idea that Hitler had not really planned the outbreak of a Second World War. But Taylor really does not go into the issue of how long would Hitler have tolerated an independent Polish state which refused to allow a German drive to the east for living space in Russia. Taylor’s only point is to elucidate that Hitler was not seeking to ignite a general war in the fall of 1939, which is absolutely true.
And he was correct. Russia was indeed a backward country during the Czarist era…it was very rich, probably the richest in Europe, but with a huge gap between the rich and poor, probably the worst in Europe. Let’s not forget that lots of Europeans migrated to Russia from various European backwaters, like the Nobels from backwater Sweden.
But Stalin quickly built the country up. Cities were built, so were universities, the country was electrified and agriculture mechanized, just as FDR was doing in the US. It was a huge transformation of living standards for ordinary folks that even modern China has not matched. To this day Russia, without the rest of the Soviet union still has more cities than the US of one million or more residents.
The purges and gulags were greatly exaggerated by US propagnadists like Conquest and Solzhenytsin. He did eliminate about 700 hundred thousand bad apples over his three decade reign, which he saw as a necessary measure. The gulag population was about the size of today’s current US prison population—many of them ordinary criminals of course.
Hard science was a particular emphasis in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Russia quickly eclipsed Germany in scientific achievement, including the first man in space, just a mere 15 years after the devastation of the war.
I can say from first-hand experience that the Russian university system is unmatched in the world when it comes to hard science. although it has slipped quite a bit from the communist era.
but underestimated the German army’s fighting power
Not to mention that most people thought that the French Military would be more competent than it turned out to be.
Don’t doubt FDR saw WW2 coming (‘German American Bund’ meetings from 1936). Don’t doubt FDR aided the UK prior to 11 Dec 1941. But as a belligerent? Nuance is everything in international law.
Only matters if you win, of course. Germany didn’t.
Explain 29 Nov 1941 – Reichminister Fritz Todt tells Hitler “this war can no longer be won by military means…[it] can only be ended politically”; he also warns Hitler of fatal danger if the United States becomes directly involved.
Hitler declares war on the US two weeks later 11 Dec 1941. Todt is killed (murdered?) 8 Feb 1942, Speer takes charge.
Explain that chain of events. Spare no words.
Someone whose personal hero was Frederick the Great and talked in Mein Kampf about the conquest of outer space had a long range will and vision; aspects of it entailed getting kinetic sooner or later. And that is true whatever AJP Taylor says, McMeekin is not needed to believe Stalin tried to make his country more secure through territorial expansion. You are splitting hairs about fixed plans for war and citing historians who did not have access to the archives of more recent historians like Biank Pietrow-Ennker and Brendan Simms. Hitler did have an objective that was fixed: giving Germany the basis to make it the equal of America, which required acquiring a virtually continental swath of territory. He knew this land would not be handed over willingly.
Hitler was quite open about his goal early in his political career, only later did he become more cautious about discussing his objectives. The Germans got a lot more than they bargained for with Hitler, because on his rise to power he cloaked his intentions in reasonable sounding rationales. Hitler had to convince Germany and its generals (who knew the array of countries Germany had ended up losing to in the last war), so of course he had explanations that made it seem he was merely intent on restoring Germany’s preWW1 position plus a bit more to make it secure against the Soviet Union. An extremely risky series of campaigns ending with an all out conflict against the worlds largest country on a second front in furtherance of a new Greater German Reich that could attract German Americans back to the Reich, was not something that would have have had much appeal if he had been honest about it well beforehand.
I asked for details of specific speeches or proclamtions you are referring to. If you read them, you’ll know which ones they were with date, title and occasion they were given. I don’t have the Domarus book, but I might able to find the speech(es) and proclamation(s) if I know which one(s) to look for. Your reference is “Volume 3 of Domarus”.
Also: Do you refer to the German (original) version or an English translation? Are you fluent in German?
I would like to read these speeches myself, and the fact that you are so fondly bringing up the “living space’ topic is in itself interesting, interesting enough that I’d like to know whether Hitler might have spoken of German living space, taken by Poland in a time when Germany could not prevent it in the years after the Armistice in 1918. The territories taken by the Poles were considered Germany’s bread basket up to then.
Therefore:
Title and date of speeches, please!
You have two quotes which are supposed to prove everything. I will give you some more information to read:
1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/2/7278. This gives you the historical background to the Munich Agreement.
2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/4/7463. This shows how Great Britain used the dissolution of Czechoslovakia to promote war against Germany.
In regard to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, Hitler invaded Poland to stop the atrocities being committed against the German minority in Poland. This is not Nazi propaganda, but events witnessed by independent neutral parties.
The following are examples of what I am talking about:
1. Donald Day, a Chicago Tribune correspondent, reported on the atrocious treatment the Poles had meted out to the ethnic Germans in Poland:
“…I traveled up to the Polish corridor where the German authorities permitted me to interview the German refugees from many Polish cities and towns. The story was the same. Mass arrests and long marches along roads toward the interior of Poland. The railroads were crowded with troop movements. Those who fell by the wayside were shot. The Polish authorities seemed to have gone mad. I have been questioning people all my life and I think I know how to make deductions from the exaggerated stories told by people who have passed through harrowing personal experiences. But even with generous allowance, the situation was plenty bad. To me the war seemed only a question of hours.” Source: Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, Newport Beach, CA: The Noontide Press, 2002, p. 56.
2. W. L. White, an American journalist, later recalled that there was no doubt among well-informed people by the summer of 1939 that horrible atrocities were being inflicted every day on the Germans of Poland. Source: Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 554.
3. On August 25, 1939, British Ambassador Nevile Henderson reported to Halifax the latest Polish atrocity at Bielitz, Upper Silesia. Henderson never relied on official German statements concerning these incidents, but instead based his reports on information he had received from neutral sources. The Poles continued to forcibly deport the Germans of that area, and compelled them to march into the interior of Poland. Eight Germans were murdered and many more were injured during one of these actions.
Hitler was faced with a terrible dilemma. If Hitler did nothing, the Germans of Poland and Danzig would be abandoned to the cruelty and violence of a hostile Poland. If Hitler took effective action against the Poles, the British and French might declare war against Germany. Henderson feared that the Bielitz atrocity would be the final straw to prompt Hitler to invade Poland. Henderson, who strongly desired peace with Germany, deplored the failure of the British government to exercise restraint over the Polish authorities. Source: Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 509.
There is much more I could write, but this is enough for now. I suggest you research this subject in more detail.
I wrote the following article explaining why Hitler declared war on the United States:
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4882.
Wow. Thank you, Ron. I appreciate it. This has been a good week for me all around but I didn’t think Johnny Rico was gonna hit the mark with that one.
Getting the Neocon shill button from you is like the Iron Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster around here.
1300 hundred comments and it appears only you, Sean, McMeekin, myself and possibly your boy Guyenot have done all the assigned reading.
And the half-wit Nazi, L.K., agrees. Lol
This seems an odd response to my comment.
Did you think I somehow missed those pages? And wanted to remind me how what they cover isn’t even interesting or even holds a candle to the the stuff I described in my comment?
I don’t get it. Are you trying to distract yourself and others from what I said?
Weird. Is it that painful?…I mean, I guess you are not alone. Ron and a few others seem to feel Suvorov is completely sane when he writes those things.
I’ll post pics of the actual pages tomorrow if I have the time. It is priceless. Sometimes I think Suvorov may have been experimenting with Philip K. Dick-style alternate history or playing with ideas and just said screw it, he’d throw it out there as serious and see how many people he fooled.
Look very carefully at the endnote/reference numbering. It is unlike all other serious works on this subject written in the last 30 years. There are extended passages running up to two pages with no references and containing nothing but speculation and supposition. That makes it fabricated. Events, motives, processes that occur nowhere but in Suvorov’s head. That isn’t history. That is fiction.
Do you not see this when you read history?
You are blathering. Using bold face to say what you think Hitler thought doesn’t make it real. Hitler had two objectives which he often stated and another which was implicit in what he did:
The first objective was to repudiate the idiotic, destructive “Treaty of Versailles” and undo as much of the damage it had caused as possible. This “Treaty” was built on its internal mechanism of ethnic strife and the ever-possible outbreak of hostilities. It had cut asunder trade routes, economic areas which had worked in synergy, destroyed markets and it had separated many millions of people from their own nation. Hitler was a man who saw the evil in this set-up and he was going about to untie this Gordian knot (not cutting, untying). Unlike the useless talkers in Geneva who had prattled for 14 years about the need to reform this Treaty, but did nothing, and refused any suggestion to to anything, Hitler did something and forced their hand. They did not like it, as talking and doing nothing while continuing to collect the dividend checks of this particular business of exploiting primarily Germany was much preferable to “Democrats” than actually doing something and giving up at least part of the dividend checks extracted from other people’s misfortune.
The second objective was to have as many as possible Germans live within a German state that gives them both a homestead and protection. He achieved this goal to large degree, even by making difficult sacrifices by repudiating any possibility to regain the German provinces annexed by France, Italy, the territory taken by Belgium and Denmark and with regard to Poland he did not even mention Upper Silesia which had been given to Poland despite a plebiscite that unequivocally favored to remain with Germany.
The third objective was to gain economic autarchy; thus, no hunger blockade or blackmail through throttling German national life would be possible anymore. This is the time when, e.g. Buna (synthetic rubber) and coal liquefaction on an industrial scale (invented in the 1920s in various forms in Germany also) was becoming a reality, two materials Germany was completely dependent on up to that time through importation.
How right he was in each one of these objectives can be seen in how much the “Democracies” like to blackmail states and nations they don’t approve of and can’t attack outright with their military. Only independence and unity can fend off arrogant aggression and illicit mingling in one’s own affairs. As can be seen by the economic boycotts against various countries, the “Democracies” have not changed since the days of the First World War.
You must have never lived in Germany to have claimed that Germans are ‘peaceful’.
In fact, ‘microaggression’ concept could be invented in Germany (‘Kleinangriff’: my humble proposition).
It is a thoroughly passive-aggressive society engaging in the lowest kind of aggressions which are yet allowed: senseless mini-complaints, snitching, everyday rudeness, above all Freudian ‘narcissm of minor differences’ (unlike others, this one Freud’s concept is truly a gold one).
No wonder they got a bit crazy when they were allowed ‘big aggressions’ in WWII.
These people do not have a sense of natural law, no, not at all.
It is also a very class-based society, though this is very well hidden.
The question should be also: why was Russia chosen as a goal despite sudden opening of a a military favourable situation in Eastern Mediterranean?
Attacking Egypt with full force would lead to Iraq and Caucasus, and encircling USSR anyway. With Turkish help, Soviets surely could be kept in the bottle of Black Sea.
That it was an important theater was proved by the fact that the first American offensive was staged in North Africa.
The unexpected military weakness of Italian military relegated Duce from an ally to a subordinate in the memorable time between the French campaign and ‘Barbarossa’, as noted by Andreas Hillgruber in his 1000-pages book about the period (1940-1941). That nullified earlier plans of the new Imperium Romanum, and opened way for Imperium Germanicum in at least Eastern Med arrea.
But even Hillgruber does not note German fears of incoming Soviet invasion in the near future. In fact, he writes more about a possible Spanish front…
> “National Socialism was an extreme reaction to an extreme threat…”
Had Communism overthrown the degenerate Weimar Republic in 1919, Germany and Russia would have united against the banker clique of the Christian Eternal Anglo. Instead, we got a brotherly war by the gambler Führer, which let the Americans destroy Europe, and after which Russia had to face the Jew alone. And alone it crumbled in 1991, the last European ethnostate, abandoned by the now transvestite Europe. But an intact Germany would have strengthened the spirit of Socialist Russia, and together, Europe would have prevailed forever.
I agree with you about the micro-aggression thing. I’ve been to Germany countless times and have some relatives there too. One little example: your neighbours will rush to call the police on you for dumping your garbage on a Sunday.
The communists in Germany were Jews, are you schizo?
https://postimg.cc/gallery/G8HFYdv
“banker clique of the Christian Eternal Anglo”
Anglos are lapdogs, the bankers were Jews.
“the last European ethnostate” lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_(1936_film)
“Orlova plays an American circus artist who, after giving birth to a black baby (played by James Lloydovich Patterson), immediately becomes a victim of racism and is forced to stay in the circus, but finds refuge, love and happiness in the USSR. Her black son is embraced by friendly Soviet people. The movie climaxes with a lullaby being sung to the baby by representatives of various Soviet ethnicities taking turns.”
“The movie was the most commercially successful Soviet film. Two weeks after the release, it was viewed by 1 million people in Moscow alone.”
Haha, keep your Russian ethnostate.
Rezen and now McMeekin owe more than they are willing to admit to Ernst Topitsch, who was the first one to suggest that Stalin deliberately drew Hitler into attacking the Soviet Union, but I don’t think Stalin was that complacent. He was confident that the capitalist powers would fight one another and he would reap the fruits of their bloody stalemate in the style of WW1, but taking on the unbroken and battle hardened victorious Wehrmacht was not Stalin’s sneaky style.
The strong ‘Stalin was planning to attack and Hitler beat him to the punch’ thesis was really David Irving’s, with Hitler’s War in the 70’s. Irving noted the Soviet preparations the Germans discovered, and he also pointed out that Hitler had failed to properly mobilise Germany, and refused to have German women set to factory work instead of employment as domestic servants, which sort of pointed to Hitler’s heart not being in the war in the East. I think there is something in that but not the way Irving meant it. In WW1 Germany had won in the the East, but Hitler spent his entire war on the Western Front, which is where Germany lost when it seemed on the point of winning because America came in to prevent a German victory. Hitler had been profoundly impressed by the German-ness of American POWs he saw during WW1 and thought the USA was a Jewish run bastion of Finance capitalism using German-Americans against their ancestral homeland. For Hitler, the Drang nach Osten was a means to giving Germans a lifestyle such as Americans enjoyed. Raising the standard of living of Germans in an expansive new Greater German Reich with abundant arable land and raw materials and thus posseting the wherewithal for dream existance drawing back the most able and enterprising Germans from America was Hitler’s objective. He thought this needed to be done because Germany was not all that high quality a population after centuries of emigration to the East and generation of the best blood going to America. Hitler considered the Jews of America his most dangerous Jews of all.
The Soviet Union was seen as primitive and not the bogeyman for Hitler, that was America, which he expected to repeat its WW1 entry to forestall a German victory. In July 1941, Hitler ordered a reduction in armaments production especially tanks, and this was not a reduction from maximum production. One could say that Germany’s production of armaments being artificially low in the early years of the war was the reason for production increasing so much in the latter years (it peaked in 1944. ) Germany could have had an extra panzer army in summer 1941, and didn’t because Hitler wanted Germans to live as if they were at peace, and he was thinking on seizing the resources to make a siege of Germany in a long war America was expected to join comfortable for the German civilians.
Hitler’s expectation that America would enter the war made him attach much less importance to a battle against the Soviet army defending Moscow. Also although many of them had already left for America the transportation of the Volga Germans to Siberia must have infuriated him. Hitler got ill in early August 1941 and was shaking in bed for a time, maybe he was not thinking clearly when he insisted on halting the Army Group Centre drime on Moscow,. Furthermore the generals who objected to deviation of the plan for a swift assaults on the Soviet capital were in certain cases more easily placated because they were being paid off: bribed. Guderian who outraged Von Bock by doing a sudden U turn and agreeing with Hitler about ignoring Moscow to go into the Ukraine, when Von Bock had sent him back to argue for the exact opposite course of action, was especially greedy for grants of estates and secret payments.
You are all neglecting to mention that there was considerable ideological the fight.
I have seen placates where Giant claws were killing people and the text under was that this will happen under communism.
German National Socialism did have a lot of common with Communism.They both advocated power of the people. And both systems captured the hearths of the people. And I would say both systems incited tremendous enthusiasm of the people.
But there were difference.
National socialism embraced all people by race regardless of the difference in wealth. But NS excluded people that did not have origins in German race. Mostly Jews and Gypsies.
I would note here Nurinberg Laws.
Communist system simply excluded wealthy people and disregarded the race. And most of them were eliminated under the Label “Burzhuy”
So National socialism was more successful by preserving The flower of the nation.
But Communists, although initially did fell behind, they eventually did catch up.
Guderian was only tank division commander while Bock was working out the general strategy of the front. There was no comparison.
Well?
Italians were the first troublemakers.But thy could not handle Ethiopia and they could not handle Greece. Germans could not care about Ethiopia. but they did care about Greece, so they came to Italy’s help. Greece collapsed soon after German help.
Personally, I don’t know what you are talking about, “The burning question of how could and entire people, the Germans, come to hate Jews so much? The entire German population did not hate Jews. Not even the majority of the population hated them. Many Germans and Jews were friends and continued to be friends. I remember as a child going to a resort with my parents and many Jews and Germans were there together, swimming, going into the hot springs, etc. If Germans who were doing business with Jews, often abandoned their relationships with the rise of the Hitler regime, this was mostly of of fear than any inbred hate. If you had lived during that time and were German, you would probably have been a Nazi, or at least followed the regimes wishes. Understand something, the Jews were for the most part the pupils of the Germans, not the other way around. Their teachers were Germans, originally. Do you think that Jews would have produced an Einstein in say China, Africa, or some other nation at that time? As for your comment about Unz lacking perspective, I find Ron Unz to have more perspective or at least the will to have a correct view of the world, than most of the people I’ve seen, heard, or read anything from. lol
I find nothing particularly wrong with your comment, but I was just clarifying what Taylor’s book was and was not about. Because Taylor has been cited in false ways by various people since he wrote. Taylor’s arguments came down to the point that Hitler believed (along with many other people of the time) that the USSR was just a house of cards ready to fall over when to a serious test. Because of this, when Hitler considered the possibility of a major war in Europe he largely discounted the USSR as a factor and instead focused on the West. Hitler was not interested in territorial conquests in the West per se the way that he desired an expansion of living space in eastern Europe. Hitler believed that he could bluff his way into causing the Western powers to accept German dominance over eastern Europe, without necessarily leading to a war with the West. As a result Hitler stumbled his way into a war that was much bigger than he had originally calculated, and each new maneuver he made led to the growth of the war.
This is far from the claim that “Hitler was tricked into war” by a clique in the West that one can find promoted in certain quarters. Taylor’s arguments seemed controversial at the time simply because many people had been raised on comic books which taught them that Hitler was planning to invade New York and this was why WWII happened. Today Taylor’s general view (with some occasional qualifiers) is largely accepted such as when Ian Kershaw titled a chapter “Miscalculation” to describe the outbreak of war in 1939. But again, the implications of that are not always what some would wish them to be.
P.S. I was mentioning my experiences with Jews while growing up in the U.S.
You showed your unreliability when you cited here
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
the propaganda booklet put out under the title Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. That propaganda booklet blares out the 58,000 figure right from the beginning. It has long been known that that number is at least a ten-fold inflation of what actually occurred. If one is going to cite German propaganda of this type then we may as well start taking the Soviet report on Katyn as a valid reference.
The quote from May 23 is extremely relevant to the later crisis because this is where Hitler lays out his real motivations when the international confrontation was just in its early stages. Once Hitler had both occupied Czechoslovakia and begun placing demands on Poland then the tensions in Danzig escalated rapidly. One doesn’t have to approve of anything which the Poles did in order to realize that Hitler made a bad situation much worse precisely because his principal aim was all about the conquest of living space in eastern Europe, as he specifically states on May 23.
You are correct!!!!
Everybody knew that Stalin is going to attack Germany.
There was only one exception…………. Stalin himself.
You are a natural born idiot.
Stalin had only one conviction that communist revolutions flareups are inevitable in Europe and so he was preparing to help. Stalin did not want a war with Germany.
Almost all Wehrmacht armaments were made from Russian Iron ore with the help of Russian anthracite. Stalin did not even have an suspicion that Germany would attack Russia.
Let me put it as simple as I could.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Would you give a dagger to somebody if you knew that that person will stab you.
(How primitive we can get.)
Or let me reverse it to your pea brain.
Would you help arm the country if you wanted to invade that country?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Let me inform you about something you never heard of.
It is called logic.
There you’re rehashing old propaganda. Let’s start with your first lie about Hitler and the Versailles Treaty. In 1932 Heinrich Bruning sat down with the Allied representatives and stated clearly that Germany could not afford to go on paying reparations. In response to Bruning’s diplomacy the Allies agreed right then and there to drop the reparations. It was right from that moment on that Germany’s economy began to recover. Not surprisingly, the votes for the NSDAP (having reached a peak of about 37% of the vote in July 1932) began to fall once more. By the time Hitler gained the Chancellorship the Versailles Treaty was long dead. Hitler had nothing to do with this.
Instead Hitler benefitted from Bruning’s diplomacy. Once Bruning had persuaded the Allies to drop the reparations, then everyone on the Allied side now became open to the idea that Germany should be allowed to seek territorial adjustments. Hitler was able to capitalize off of that until he overplayed his hand with the occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. But it was Bruning’s diplomacy which had enabled all of the earlier agreements.
The goal of acquiring living space in eastern Europe is stated very clearly as a fundamental goal by Hitler from the beginning and always returned to. You really have to be following a blind-eyed selective reading of Hitler’s own words not to see that in Mein Kampf and later documents up into wartime. If Hitler had merely desired to group together the ethnic German minorities of Europe into the Reich while working for economic autarky then Chamberlain would have gladly encouraged him in this and there would have been no war. That was the exact stance which Chamberlain followed up until March 15, 1939.
This is total rubbish.
Why is the march of people supporting the attack on the country of their citizenship is regarded as crime when shooting Polish soldiers in the back or bombing polish civilians on the same roads is not?
Why didn’t the Germans set up such a wide international commission to investigate these alleged crimes as they did in Katyń? Why didn’t they invite respected international experts ? Where is Red Cross ?
Probably because this “histeria” has the same value as the German propaganda about the Polish cavalry in September 1939.
Montanelli’s account was used by German propaganda to support the myth about the charges of Polish lancers on German tanks as an illustration of “Polish stupidity”. In one of his speeches, the Minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich, Joseph Goebbels, used it as: “… proof” of Polish “stupidity” and “irrationality” of the nation, which, according to him, “needed” to be crushed because it was unable to govern itself independently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indro_Montanelli
Montanelli himself admitted the whole thing was fake on August 29, 1998 in “Corriere della Sera”
There is known to have been a Soviet army study of what to do in the event of war with Germany; it was by the Soviet General Staff’s Aleksandr Vasilevsky. The wildly speculating Rezun suggests that around May 1941, Timoshenko and Zhukov took that contingency plan and used it when proposing an attack on Germany to Stalin. Even if this were true, they were military men, and Stalin was a Marxist who thought that the capitalist world would self destruct in a re run of WW1 that the Soviet Union could win by staying out of. For someone of Stalin’s beliefs the capitalist powers would fall on one another not the Soviet Union. His preference was vulture on a doomed system rather than a bird of prey on a dangerous military machine not yet degraded. The known disciplining of Soviet functionaries including the top intelligence chief who thought Stalin’s political approach misconceived and might enable Nazi Germany to successfully attack the Soviet Union, leads one to believe that even if the Rezun theory about Timoshenko and Zhukov is true they did not get anywhere and decided not to press the point; telling Stalin he was being duped was suicide.
There was never anything in the plan, or Hitler’s known conversations prior to Barbarossa starting, about Army Group Centre drive on Moscow being subordinated to the capture of Ukrainian agriculture and mines. The Ukraine was to supposed to be taken care of after Leningrad and Moscow had been captured. Bock thought Moscow was the key and the plan gave him the forces under his command to attain that objective.
What Bock wanted to do was risky but as he said offered to the only possibility of victory Leningrad was an objective equal to Moscow in the original plan because of Hitler, who never wanted to go straight at Moscow with bock’s AGC with army groups north and south were ultimately there to secure the strategic flanks of Bock thrust to the Soviet capital where a decisive battle could be forced on Stalin. The Soviets falling back was the main worry of the Germans and the faster Bock reached Moscow the less chance of the Soviet army making a withdrawal in good order or putting up a strong defence. The plan was to destroy the Soviet army, which Bock wanted to do by rapid advances for example he wanted to bypass Minsk and was initially given permission but Hitler countermanded that, and in response to the demands for closing encirclements before allowing the armor to proceed, Bock–perhaps not entirely seriously–suggested a gigantic one on the Dvina-Dnieper River basins. Swiftly and ruthlessly forward’ was what Von Bock advocated . What Hitler insisted on was literally perpendicular to an an advance on Moscow at a critical point when as Bock wrote in his diaries:
The first Soviet victory (Yelnya Offensive) came when Hitler halted Army Group Centre in front of Smolensk. When after two months Army Group Centre began a charge at Moscow in which Bock created a military masterpiece, there was panic in Moscow, evacuation of much of the government and Timoshenko (who had told Stalin in August that the road to Moscow was effectively open with no tanks available) was replaced with Zhukov.
1. It is the tragic truth about the Aryan race that it is split into warring nations, and not along the biological lines. From Caesar’s genocide of Gaul, to Eisenhower’s death camps and 100k dead Pétainists in France. Incidentally, this is another prescient feature of the USSR, which set a goal of dissolving its constituent nations in due time.
2. InconvenientHistory seems like a web-portal of whine. That the American Christcucks were being suicidally pacifist when the Yellow Menace of Imperial Japan reared its ugly head, ready to spring at the throat of India and Australia, should find no praise. And do you think the American State would have survived intact a German victory in Asia? I fail to understand pacifism, for life is total war of extermination always. It impresses my imagination how schizophrenic an apologia for American pacifism is as part of a wider apologia for the largest [unfinished] genocide in the history of humanity – 27 million dead Russians at the hands of the Germans & other Europeans (now fags).
3. On reading the article, one might praise Roosevelt for his diplomatic skills in furthering the feeling of power of the American Empire. You missed the answer, however, – Hitler declared war on the USA to sink ships. From 124k tonnes in December 1941 to 700k tonnes in June 1942. Sweet tonnage. Hilariously enough, blockades never work, from England to the DPRK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losses_during_the_Battle_of_the_Atlantic
Did you know that these Allies who were so conciliatory towards Bruning, in your reading of events, collected the last of the reparation payments in 2011 (i.e.., 10 years ago)? Sure, the Autobahn system had also been already drawn up in the days of the Weimar Republic, yet incompetence and huckster thinking prevented that anything came of it. Hitler forced their hand and in any normal country or time this would make him a national hero. Although I have a low opinion of Churchill, even he said so in one of his books (I think it was Great Contempraries). Further, can you point out any revisions they (the beneficiaries of the “Treaty” of Versailles) agreed to, or perhaps proposed and brought about themselves from the recognition of righting a wrong? (You could bring up the Saar plebiscite, but that was already in the “Treaty” of Versailles which they could hardly violate without losing face).
However this may be:
I would like you to tell me what speeches or proclamations in Domarus’ book of Hitler’s Speeches and Proclamations with choice commentary added, volume 3, you are referring to.
Citing that should be easier than composing some general, broad, pc-dyed-in the-wool short essay about how much you dislike Hitler and see him as the sole acting politician of his time. Everyone can see that, now it’s time for specifics. (And don’t forget to tell whether you are referring the German Domarus book or the English transltion).
You forgot Italians attacked on their own in Libya – and, obviously, lost again.
And thus Afrika Korps was born.
And yet, both in Greece and Libya Mussolini attacked against Hitler’s wishes – was it here some foul play to bring Germany into this war theater….?
Or was it all an unitended outcome of both Mussolini Ego and military weakness of Italian army…?
Strangely, the Italian campaigns aren’t so well investigated as the German ones are.
I do have only scattered information maybe only little bit more than people have here.
German army plans were to attack at beginning of may.
What happened was uprising in Serbia. It was unexpected but it become priority.
German army had to send several divisions to quell the uprising in Serbia.
This forced the plan to attack one whole month.
In my opinion Hitler should cancel the attack and postpone it for another year.
Than as Germans attacked the rainy season has started that also delayed the fulfillment of progress progress of German army, because of muddy roads. German army’s plan was to take those three cities
and settle there for the winter. As this was not achieved before winter German army did have to remain in the field through winter. It was devastation for German army. Army did not have winter clothing and and any equipment to survive in the field. In my opinion that was the moment German lost the war. All I know about Zhukov that he was send to Siberia to train several division in Siberia of new recruits. The training was accomplished in the middle of winter and Zhukov was sent to defense of Stalingrad He was the one who created the famous “Cauldron” capturing the all southern wing of German army.
It is a pleasure to read your well informed comments, Fox.
It is amazing how generally well hidden from view is the aggressive and expansionist Polish foreign policy of the time. It is very well documented, often by the era Polish sources, but it has all been very well hidden from the public eye.
As you know, reconstructed Poland received much more than it should have, and as such possessed completely artificial borders, only 2 thirds of the population were ethnic Poles.
But the Poles were not satisfied and wanted so much more, it is crazy how they saw themselves as a great power.
Their expansionist nationalism and aggressive aims, some carried out, some planned, against Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Russia, are mostly ignored and memory holed…
Poles are no different to any other country inasmuch they find it opportune to contemplate an attack when their prey seems vulnerable. Poland attacked the Soviet Union in 1920 when Poland was relatively strong relative to the Bolsheviks. Stalin knew that intervention against the Soviet Union was not something the West needed much of an excuse for. Indeed, months after the British declaration of war on Germany, the British and French were preparing to send a joint expeditionary forces to fight the Soviet Union in Finland. Stalin also remembered that the Germans had won WW1 in the East, it was in the West they had been ground down. Stalin intended to let the West do all of the work in WW2, and he had too much respect for German military prowess to attack while the German army was still the intact Blitzkrieg machine of the Battle of France.
By comparison with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union was weak in 1941 and the main source of that weakness was Stalin’s leadership. Stalin was trapped in a mental model of the geo – political and revolutionary developments of WW1, which he expected to repeat . Hitler was similarly backward in his thinking, although his outdated ideas pertained to more strictly military matters. Fodor Von Bock was in his sixties during Barbarossa, but he was cutting edge. The moral is to not trust judgements made on matters outside an area of expertise.
It is amazing how generally well hidden from view is the aggressive and expansionist Polish foreign policy of the time. It is very well documented, often by the era Polish sources, but it has all been very well hidden from the public eye.
Who is hiding it?
Yep, Roosevelt was so great he even received a medal* from his masters. Good dog.
* https://www.loc.gov/item/2016883913/
The Germans started a month late, but then stopped Army Group Centre in front of Smolensk for two months during which the Soviet’s with their Yelnya Offensive became the first of Hitler’s victims to retake any territory from the WW2 German army. The Germans had time enough, if they had used it wisely. But they would have had to because contrary to what one reads in McMeekin’s article Stalin’s Gambit, the German high command–when not on trial for their lives– thought Soviet dispositions were a balanced rather that definitely offensive stance, except perhaps in the South opposite Romania, where the strongest Soviet tank forces were encountered. [Source Hooker, R. D., J. “”the World Will Hold its Breath”: Reinterpreting Operation Barbarossa.” Parameters 29, no. 1 (Spring, 1999): 150-164. also Hitler’s Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted – RHS Stolfi). The Soviet tanks were in forward positions, but most were light extremely fast types (some could even have the tracks removed to drive on the rubber rimmed wheels). The heavy KV tank had been around for years by this point; Stalin had not anticipated heavy combat with the German army, which he expected would be broken on the Western front and lose any gains it made in Poland, just as happened in WW1.
By my way of thinking, McMeekin seems to break no new ground with his incorrect suggestion that there was a Soviet offensive posture that that explained the German success. Professor Norman Davies–neocon bête noir who was denied tenure at Harvard for being insufficiently condemnatory of Polish antisemitism–said as much in his Europe: A History decades ago, which was a mediation of the prior Topitsch and Irving theses. To defeat Barbarossa, the Soviets could have left a powerful rearguard and fallen back to Russia’s numerous large rivers and used them as the bases for a defence line. That would have worked, but they stood and fought and so were outmaneuvered. Only Hitler’s military conservatism saved them.
> “Germany’s invasion of Poland had to do with ethnic Germans living in Poland being ill-treated as well as the Danzig issue.”
Hilarious nonsense.
1. “The Danzig issue” is “a wolf’s hunger issue”; Hitler created the issue, Hitler resolved it. What a joke.
2. Hitler oversaw the expulsion of South Tyrolean and Baltic Germans to uphold his alliance with Italy and Russia. But suddenly, the whining of the West Prussians moved his hand? Sod off.
And on the topic – I’m saddened by how Westerners never mention the name of Isaev who wrote extensively contra Rezun’s thesis.
https://military.wikireading.ru/50316
(Some decent points – 1) the successful defence on the Ukrainian front is likewise never mentioned; 2) Soviets were expecting at least some pretense, a diplomatic ultimatum, like in WW1 or Poland, but the Barbarossa began without one.)
Who knows Russian, can appreciate these boomer Marxists Klim Zhukov and Boris Yulin, too.
How many times do I have to write it before it penetrates some of the thick skulls commenting here? In my 1177, I wrote:
You asked:
I began studying Russian and the Soviet Union well over 50 years ago at the Defense Language Institute’s facility on the campus of Indiana Univ. All of my instructors there were native Russian speakers, most were former Soviet citizens who’d lived through WWII in the Soviet Union, and several were Red Army veterans of WWII, the Great Patriotic War.
I’ve read Clark, Ericson, Glantz, Werth, Ziemke and many others, including some of Churchill’s 6 volume tome in the library at Ft. Meade.
That’s where I’ve been.
“My response: I think your next step is to read all of “The Chief Culprit”. Suvorov makes a very convincing case that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive.”
Mr Wear, I have no intention in reading an entire book to find your answers to my questions. I do thank you for your voluminous replies to the many posters. Moreover, at this point, I consider Mr Suvorov’s missive as purely fiction.
“My response: If Stalin had been allowed to invade Europe, he would have had about 24,000 tanks in his initial invasion. This invasion could not have been stopped. I recommend you read the rest of my Chapter One of “Germany’s War”. On pages 55-56 of Chapter One of my book, I quote excerpts of Hitler’s speech on December 11, 1941, which explains why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.”
This reply did not answer my statement regarding your adulation and assessment of the supremacy of USSR military power. Hitler and his clan always proffered an explanation for military action and in most cases it was utter lies.
Mr Wear, it is difficult to entire a debate with you, as in most cases, you give reference points rather than give a direct response.
My readings of military history would lead me to render that the Soviet invasion of Germany proper, would have resulted in a military disaster for the Red Army and the possibility of the overthrow of the Communist Party in Moscow.
Even Stalin and his cronies realized that their aggression were limited to second rated nations: in this respect, Stalin cleverly judge the risk and rewards of his actions, whereas, Adolf’s was that of an enthused punter.
You write: “This reply did not answer my statement regarding your adulation and assessment of the supremacy of USSR military power. Hitler and his clan always proffered an explanation for military action and in most cases it was utter lies.”
My response: The supremacy of Soviet Union’s military power is based on sheer numbers. If Stalin had invaded Germany, he would have had 24,000 tanks versus Germany’s approximately 3,500 tanks. This is a huge difference.
The Soviet Union had many more planes and soldiers than Germany. The Soviet Union also had the ability to manufacture tanks and other military weapons at plants that Germany could never have reached. A Soviet invasion of Germany would not have been a military disaster for the Red Army.
It’s uncontroversial that Zhukov tried recommending to Stalin in May 1941 that a preemptive strike be made against Hitler. Not only does this not prove that Stalin was planning an invasion of Germany, it constitutes evidence against such a claim. If Stalin had been preparing for a massive invasion of central and western Europe as Rezun claims, then Zhukov would have known about this and there would have been no reason at all for Zhukov to recommend a preemptive strike against Hitler. Zhukov’s suggestion only makes sense if we accept that Stalin was adhering to a wait-and-see approach without any immediate plans for a first strike of his own.
Sentence was taken from this valuable article
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
The first mention of Gdańsk comes from Saint Adalbert’s Life written in Latin in 999. It describes the visit of Bishop Adalbert in the area in the spring of 997, and this date is often taken conventionally as the beginning of the city’s history.
In 1231 Świętopełk ( Duke of Pomerania ) obtained papal protection for himself, his family and his principality. The state capital (Gdańsk) obtained city rights during this period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalbert_of_Prague
This is another example of manipulation of uninformed readers.
As for why didn’t the German set up an international commission about anything before 1943, because they didn’t care about that as long as they were expecting an easy victory. It was always acknowledged that the Poles had marked a grave site in the area of Katyn long before 1943. No one cared about that until Stalingrad. This was what fed the suspicions by some on the Allied side that Katyn was some sort of staged German hoax. Today we have a better understanding of the events which surrounded Katyn.
Patrick Osborn lucidly argues that Katyn was set off by Operation Pike. The Allies knew about an earlier occasion at the time of the Russian Civil War when Czech troops who had been captured by the Czarist armies launched their own rebellion from within the newly formed Soviet territory. The Czech troops weren’t really interested in getting caught up with the Whites, but they created a major problem for the new Bolshevik authorities. In planning Operation Pike, the Allied commanders assumed that there would be an opportunity for an Allied strike against the USSR to set off a similar rebellion among Polish prisoners. When Beria learned off this intent, the order was given to slaughter all of the Poles who might figure into this plan. That accounts for why they weren’t simply shipped to Siberia. It was a rapid decision made to remove the possibility of an uprising which the Allies hoped to trigger with their attack.
Once Hitler had launched his own strike against France then this rendered Operation Pike irrelevant. At that point the execution of the Poles became an embarrassing detail which Stalin tried to hide. But it was only the German defeat at Stalingrad which spurred Goebbels to look for the Katyn corpses.
What do the events of 2011 have to do with anything? If anything, bringing up a later collection of debt after WWII only underscores that Hitler accomplished nothing. It was a matter of diplomacy that Bruning persuaded the Allies to stop demanding reparations and they agreed to this. After Hitler, it’s no surprise that there would be renewed demands for reparations.
Since the Domarus volumes are ordered by date at the top of the page you can find anything which I’ve listed from that. Using the footnotes can also be of aid. As far as actually finding the volumes, I might suggest looking on http://www.dealoz.com with both the ordinary book search (listed by ISBN number) and the “rare book” search (really listed by individual sellers, sometimes a book may sell for half the price as a “rare book” versus in the ordinary listing).
Dontcha know that with the “German Method” everything is possible!
Professor Norman Davies–neocon bête noir who was denied tenure at Harvard for being insufficiently condemnatory of Polish antisemitism–
For the record, it was Stanford.
Reportedly, non-tenured faculty demanded and were granted participation in the vote, which went against Davies 12-11.
> “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.”
What a stupid attitude. You have the admission of the author of the plan – and you wave him away! No, Paulus came to the Soviet side gradually, after the 20. Juli betrayal, and Stalin himself was persuaded to send him to Nuremberg (in secret) by Rudenko.
https://nurnberg1945.ru/posts/dolgiy-nyurnberg-chast-chetvyertaya
A lot of ridiculous space wasted on the Polish issue. The Poles were terrible victims but played their cards terribly, relying on the completely unreliable western powers.
All the European Powers like France And England talked a big game but had very little military might. Even the US proved to be a second-rate military power when they finally decided to engage the Germans in France—the Germans having already been thoroughly crushed in the east and able to put up a few half ass divisions that still gave the combined Anglo-US forces lot of fits and starts as late as 1945, with the German Ardennes offensive that turned into the battle of the Bulge, a battle that is an order of magnitude smaller than Kursk or Stalingrad,
These are the historical facts. FDR and Churchill were quite happy to watch on the sidelines until 1944 when the Wehrmacht was completely destroyed. Operation Bagration in 1944 completely crushed the military potential of the Axis, utterly destroying Army Group Center, the backbone of the Axis…only then did the vaunted ‘D’ day open the second front in France, after the German military machine was well and truly crushed. Even so they had all kinds of troubles with the few Germans on the Western Front, taking months to advance into German territory—by which time it should be noted that the Germans were surrendering en masse to the Anglo-US forces to escape the fate of being captured by the Red Army.
And then we have people like Clown McMeekin who tries to turn obvious facts on their head—supposedly the Ango-US should have taken a tougher line with Stalin. What a fucking joke. The Red Army could have wiped out the Anglo-US forces without breaking a sweat—and Stalin’s mistake was that he should have done so. That might have cooled the delusional ardor of a cold war against the Soviet Union, and saved us all the tensions that followed.
The Red Army was the undisputed champion of the world in 1945. Nobody and and nothing could have challenged it in any way. Stalin was too trusting of his supposed ‘allies’, not realizing their innate treachery. There is only one solution to clowns who think they are more powerful than they are. That is more true today than ever,y
I know where I can buy the Domarus volumes; from you I want to know specific information: Which speech or proclamation you are referring to? Title, date, place, and since you seem a habitual user of the Domarus collection, you can also give the page the item is found on.
Why so vague, why so general, why so fluffy when it comes to substance?
What you actually have listed: “Speech given in May of 1939”. Since you seem to like to consult the Domarus collection, you could have, but did not, give a more specific datum. You know best why, especially since I have now repeatedly inquired from you about that information. “Consult the Domarus collection, volume 3, all speeches are listed on top of the page.” That’s too vague for someone who is so insistent upon his opinion and makes the appearance that he has consulted the references he is citing. Also, I still don’t know whether you are conversant with German and have therefore perhaps read the German original of the Domarus book or are referring to the English translation. You are vague.
I will not say much about your argument of how conciliatory and understanding the Beneficiaries of the Treaty of Versailles were towards the Weimar government of Bruning: The fact that, and especially how, they bilked the country Germany even after the ruinous loss of the War in 1945, after they had carried off whatever was not bolted down in quadruplicate, deprived it of yet more territory, caused the largest scale act of ethnic cleansing in recorded history and topped it all with a farcical judicial proceedings that were produce moral stature, and still insisted on being paid what they have forced from Germany at gunpoint in their miserable “Treaty” -in which Germany was not a participant, but rather only the object of their arbitrary decisions, all of this makes your suggestion of some sort of understanding generosity meted out towards Germany and a soon-to-be generous review of this “Treaty” in the Weimar time rather just a laughable fable you have constructed as a corset for your opinion. Makes you feel good to believe that “change was just around the corner” when in reality no such thing was on the agenda, despite the plethora of words, intended to lead such as yourself-the voting and believing majority, I suppose- at the nose like fools. These people were depraved before ‘Versailles’, they were depraved during ‘Versailles’, they were depraved after ‘Versailles’ and they were just as depraved after 1945 and that’s why they insisted on being paid the last penny of what they had blackmailed at Versailles on June 28, 1919. You don’t like to know that, because it is a character sketch of the people you applaud, approve of and are following.
Thank you for your kind words.
It is indeed interesting how Poland has been given a free pass on all its transgressions ever since it re-emerged as a country with self-government after the First World War. The new Poland was re-constituted in November of 1916 by joint decree of Germany and Austria, and the Poles of the time expressed eternal gratitude towards Germany and Austria. However, in 1918, when times and prospects had changed, this gratitude turned into megalomania with an insatiable appetite for territory, a Polish desire to become a great power and general belligerency.
I’ve recently read a passage of a speech by Lloyd George given on May 7, 1919 at Versailles. It is contained in Dominique Venner’s book “Baltikum: Dans la Reich defaité (there is a German, Italian and Spanish translation from French, but no English version to my knowledge).
(My translation of Lloyd George’s speech; obviously not perfect, as it is a back-translation into English of a translation of the original speech in English; at this time, I have no access to the original which would be found in a collection of his speeches or the proceedings of the meetings of the Allies at Versailles):
“Who are the, the Poles who take the liberty to criticize the Allies? During the whole war they fought mainly at the side of the Germans (if indeed they even did that). Never were they promised by the Allies specific borders. Five years ago the Poles were a subjugated people without any prospect to ever attain their freedom through their own exertions. They did receive it, but only because 1 1/2 million Frenchmen, 1 million Britons, 500000 Italians and I don’t know how many Americans died; Poland has not attained its freedom through its own strength, but through the blood of others. As other nations in Central Europa it presents now the sad spectacle of an annexation of territories of other peoples and want to force them now under a tyranny it had to endure through hundreds of years.”
After the Second World War the Poles could likewise expand their territory under the protective hand of other powers and now, again to the west with setting in motion the largest ethnic cleansing in history by depopulation all of Eastern Germany of Germans and occupying their land; and now they even want reparations from Germany.
There is something in the Polish mind that sets it at odds with other peoples. For Germany, it was a great misfortune to have Poland as a neighbor.
Poland itself is in an unfortunate position between Russia and Germany; it would have been an ideal position to seek good relationships with either both or just one of the neighbors, but Poland chose to have neither and instead rely on promises of treasure and power from the faraway London, Paris and Washington.
Who is the author of the book you cite with the Lubienski quote?
Świętopełk ????
What kind of nonsense you are talking about?
His name was Svetopluk and he had three sons. He did reside in Brno.
He ruled over territory Moravia, Slovakia, part of Poland and the territory which is now Hungary.
Svetopluk was king and ruled over Great Moravian kingdom when the Magyars moved in and stole the territory what is now Hungary.
Hungarians to this day have joke that Svetopluk sold them the territory for white horse.
The Slavs on that territory were pushed out to Romania (Vlad Cepak the impaler), some were pushed to Slovakia, and some were pushed to Dalmacia.
Dying Svetopluk did make all three sons Kings.
The fact that more than anything else takes the wind out of Suvorov’s sails is that Stalin wasn’t a fool and he had to know that an attack by the Soviet Union like the one Nazi Germany launched against it in June 1941 could have had unpredictable consequences in the West, specially in the relationship between Germany and the Anglo Saxon powers. They may have been belligerent nations at the time but I think it was Hitler who said once that when you start a war you open the door to a darkened room and Stalin had to know that also. Considering that there was far more affinity between the two English speaking powers and the then current German speaking hegemon in Europe than there was at the best of times between any of them them and the Soviet Union, as it is the case still nowadays with Russia, it is impossible that Stalin could have planned any surprise attack against Germany without having to consider the very likely possibility that by doing that he was pushing them into the arms of the other as a consequence. I have little doubt that had been the situation the inverse of what it was in June 22, 1941 in the Eastern border, both Nazi Germany and the UK would have hurriedly arranged a meeting of representatives to patch up their differences and present a common front to the Communist aggressor. France would have been immediately freed and invited to be part also in that anti Soviet alliance and the Pas de Calais would have been re-opened to invite back the Tommies. I think that was a very likely possibility and I am not even a bit paranoiac as Stalin was. In the end, if he was preparing to attack in the West he had to be a fool not to plan a war against the entire European continent plus the U.S. of A. and of course the Soviet Union didn’t have the means for that.
This is the situation right now:
The US Ponzi Empire is the Sick man of Geopolitics, kind of like the Ottoman empire that fell behind in technology. The chickens have all come home to roost.
Behind the silly Biden-Harris administration is a serious cadre of Anglo-Saxon folks that are no fools—they have the levers of kinetic power, both the security apparatus and the MIC. They also don’t give a shit about the Larry Finks or all the other song and dance Jews in media and the kabuki theater of Washington.
They know they have to take serious action. That means coming to terms with a brand new world, where a couple dozen Russian hypersonic missiles can take out the electrical grid and end the American civilization just like that. There is no negotiating from strength with a power that can kick you around like a tin can.
They will come to terms with the China-Russia alliance [that’s really what it is] because they have no choice. Neither Russia nor China want to see the US go down the tubes. That means strategic instability and the US still has the Samson option—launch the ICBMS and fuck everybody.
Nobody wants that, although Russia is quietly building a pretty impressive ICBM defense system that may actually work a few years from now—unlike the US dog and pony show that couldn’t even intercept Kim Jong Un’s mickey mouse missiles.
The writing is on the wall—US has mickey mouse weapons technology, while Russia in a few years is going to be able to dictate terms.
That’s just the military technical situation, which is the most important of all.
There is something in the Polish mind that sets it at odds with other peoples.
Hans Frank thought it had to do with the dancing and woodcarving in the Tatra mountains. I’m thinking it’s a sense of humor.
My tip of the hat! Your comment is the best and smartest logical comment on this thread.
You have my highest respect.
Have you come across this?
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/cikkek/jch01.html
Stalin’s Plans for World War II
“Stalin’s subsequent wartime moves west, all but one secretly covered by the Pact with Hitler, were made in the days of June 1940 when the British were totally preoccupied with saving themselves from Hitler’s Drang nach Westen. No doubt Stalin timed the launch of his campaigns leading to the annexation of the Baltic States and large segments of Romania largely for that very reason. In the days of Dunkerque the British did not have a moment to reflect. The issues passed virtually unnoticed.
But we must recall that no Western statesmen at the time had any knowledge of the infamous secret protocols. Moreover, Stalin, from the time he concocted his excuses for the attack on Poland in September 1939 until the invasion of the Baltic nations and Romania, was, unlike Hitler, constantly covering his moves propagandistically as defensive.”
….snip….
“According to these former Soviet collaborators, its gist is as follows : Molotov and Dekanosov proclaimed to astonished Baltic listeners that a revolution was certain to follow the current war among the Western European countries, just as revolution had followed the tsarist empire’s collapse in Russia. Germany would be defeated and fall into revolution. The Red Army would rush to the aid of the revolutionaries there and fight the decisive battle, presumably with the capitalist-imperialists trying to save the collapsing Reich (always a place of central interest in Marxist-Leninist thinking). The great battle would take place somewhere in the area of the Rhine.
Both Kremlin agents discounted the effectiveness of the Anglo-Saxon powers and the French in the climactic struggle to come. The Americans, they insisted, consumed by a desire for money, would sell out. The French were set up for Bolshevik revolution already—indeed, unbeknownst to themselves, in the eyes of these Kremlin hierarchs they were already almost in Bolshevik hands, for 50,000 French teachers(!) were enrolled in the Communist Party. Apparently the teachers, on Comintern command, were expected to start this particular French revolution.(11) Once the ‘liberations’ came, the communist parties, led by Stalin, would superintend the unification of all Europe. Dekanosov went even further : first Europe would fall to Bolshevism, then, after another world war, the entire world proletariat would seize power (‘heute Deutschland, morgen die ganze Welt’, leaps almost inadvertently to mind).(10)”
No he did not.
The Soviets were bullying the Third Reich, as the Germans were tied up in the West. Check out Molotov’s four demands which also included Romania which was a source of oil to Germany. Also the massing of Soviet troops on the borders. I have given enough evidence here that Hitler (as well as his allies) were convinced of a Soviet invasion plan of Central and Western Europe and took a preemptive strike. His conversations with Finnish leader Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and his speech about Operation Barbarossa, match 100%. Totally consistent. You cannot get better evidence.
Bullshit, the Western elites were pro Soviet. Check out all those Soviet Prisoners of war reluctantly sent back to the USSR to be killed. British and American elites would have NEVER allied with Germany, a nation which kicked out Jewish bankers and created an alternative economic system.
While it’s quite plausible that Stalin would have envisioned a long-term prospect of revolution in western Europe, it goes against the evidence to suggest that he expected this in the near term. For example, if one considers the so-called ‘Secret Speech’ that is unverified in authenticity but alleged to have been given on August 19 (and is widely cited by Rezun-enthusiasts), in that text the statements attributed to Stalin suggest that he is allowing for at least a decade after war breaks out:
“If Germany wins, she will come out of the war too tired to make war on us for the following decade.”
That doesn’t sound like someone who is counting on a revolution breaking out in France anytime soon. Granted that the authenticity of that speech is still in doubt, but the record in Spain suggests that Stalin would not be counting on any swift seizure of power by the Communist Party of France. In Spain Stalin had ordered the Communist Party to stay out of the government because he was seeking an alliance with Britain and France and he wanted to reassure these governments that he could restrain the Communists from creating trouble. It was only after France began the Civil War that Stalin ordered the Spanish Communist Party to take over the government and manage the war effort. But if Franco had been defeated then Stalin would undoubtedly have told the Spanish Communist Party to leave office again.
This bullshit peddled by many here that the Western elites were not pro Soviet is obviously rubbish. Check out what they Western elites did to prisoners of war of Soviet background. They did not want to return to the USSR but they were forced to go beck anyways to be killed or sent to gulags. The West could have easily saved those Soviets if they wanted. Anthony Eden who could not stand Hitler and was screeching and screaming for war with Germany, was excited to send them back to Stalin. All of those Soviets (mostly Russians, Ukrainians) could have been settled in countries like Australia or Canada or even used to bolster the White population of South Africa. Western elites who love more and more foreign race refugees flooding he west had zero concern fro White refugees from Eastern Europe and did not want them??? Wow. Remember this was the time hwen Caribbean immigrants were being brought to the UK.
When the Soviet Leaders (Bulgan and Khurshov) came to the UK after WW2, many Russians/Poles etc…in the UK opposed this. Count Tolstoy went to protest there were many British Communists there to welcome their comrades as British PM Eden lovingly embraced his Soviet comrades. Count Tolstoy was putting up a placard against the visit and he was attacked by three guys. Turns out they were Railway Police. The British Govt did not want any incidents when their close Soviet pals were around. So Tolstoy was arrested and jailed. In the morning a Police sergeant came with food and asked him why he was protesting? Tolstoy replied that he would not support a murderous regime etc… The Sergeant then replied that he agreed with Tolstoy. Why? Well the Sergeant was in the British Army a decade back during the end of WW2 in Austria. He told Tolstoy about an event which happened then.
They were to send many Russians liberated by the British back to the USSR, back to their homes. The British soldiers were happy that as they Brits were going back to Britain, the Russians are going back to their Soviet paradise even before the British soldiers. Except the behaviour of the Russians was nothing of joy. The British soldiers were shocked when many of them Russians even committed suicide, jumping from the cattle trains!!!
Many years later, Tolstoy came across some declassified documents released by the British Government. A Ukrainian friend of his told him about many documents about forced repatriation of Soviet origin people back to the USSR. Tolstoy found out that about 2.5 million people were forcibly sent back to the Soviets, half by the British and half by the Americans.
No British Government has done anything to remember this event which was a war crime. Remember the USSR unlike any of the other powers had refused to sign the Geneva convention for treatment of Prisoners of War though ironically, it was Tzar Nicholas II who was one of the architects of this law for the decent treatment of prisoners of War. But the Soviets never accepted the Geneva convention or the Hague convention. In the earlier Soviet Finnish war, the Soviet troops captured by the Finns, when returned to the USSR, were sent to gulags in Siberia. For Stalin, all POWs were automatically traitors even if you were captured while taking a nap. Stalin ordered Soviet soldiers to kill themselves rather than be taken by the enemy. To be noted is that Third Reich Germany followed the Geneva convention till the end.
When the British captured many German camps during their invasion of mainland Europe, many German POWs were sent back to Britain to work in labour camps in Britain. Later they found out that a good chunk of the Germans POWs were actually Russians!!! They were some of the first who were captured by the Wehrmacht. Then suddenly rumours went around the camp that the Russians are gonna be sent back to the USSR by the British Govt and many Russians started committing suicide. This was reported back to the War office and then to the British Foreign office. The immediate reaction of the scumbag Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary was in a Cabinet meeting, Eden said that these Russians should be sent back to Stalin, traitors or not. But it was Winston Churchill who objected to this. Churchill even noted down in his papers that these Russians had already been “tried beyond their strength”. A second cabinet meeting was called but Anthony Eden the slimeball lover of Commies made powerful arguments for sending the Russian POWs back to the USSR. However unfortunately no minutes of this second meeting survives.
The Soviet POWs when returned to the USSR were immediately taken up by NKVD and many were machine gunned to death!!! Even when the British Foreign office was told about this, they decided to cover it up to not to make things inconvenient their Soviet Comrades. This was however discussed in Yalta that all Soviet POWs are to be sent back home. But this agreement was secret!! Chruchill played no part in this decision but it was again the scumbag Anthony Eden who signed it for Great Britain. President FDR who was infatuated with Stalin but there is no proof he was involved with this agreement. For the Americans among the State Department team, we had Alger Hiss, the Soviet spy. It is known from Soviet archives we know that Alger Hiss went to Moscow and was decorated by the USSR by the Order of the Red Banner!! He was the one from the side of the USA who negotiated at Yalta. Anthony Eden was a weak and vain man and many of his advisors were pro-Soviet such as Thomas Brimelow.
There were about 50,000 Cossacks who were in Austria, refugees from the Soviets as well as Cossack soldiers who fought with the Germans against Tito. They thought they were free and now even were ready to give their services to the British if they even wanted to fight the Bolsheviks. Tolstoy wrote a book called the Minister and the Massacres which was banned by the British Government and was withdrawn from all public and universities libraries. However this book is required reading in the Army of the Russian Federation today. The minister was Harold Macmillan (Resident Minister for the Mediterranean) and he gave the verbal directive to hand over Cossacks even if they wanted or not as well as if they were Soviet Citizens or not. Many of them were White emigres and not Soviet Citizens as they had lived in the West before WW2. This included old people as well as children who were mere refugees. This order was against the wishes Field Marshal Alexander of the British Army in the Mediterranean. However deceptive orders were given out. The Cossack officers were then told that the British government would like to have word about their future destination, the Cossacks naively believed them. When they were handed over to the Soviets a few Cossacks escaped and made their way back to the camp and warned the other Cossacks that they were to be handed back to the Soviets. Then a directive came from Macmillan that they are to be handed to the Communists and if anyone tried to escaped, they are to be shot. Remember this group included old people and children!!! They are eye witness accounts collected by Cossack generals which are horrible. When British Army Field Marshal Alexander discovered what was going on he immediately brought this forced transfers to a close.
Schools of Cossack children were thrown into cattle trucks to be sent to the Communists by Britain. After Soviet Archives were released, Tolstoy found out that the gulag where these kids were sent, the kids were dying of dysentery and criminals were released in to the camps. He was given access to secret Russian archives after the fall of Soviet Union by the KGB and Russian Army. And from the material he realized all this theories about the collaboration in between the Soviet government as well as the British Government in forcibly sending them Soviet refugees and Russian emigres back to the Soviet Union.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN ELITES WERE PRO SOVIET. CAPICE.
EPIC Zhirinovsky Speech on Lenin, Stalin and Communism
Even Russian Nationalist leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of LDPR in this epic speech on the brutality suffered by the Russians and Eastern Europeans under Bolshevism speaks about the brutality suffered by returned Soviet POWs in Gulags. Many of them sent back by Western elites who were pro-Soviet.
While I agree that the West would have waited for Hitler to be crushed, and even given Stalin to retreat voluntarily before going to war, you’re greatly inflating the extent to which pro-Soviet existed independently of the wartime alliance. It certainly is not breaking news that, in the context of a war which went on for many years with the USSR paying the greatest costs for the largest role in achieving victory, that there was a general degree of pro-Soviet sentiment which lasted for the first year or so after the war had ended.
But even in the spring of 1945 Churchill was ordering his staff to prepare Operation Unthinkable, intended to be a war launched against the USSR in July 1945. Churchill’s staff talked him out of this because they knew that Britain could not afford to go running off again in a new war so soon after the last. But it would have been a very different occasion if Stalin had struck before Hitler and by the fall of 1941 was preparing to occupy Europe. Authors like David Irving like to point out what an egotistical prick Churchill was. There’s a lot of truth to that. Even before war began in 1939 Churchill was looking ahead to eventually writing his own history of the future war. There’s no way that Churchill would have just sat back while Stalin follows the Rezun-script.
Nor is it true that Roosevelt would have tolerated this. What we know about Roosevelt was that he was a cagey politician who liked to sit back and let other people make arguments which he made jump on and use later on. If Stalin had attempted the Rezun-plan then people like Charles Lindbergh would have not only shifted to a very pro-interventionist stance at the same time that Churchill would now be positioning himself as the one standing up to Stalin in Europe. Roosevelt would have probably sat back for a while as the arguments raged, before coming forward as someone who is reluctantly being forced to intervene in Europe. In real history, Roosevelt was only pro-Stalin because he saw that Stalin was aiming at a partition into spheres of influence without seeking any general conquest of Europe. If Stalin had changed, Roosevelt would not have to change in order to reflect the new reality.
Sorry Zarathustra – you probably think about other person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swietopelk_II,_Duke_of_Pomerania
That’s how I see it too(re Poland), Fox.
As for the author, it is German historian Stefan Scheil.
Check his work out, it’ll be worth your time.
Regards.
His conversation with Mannerheim only shows Hitler’s willingness to speak exaggerated propaganda even where you might think it wouldn’t be necessary:
Hitler: “We have destroyed — right now — more than 34,000 tanks.”
Bollocks. Another poster on this thread has occasionally been making the 24,000 claim. I’ve already posted an older review of Rezun from way back which gives more accurate data:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160702210306/english.battlefield.ru/analytics/132-failed-historian.html
The data shows that the Western Defense Districts had 10,540 tanks which were combat-ready on June 1, 1941. In addition, there were 2,242 tanks in the Western Defense Districts which were listed as broken-down and “in need of repairs.” These together would make 12,782 tanks in some shape or another, but with only the 10,540 being ready for imminent use. However even if we were to reach across the whole USSR, all the way to the Soviet Far East, the total number of all tanks (including broken-down tanks which are not fit for use, as well tanks on the other side of the continent) comes out to being 23,106. Even if Hitler had miraculously destroyed every single tank that was in the USSR at the time of invasion, he would not have come close to 34,000.
What is more logical is that this is just another case of Hitler inflating figures by attaching an extra zero. With the Soviet forces having 10,540 combat-ready tanks on June 1, 1941, it makes sense that Hitler could have easily destroyed about 3,400 of them. Then the 34,000 figure would be made up by slinging an extra zero on there, just like the fabled 58,000 was gotten by taking the highest estimate of Germans killed by Poles after the German invasion began and putting another zero on that one.
Yes you are right that Germans were over confident, especially after beating the France. Perhaps they believed that propaganda alone was enough, or perhaps they were simply afraid of any comparisons of the suffering of the civilian population of both sides because there was nothing to compare.
Anyway, the key evidence that the Germans can not be trusted at all was the lack of a declaration of war. It was a bandit robbery.
.
We are pretty sure that Beria was spiritus movens of this situation. Large number of prisoners could be a problem not only during such operation, also after the war. For sure Beria regarded them as hostile element.
Perfectly right.
Thank you. I’ll check out the writings of Stefan Scheil.
Best regards
It was at the Lausanne Conference that the Allies agreed to eliminate the last remaining reparations owed from the Treaty of Versailles. Look it up. This was not something brought about by Hitler. Rather , Hitler reversed the earlier settlement so that later generations ended up paying the Versailles debt.
Take it easy. It seems to get reparations from Germany one has to wait only 113 years.
https://www.dw.com/de/deutschland-erkennt-kolonialverbrechen-in-namibia-als-v%C3%B6lkermord-an/a-57695319
The references from Domarus, please!
No I am not, you are simply denying it.
1945?? Why wait till 1945 and why not earlier? Why not declare a ceasefire with Germany when Hitler sent many peace offerings? Why not support Germany destroy the USSR which was a much greater existential threat to liberal British society. Indeed earlier, Hitler had even supported the British Empire, saying he could furnish German troops to support the British Empire if needed. Only when the Germans realised that the British elites are not friendly and Britain is not as positive a force, he thought it was did he become anti-British Empire. He started supporting Indian Independence leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose. Compared to that both the USSR and especially the USA acted menacing to the idea of the British Empire. Churchill really acted like an idiot. Now some would have said that getting rid of the Empire was a positive thing, economically to expensive though losing Empire would have meant loss of prestige and power w.r.t to other powers. But that does not matter because Churchill was pro- British Empire. It was not in British interests to declare war on Germany, it surely was in Jewish and banker interests. If Churchill wanted war with the USSR, he could have declared war when the USSR was in Eastern Poland. All this is hogwash.
Rubbish, what we know is that Roosevelt had pro-Soviet leanings from the very beginning and he was anti- Axis, the only forces saving the world from the curse of Communism. He did everything to instigate war with the Axis powers.
In March, 1941, before any official declaration of war in between the German Reich and the United States of America, American army planes began patrolling the North Atlantic, out of Newfoundland,against German submarines ; in April, 1941, Greenland was occupied. Meanwhile Mr. Roosevelt debated whether to order American submarines to attack and sink the German battleship Bismarck. In June Mr. Roosevelt agreed with Mr. Churchill to relieve the British troops in Iceland, and this was done on July 7, 1941. It was also in June, 1941, that Mr. Roosevelt ordered the closing of all the German and Italian consulates in the United States.
In the middle of May Mr. Roosevelt had announced publicly that twenty-four cargo ships were about to depart for the Red Sea in spite of the German proclamation of a war zone in that area. These vessels had to sail between Africa and South America, and in that general area the Robin Moor was sunk a few days later. Mr. Roosevelt had successfully provoked an incident, and in a message to the Congress he called it an “act of piracy,” and “the act of an international outlaw,” but the American public declined to be aroused.
Meanwhile the German Führer was taking no chances over the creation of any incident. He had long since prohibited unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of passenger ships; he had also strictly forbidden any injury to friendly nations’ vessels or to those of the United States, outside of the war zone closely adjacent to the British Isles. When the so-called neutrality patrol in the “neutrality zone” was established, Chancellor Hitler secretly ordered all German warships to avoid any incidents in it. When Mr. Roosevelt extended the boundaries of the Western Hemisphere much further to the east, the Führer still continued to prohibit the creation of any incidents. Nevertheless Mr. Roosevelt was still hoping in early June that he could “drive the Germans into shooting first.” Basically Roosevelt wanted a Lusitania like incident during the earlier WW1, to get a German U-boat sink an American ship to rouse the American people against Germany. Having failed that, thanks to Hitler’s prudence, he had to look east towards Japan and look at ways to provoke Japan to get the USA into active official war. Hello Pearl Harbour incident. Also the Japanese Empire always remained a potential threat to the USSR from the East as well as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in the Far East.
Late June and July, 1941, Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Hopkins, and others rushed in to swamp the USSR with offers of American aid. Fulfillment of the Soviet demands was given a first priority by president Roosevelt over everything else, and materials and equipment were diverted to the USSR in late 1941 over the opposition and in spite of strong protests from the United States Armed Forces.
The Atlantic Charter, in providing for Anglo-American co-operation in “the policing of the world” during a transitional period following the close of the second World War, assumed by a tacit but inescapable implication that the United States would presently become involved in the war. This implication is fortified by the preponderance of the top military and naval staff personnel who were present. What was, on their agenda has never been fully disclosed, but it included war plans generally and specific discussions about expeditions to seize the Azores, the Canaries, and the Cape Verde Islands. The activities of the American navy were to be extended in the North Atlantic, and Mr. Roosevelt repeated to Mr. Churchill his predilection for an undeclared war, saying, “I may never declare war; I may make war. If I were to ask Congress to declare war, they might argue about it for three months.
Within a fortnight after the termination of the Atlantic Conference—on August 25, 1941—Roosevelt gave secret orders to the Atlantic Fleet to attack and destroy German and Italian “hostile forces”; this was the putting into effect of War Plan 51. Ten days later, on September 4, 1941, there was an incident between an American destroyer, the Greer, and a German submarine. If the Greer obeyed her secret orders she necessarily attacked the submarine, but it was stated for public consumption that she was attacked. This was doubted at the time. The Navy Department, it should be noted, refused to furnish the log of the Greer to the Senate, and thus establish whether the official claim was the truth.
Mr. Roosevelt capitalized on this incident in a fireside chat delivered on September 11, 1941. He claimed it was an attack, “piracy legally and morally,” and that the Nazis were “international outlaws.” And he said, . . . “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.These Nazi submarines and raiders are the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic. . . .. . . From now on, if German or Italian vessels of war enter the waters the protection of which is necessary for American defense, they will do so at their own peril.”
This was the shoot-on-sight speech, and it publicly announced a small portion of the substance of War Plan 51, which was already secretly in effect. Mr. Churchill mentioned in a “most secret” letter to General Smuts that the American people had been kept quite ignorant of “the vast area to which it is to be applied.” Here, indeed, was undeclared war. On September 13 Mr. Roosevelt ordered the Atlantic Fleet to escort convoys in which there were no American vessels. It was also at about this time that Mr. Roosevelt agreed to furnish Mr. Churchill with “our best transport ships”—twelve liners and twenty cargo vessels, manned by American crews—to transport two British divisions to the Middle East. At an earlier date fifty American tankers had been transferred to Britain, and four to the Soviet Union, which led to a gasoline shortage and a curfew in the eastern United States.
Another incident occurred on October 17, 1941, when an American destroyer, the Kearny, dropped depth charges on a German U-boat which replied to the attack by torpedoing the Kearny. Ten days later sneaky Roosevelt, who again claimed that this was an unprovoked German attack, delivered a “scare-mongering election-eve” type of speech in which he claimed that “. . . the shooting has started, and history has recorded who fired the first shot.” Then, in a passage the importance of which seems to have been overlooked at that time, he guardedly hinted that the Republic was bound by his secret commitments, saying significantly, “Very simply and very bluntly—we are pledged to pull our own oar in the destruction of Hitlerism.” Roosevelt claimed to have news of a German plan to abolish all religions in Germany, and throughout the world—“if Hitler wins.” Also he claimed to have a map proving the German intention to conquer Latin America and redistrict it into five vassal states (LOL)—but at his next press conference he made excuses and refused to reveal it.
On October 31, 1941, an older destroyer, the Reuben James, was torpedoed about seven hundred miles eastward of Newfoundland,and more lives were lost. The American public’s reaction to it was expressed by Admiral Stark in a confidential letter to Admiral Kimmel at Pearl Harbor : “Believe it or not, the Reuben James set recruiting back about 15%.” This illustrates the continuance of American public opposition to involvement in the war. In mid-August the length of service required under the draft act had been extended, in violation of the obligations of good faith toward the draftees. The Roosevelt regime had had to use all of its political and patronage powers to force this extension, and, even so, the vote in the House was 203 to 202. From New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, across the Midwest and out to the Northwest, every single state (except Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Montana, which split fifty-fifty) voted two to one, or by larger majorities, against the extension of the draft act. Public opinion was, of course, far more preponderantly against involvement in the war than this vote showed.
By the time that October, 1941, had ended, Mr. Roosevelt’s undeclared war in the Atlantic had become a reality and was in full swing. But this was not enough. The war powers could not be exercised under the American Constitution until there was a formal and declared war, and of that there was no immediate prospect. As Count Ciano had noted, when at the German General Headquarters, “. . . The Germans have firmly decided to do nothing which will accelerate or cause America’s entry into the war. . . .” Because of this German attitude, the slimeball Roosevelt, as of the end of October, 1941, had no further ideas how to get into a formal and declared war : “. . . He had said everything ‘short of war’ that could be said. He had no more tricks left. The hat from which he had pulled so many rabbits was empty. . . .” The only thing that he could think of to do was to continue to stall, for the front door to war in Europe appeared to be firmly barred. Germany and Italy seemed resolved to decline the progressively increasing challenges of scumbag Roosevelt regime’s unneutral actions and policies.
But there were back doors as well as front doors. There was always the uneasy state of affairs in the Far East. On the one hand a peaceful solution of the Japanese problem would have released much American power for use in Europe. If certain American diplomatic officials were not mistaken in believing that Japan could be quickly defeated, perhaps a Japanese war would solve Mr. Roosevelt’s problems without involving too much delay in his purpose to conquer and destroy the National Socialist German Third Reich and scrub clean National Socialism permanently from this Earth. The slimeball Roosevelt was a complicated man, too, not a simple one. By November 25, 1941, slimeball Roosevelt and his cabinet were debating how to “maneuver [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” There was the secret American plans of JB 355 of attacking Japan from China using American planes using American pilots (officially mercenaries) planes displaying Nationalist Chinese Roundels. On December 1, 1941, Mr. Roosevelt very secretly issued the needless order to send the Cockleshell Warships to their appointed positions for destruction. The design for the American war which began at Pearl Harbor was a zigzag growth rooted in secrecy, unneutrality, misrepresentation, and deceit. As it eventuated, Japan was not an easy conquest ; the Japanese Empire was the last to surrender to the Allies. It was against Japan that the USA ruthlessly dropped the atom bombs and thus revealed their existence to the world—needlessly, as it transpired. And needlessly, as it also transpired, the secret deals and agreements were made with the USSR at Yalta. Thus the Soviets were encouraged to came into Manchuria, Northern China, and North Korea, dividing the Korean peninsula to this day causing unnecessary suffering to the Korean people to this day. Thus we see the slimeball Roosevelt’s abandonment of neutrality, his diplomatic maladroitness, his penchant for secrecy and the deceit of his own people as well as of others.
No you like a typical slimeball are reducing the whole conversation to just number of tanks. The conversation is more important than that, it explains Hitler’s actions and the conditions under which he was forced to take them. Point to note in the conversation, German forces were designed and made for the West, not the East which dashes all that bullshit about planned invasion for Lebensraum. Also the four demands of the Soviets including Romania, the source of oil for Germany. Romania conquered by the Soviets would have meant the end of Germany and of any effective resistance in Western Europe to any Soviet expansion into Western Europe. Remember Romania too reported Soviet troop buildup along with Germany and Finland. Romania too took part in the pre-emptive strike of Operation Barbarossa along with Germany, Finland and Hungary. Please do not tell me, Romanians wanted lebensraum in Russia too. LOL.
This conversation completely and solidly supports Suvarov’s work. As far as I know, he never discussed this conversation. What is certain is that the Germans, Romanians etc… did perceive a Soviet military threat and pre-emptively attacked for self defence.
It was a most unlikely eventuality, unless Germany was softened up by WW1 Western Front, round two. Hence appeasement, the Conservative leadership did not think Germany with Hitler in control could be contained and were banking on the fighting not being done by Britain: Hitler making territorial demands on Stalin and getting the same treatment that Napoleon had in Russia. The idea of Hitler grabbing the resources of Romania then invading the Soviet Union with the Promethean objective of conquering the whole state not really envisioned until after 1939. Even then it must be remembered that on the first day of Barbarossa , the Soviet Union fielded more T34 and (even better defensively) KV tanks than the panzers of all type that the Germans invaded with. The Soviet air force had more military planes than the rest of the world put together.
The balance of informed opinion was in accordance with Chamberlain’s view that Britain going to war with Nazi Germany would lead to a rerun of the WW1 Western Front stalemate that had knocked the stuffing out of all the European powers involved in it, before America came in to forestall a German victory (although that was in the event prevented as much by the 1918 influenza epidemic). Chamberlain did not think that the Soviet Union could conquer Germany and communism would only sweep over Western Europe unless Britain (and France) fought a WW1 style trench attrition conflict with Germany. Because of Guernica there was a perception that London could be leveled by the Luftwaffe in months. Additionally, because he (and Churchill) wanted avoid any Battle of the Somme type casualties and strangle Germany with a maritime blockade, Chamberlain had a preference war to fight Germany in the air, and he took the measures that meant Britain had the world’s most advanced air defence system of fighter planes and radar by the time of the Battle of Britain. The RAF’s heavy bombers were slow and vulnerable but carried massive loads and contributed the lion’s share of the German civilian deaths due to bombing in WW2. The bombing and attempt to counter it with aircraft that were extremely expensive in scarce resources contributed 50% to the defeat of Germany.
In 1903 Churchill had opposed the expansion of the Army because he said Britain’s Empire should continue to be defended by foreign solders and the traditional maritime strategy maintained. When the war started, Churchill was at the Admiralty where he pushed a intervention in Norway (Topitsch pointed this out in support of the idea that Stalin had a Machiavellian strategy to draw Germany into a war). When Czechoslovakia was invaded by Germany, it was thought Chamberlain had failed to control Germany, but who could repress Germany with Hitler leading it on a sell imposed mission to revers WW1 and Thirty Years war, plus conquer a USA sized swathe of Russia?
Never forget that it was Neville Chamberlain that declared war after giving the German leadership a series of increasingly clear warnings, and he did so out of his own belief in what was necessary supported by British public opinion while leader of a British Empire that was still on paper at lease comparable to the US in military might. The records show a surprisingly bellicosity of Chamberlain in the wartime Cabinet; serious illness was as big a factor as anything else in his resignation as prime minister. Absolutely no one had wanted a war at the time of Munich, which Chamberlain was widely acclaimed for. Hitler reversed all that. Curiously, Neville’s father, Joseph Chamberlain, had once proposed an alliance with Germany and saw his public overtures repeatedly and brutally rebuffed.
While I agree that the West would have waited for Hitler to be crushed, and even given Stalin to retreat voluntarily before going to war, you’re greatly inflating the extent to which pro-Soviet existed independently of the wartime alliance.
You are wrong on that and every other one who thinks that there was such a great love for Stalin and the Soviet Union in the high spheres of the FDR administration. A bit more and you would think that had been Che Guevara around at the time, Roosevelt would have called him to serve as Secretary of Something. Yeah, and I know also as well that before every meeting in the Oval Office they used to sing The International in a joyous chorus. Fact is, Roosevelt was just another member of the U.S. oligarchy and the only reason he established social measures to help the poor and the working class in his New Deal was “to prevent the U.S. from becoming the Soviet Union of the Western world” as he put it himself to his fellow oligarchs. So much for someone who loved the USSR and their system! On the other hand, most the oligarchies in both the U.S. and the U.K. were firmly on the side of Hitler, including the aristocracy in this later, so much so that Churchill had to govern with the backing of the hated Labor and against how own party.. There was even a confidence vote against him launched in the Commons after the French defeat which he managed to win by a single vote. That single vote changed History, more or less. Had he been toppled, there is a strong possibility that Great Britain would have called Berlin so they could come to an arrangement. On the other hand also, according to the book The Myth of The Good War, even if the “American” oligarchy was strongly on the side of their fellow Fascists in Germany, the main reason that finally made Roosevelt take the British side (or rather, to take over the British empire) was that Germany was elbowing out “American” exports from South America and that would have meant the end of the Monroe Doctrine and so Germany becoming the first trading partner of the half continent. Also that, while Germany was a strong trade, industrial and military opponent and competitor of the U.S., Roosevelt and his people considered that the sun had already set anyway on the British empire, as a dying sea monster beached on a shore, so they only had to pick the pieces. Which means, the picking of the British side had nothing to do with common causes or political ideals but with simple opportunism. The same with their stance face to the Soviet Union, Roosevelt had absolutely no reason to pick the Soviet side in the case of a war against Germany except that Germany was infringing in “America’s Latin American turf”, and simple trade talks and trade deals would have been enough to end the problem. Once again, had Stalin attacked Germany instead, neither the US nor GB had any reason to take his side or to even sit on the fence, it is all in the minds of the people who think FDR loved Stalin and the USSR..
England very well did realize that if Germany would win the war that England would totally loose its dominant position not only in Europe but also in the world. England ruled the Europe with all kinds
of governments in exile. Also Britain would stop rule the waives. German submarines would put end to it. So England was more afraid of Germany than Russia.All attempts of Hitler, like treating English at Dunkirk and begging for piece by Himmler were childish nonsense. England could not afford Germany to win the war.
Concerning Russian tanks, all I know that Russians did have terrible problems with turrets of T 34 tanks. Russia had to build New casting and manufacturing line. There were problems that took Russia more than a year to solve. The solution did happen Relative shortly before Kurksk battle.
Great Britain was playing the same power games it had already been playing for centuries in the European continent, of siccing one power against each other, following the ancient rule of Divide to Conquer. According to some scholars, that is the reason why they waited for the invasion of Poland by Germany to declare war, as until then the greatest European power was France, with Germany closing in on her, approaching her status with Hitler’s conquests of the late 30s. Czechoslovakia had kind of evened things up, perfectly balancing both powers, put them at the same level, which was the best possible outcome for Great Britain. But then Hitler had to invade Poland, which acquisition, so to speak, of even half of it, was putting Germany now at an advantage, as the top continental dog, and Great Britain couldn’t accept that. That is a version of the events ultimately provoking WW2 that I find appropriate because such is the way big powers behave in the real world. A similar thing we see now in a dramatic fashion with Erdogan’s Turkey and its relations with Russia, NATO and Israel.
This perfectly fits with what you wrote in your post. England knew that they couldn’t afford to let Germany win the war, because that would have signaled the end of their continental dominance, even more if as the fruitful result of that win the entire French Navy became part of the Axis’ naval forces (we all know too well what happened after the fall of France) But also, Great Britain couldn’t afford either to let the Soviet Union win, because in that case it could also lose the power to control events in the continent. So at the end it was quite a pickle London found itself stuck with. The only way the British could have had they way was to achieve the miracle of making both Germany and the USSR coming out as the losers in any armed conflict. But that was complicated even more by the fact that the elite itself was at the time deeply divided between those who wanted and arrangement with Hitler (who had offered to let them keep their empire and in exchange leaving him with a freed hand in the continent) and the Churchill faction so to speak. It s that schism that made the situation so complex as the nation could go either way depending of the faction coming out as a winner. So your phrase:
England was more afraid of Germany than Russia.
represented only a fraction of the English elite, not certainly the one including the royals, who were German themselves after all. At the end the fraction who won and decided to what side they’d go was Churchill’s and his master plan the one to prevail, of keeping both Germany and the USSR fighting it to the bitter end if hostilities broke out between them, NO matter who had started it all.
The Soviet Union and Britain were both trying to set Germany on each other. But in view of WW1, which was virtually the same countries on either side, no one thought a quick decisive result by Germany was possible in the West. Suvorov is almost alone in thinking that the Soviet Union might have steamrollered Germany; Zhukov proposed a raid to disrupt the German build up, not an all out offensive to conquer Germany, he wasn’t that stupid. The success of the German Army invalidated those calculation. Due to the spending of Britain on the RAF, Germany was never realistically going to be able to defeat Britain.
Even if the RAF was subtracted, an invasion against the British Navy would have been very high risk. A successful invasion and conquest of the Soviet Union while Germany was still engaged in a war against the British Empire (and the air assets of the Afrika Korp were substantial) was not considered likely. It was the success of the German Army that made America think it had to get into the war. The only way that the US would have stayed out of WW2 under any leader was Germany being quickly beaten, and that was never going to happen. In the important things, Churchill was not different to Chamberlain and Roosevelt acted no differently to what any other US president would have. All this had happened before, that is why they call it WW2.
Completely correct. Britain was trying to push Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union. Let Hitler and Stalin fight and destroy each other. This is the real story behind the origins of WWII.
But it is suppressed in anglo saxon world and dismissed as communist propaganda.
But it is 100% truth.
There is no market for such truths however in the english speaking world.
The point that really matters, and to which my analysis of my two or three last comments was going to, is that Stalin had to be completely aware of what was really happening, not for nothing he had spies all over the West, specially in the higher spheres of the British government, inside their Intelligence community; so he had to know that Churchill was hanging by a thread and that all it could take was a non-confidence vote in the Commons to have him out and gone and so the best allies he could find in the British Islands, making of the pro-Germany fraction the new British government, which would have complicated enormously things for him and the Soviet Union. He had to know also about all the implications, even more so if he was toying with the idea of launching a surprise attack against Germany. For all we know, that would have been a complete folly. That is why the people saying here that he was preparing such an attack (thinking, I imagine, that he could achieve a complete military victory over Germany while the Anglo Saxon powers were sitting on the fence or even applauding) are wrong. Stalin knew well the real deal, he knew what was he really facing, he knew that that an alliance between the Anglo Saxons and Germany was a very distinct possibility and that a Soviet attack on Germany had all the chances of turning it into a reality, period. That is the reality at the time and what Stalin was observing with very much attention, specially the ability of Churchill to stay in power. Of course Churchill was as much of an anti-Soviet as you can find in this world but, as Stalin, he was also a practical man, and he recognized that the Soviet Union was at the moment the best ally the Uk could find besides the US. So much so, he snapped back,
when criticized for cozying up to the USSR: If Hitler invaded Hell, I would made an ally of the Devil.
Soviet Union? They wanted to form triple alliance with UK and France to fight Germany.
Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’
https://outline.com/nVRW86
“…So sparse is the evidence for the war-revolution hypothesis that McMeekin resorts to citing a blatant forgery: a document purporting to report on a speech Stalin supposedly made in August 1939 in which he spoke about the Sovietisation of Europe as a result of the war he intended to provoke. The document in question initially appeared in the French press shortly after the outbreak of war and was plainly propaganda designed to discredit Stalin at a time when he was collaborating with Hitler.
A legitimate piece of evidence cited by McMeekin are the private remarks made by Stalin in September 1939: “A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries. We see nothing wrong in their having a good fight and weakening each other. We can manoeuvre, pit one side against the other to set them fighting each other as fiercely as possible.”
But McMeekin lets his readers down by not quoting what Stalin also said: “We preferred agreements with the so-called democratic countries and therefore conducted negotiations. But the English and French wanted us for farmhands and at no cost.”
What these remarks actually show is that having failed to form an anti-Hitler coalition with Britain and France, Stalin instead opted for neutrality and the Nazi-Soviet pact, intended to further protect Russia from the consequences of war…”
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/stalin-s-war-disorted-history-of-a-complex-second-world-war-1.4551057
“Due to the spending of Britain on the RAF, Germany was never realistically going to be able to defeat Britain.”
That brings another point the scholars I mentioned use to debunk the “Chamberlain surrendered in Munich” version of events. The Royal Air Force was at the time in clear inferiority in bombers and fighters with respect to the Luftwaffe so they were building Lancasters and Spitfires at an accelerate rate so fill the gap, British factories working 24/7. They would have probably wished to have more time but the German attack on Poland forced their hand, they had to go to war with what they had in September 1939, even if the Phony War gave them still almost a year to build their air force. So, there wasn’t any Munich surrender, that is another myth, the RAF just needed time to build its forces, period.
Actually bitter Hitler when he did see that he is loosing the war predicted that England will loose its position in the world. And so England did loose its position in the world. And not only that. Roosevelt
insisted in negotiation with Churchill that England pick up the Bill for US involvement in the war.
England used to own practically all railway system in US. Also England had considerable investments in US heavy industries. By paying the bill to US England did loose all of that to US.
Hitler should have been satisfied what he had and newer should have started the war.
Overconfidence of Hitler did cost very much to Germany in blood and gold.
………………………………………………………………
Pity!
Excuse me, there was nothing in that treaty neutral as the term is normally understood; Stalin got Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia and north Bukovina from Romania, and half of Poland in which the Soviets killed more Poles than the Germans did in their part. Moreover, the pact was an act of aggression against the West, because it freed Hitler to attack in the West, as he proceeded to do. Stalin could have simply refused to make the pact and Hitler would not have been able to attack in the West of East without fear (among his generals) of a two front war. By 1940 Stalin had already broke the agreed provisions of the pact by attacking Finland. He could have attacked Germany during the battle of France if he wanted an alliance in which the Soviet Union fought with Britain and France against Germany.
A domestic tyrant who had never faced a capable opponent with power equal to his own, Stalin was out of his depth in international geopolitics, and that explains a lot of Hitler’s successes. Stalin was personally warned by the German ambassador to Moscow, Graf von der Schulenberg that Hitler was going to attack. Both Churchill and Roosevelt sent warnings of the attack, which were disregarded by Stalin. The building of logistics infrastructure in Poland to support the invasion was not concealable, and his own intelligence chief was sacked for telling Stalin the truth. Hitler apparently sent a nice letter to Stalin, who seems to have been a fool.
https://www.cia.gov/static/467292f7793d09d5125d5001262d22ef/Review-What-Stalin-Knew.pdf
If that pact was act of aggression, Munich was act of aggression against USSR by UK and France. It destroyed one of USSR’s main allies against Germany and opened the gate to the east.
Stalin did his part to reach triple alliance with West. UK preferred to direct Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union. If that was the case, Stalin had to secure his interests.
“…In August 1939, negociations between Britain, France and the Soviet Union entered their final phase. But the two Western powers sent second rank delegations to Moscow, with no mandate to finalize an accord. Voroshilov insisted on binding, precise engagements so that should there be renewed German aggression, the allies would go to war together. He wanted to know how many British and French divisions would oppose Hitler should Germany invade the Soviet Union. He received no response. He also wanted to draw up an accord with Poland so that the Soviet troops could engage the Nazis on Polish soil in case of German aggression. Poland refused,thereby making any possible accord effective. Stalin understood perfectly that France and Britain were preparing a new Munich, that they were ready to sacrifice Poland, encouraging Hitler to march on the Soviet Union.
Harold Ickes, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, wrote at the time in his journal: `(England) kept hoping against hope that she could embroil Russia and Germany with each other and thus escape scot-free herself.’ . Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes (New York: Simon and Schuster,1954), p. 705.
`France would also have to renounce to Central and Eastern Europe in favor of Germany inthe hope of seeing her wage war against the Soviet Union. Hence France could stay in security behind the Maginot Line.’ . Sipols and Kharmalov, A la veille de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Moscow: ÉditionsNovosti, 1973), p. 262.
The Soviet Union was facing the mortal danger of a single anti-Soviet front consisting of all the imperialist powers. With the tacit support of Britain and France, Germany could, after having occupied Poland, continue on its way and begin its blitzkrieg against the USSR, while Japan would attack Siberia.
At the time, Hitler had already reached the conclusion that France and Britain had neither the capacity nor the will to resist. He decided to grab Western Europe before attacking the USSR. On August 20, Hitler proposed a non-aggression pact to the Soviet Union. Stalin reacted promptly, and the pact was signed on August 23. On September 1, Hitler attacked Poland. Britain and France were caught in their own trap.These two countries assisted in all of Hitler’s adventures, hoping to use him against the Soviet Union.
Right from 1933, they never stopped speaking in praise of Hitler’s battle against Communism. Now they were forced to declare war against Germany, although they had no intention of doing so in an effective manner. Their rage exploded in a virulent anti-Communist campaign: `Bolshevism is fascism’s natural ally’. Half a century later, this stupid propaganda is still be found in school books as an unquestioned truth. However, history has shown that the Germano-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was a key for victory in the anti-fascist war. This may seem paradoxical, but the pact was a turning point that allowed the preparation of the necessary conditions for the German defeat. In fact, the Soviet Union concluded this pact with the clear understanding that sooner or later war with Nazi Germany was inevitable.
Once Germany had decided to sign an accord with the USSR, Stalin forced out of Hitler a maximum of concessions, ensuring the best possible conditions for the war to come. The September 23, 1939 issue of Pravda wrote: `The only thing that was possible was to preserve from German invasion Western Ukraine,Western Byelorussia (two provinces seized from the Soviet Union in 1920) and the Baltic countries.The Soviet government forced Germany to make the engagement to not cross the line formed by theThasse, Narew, Bug and Vistula rivers.’ . Grigori Déborine, Les secrets de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Moscow: Éditions duProgrès, 1972), p. 35. In the West, those who sympathized with Hitler’s anti-Communist politics immediately cried out: `The two totalitarianisms, Fascism and Bolshevism, shared up Poland.’
But the advance of the Soviet troops corresponded to the interests of the masses in these territories, since they could get rid of the fascists, the landed gentry and the capitalists.
This advance also helped the entire world anti-Hitler movement. The most realistic bourgeois saw clearly that by advancing its troops, the SovietUnion gave itself a better starting position for the coming war. For example, Churchill declared onOctober 1, 1939: `(T)hat the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety ofRussia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been createdwhich Nazi Germany does not dare assail.’ . Winston S. Churchill, op. cit. , p. 449.
Unable to see through their dream of seeing the Nazi army charge through Poland to attack the Soviet Union, France and Britain were forced to declare war on Germany.
But on the Western Front, not a single bomb would bother Nazi tranquility. However, a real internal political war was launched against the French Communists: On September 26, the French Communist Party was banned and thousands of its members were thrown into prison. Henri de Kerillis wrote: `An incredible tempest swept through bourgeois minds. The crusade storm raged. Only one cry could be heard: War on Russia. It was at this moment that the anti-Communist delirium reached it sapogee.’ . Cited in La grande guerre nationale de l’Union soviétique (Moscow: Éditions du Progrès,1974), p. 20.
At the same time, Stalin spoke with great insight to Zhukov: `The French Government headed by Daladier and the Chamberlain Government in Britain have no intention of getting seriously involved in the war with Hitler. They still hope to incite Hitler to a war against the Soviet Union. By refusing in 1939 to form with us an anti-Hitler bloc, they did not want to hamper Hitler in his aggression against the Soviet Union. Nothing will come of it. They will have to pay through the nose for their short-sighted policy.’ . G. Zhukov, The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov (London: Jonathan Cape, 1971), p. 171 …”
https://stalinsocietypk.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/another-view-of-stalin1.pdf
By paying the bill to US England did loose all of that to US.
Actually, they lost their whole empire. A fact that is not much mentioned in discussions about WW2 is that there was an even bigger loser as the result of it, and that was Churchill, even if he didn’t end up in a bunker sixty feet below ground with a hole in his head. Because, if Hitler lost an empire he never actually had, Churchill lost a very real empire. What is not mentioned much neither to us is the fact that the relation between the FDR and him was more that of a merciless usurer to his victim than that of a dear friend and ally. Already Churchill had a taste for what was coming when he had to concede 99 year leases for naval and air bases in Newfoundland and in the islands of Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Antigua and British Guiana in exchange for some 50 rusting old WW1 destroyers. Someone in his entourage said later that he had bitterly complained: “They bled us white”, referring to the FDR administration. So much for a dear friend and ally. And that was only the beginning. According to witnesses, during the summits among them and Stalin he played more of the role of a chaperone for the couple than that of a bona fide partner, as the two other looked upon him and his country as just a minor party who had no real saying in the final decisions. That greatly offended and humiliated him, to the point that I suspect there lies the origin of the Garden Market disaster.
More specifically, when i say that the price Churchill and Great Britain had to pay for the “American” help in their fight against Hitler was the empire itself I refer to the demand by Roosevelt that US big business and banking had unrestricted access to the until then British colonies in an position of open and fair competition, which of course meant in the real world that the Brits had to let “American” interests take them over. I don ‘t remember the exact, rather diplomatic, wording of the accord, but that was the idea and the intention. Great Britain had to hand its empire to the Yanks to have the aid it needed for the war. Ironically, Hitler had promised them to let them keep their world wide empire if they came to their senses and accepted his peace offer.
Completely disagree. Unless the Mitford sisters were Stalin’s only agents, he could have been told no such thing. There was no meaningful pro German faction in Britain at all by the time Churchill was PM. By early 1939 Hitler had broke the Munich agreement and annexed what was left of Czechoslovakia, causing Britain under Chamberlain and France to guarantee Poland and Romania’s independence. Then, having ordered the army to prepare for an attack of the Soviet Union from launched from Danzig and the . Hitler failed to get the necessary cooperation of Poland (Danzig and a railway line ) for an attack on the Soviet Union. So Hitler knowingly decided to go to war ignoring the united front of Poland, France Britain (PM Chamberlain) and America, which had imposed trade sanctions and through Roosevelt was publicly demanding Hitler guarantee not to attack any more countries telling him if he did he could expect a general war. Churchill was half American and having him as PM was essential in the position Britain found itself in.
I think that would have been welcomed in Britain, it would have helped Churchill not got him thrown out of office. After all, Britain had not declared war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland. Even many in the Labour party which had in the early thirties wanted to disband the Royal Air Force, had come to see that Hitler would not be stopped by diplomacy fin the aftermath of him breaking the Munich deal. The right wing of the Conservatives Party had distrusted Churchill since the abdication crisis in which he had opposed Edward vacating the throne. Churchill was viewed as a half foreign political adventurer who had repeatedly changed parties. British politicians of the center viewed him as loving war and not to be trusted with a country at peace. British MPs who met with Stalin during the 30s were questioned about Churchill, who Stalin saw as someone who would try to intervene against the Soviet Union, and was bound to return to power sooner or later.
While Churchill and Chamberlain were rivals within the same party, it was Chamberlain who declared war as soon as the country was willing to go to war–it simply had not been during Munich–and brought Churchill into the Cabinet. I don’t think Stalin thought for one minute that Britain might surrender, because America hadn’t begun to fight and it was always the British–American opponents that Hitler feared. In the order to attack Poland he asserted it was being done against the British and in the order to attack the Soviet Union Hitler again said it was being to to hurt Britain.
Hitler simply did not take the Soviet Union seriously except that be conquering he could offer German Americans a desirable lifestyle, and resources for a when America joined in a war he had already warned would be a long one, if only against Poland Britain and France would be long and difficult . In Summer 1939 Hilter viewed a film taken of New York from the air and was visible shaken by the scale and advanced nature of the city. When Molotov visited Hitler, Berlin was being bombed and it was clear the Soviets were not interested dividing up the British Empire, instead they brusquely questioned the purpose of German military missions in Finland and Romania. Hitler decided the British and American problem could be a case of two birds with one stone.
> “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.”
Didn’t you just answer yourself? National Socialism does appear to be the last breath of the Aryan race, from Alaska to Chukotka. As you are saying, American Christians chose to die. I will add, Socialist Russians committed their own suicide in 1991 in turn. Europeans seem to be unable to throw off the shackles of Christianity. Not to appear as economist as Dr. Robert Morgan, I will nevertheless say that a peaceful Germany might have indeed succumbed to a degenerate relapse into Christianity. This way, a mad dash of fire and blood into an attempted slaughter of the Russian race does seem like the least evil.
History is such that after the death of Germany, every single European man’s state has fallen into misery. The genius of Stalin might have been guided by Providence to help the indeed higher race of Koreans to throw off the Japanese yoke and establish the aristocratic-democratic theocracy of Kim Il Sung. (Western Eurasians are unfaithful whores in comparison.)
“designed for the .. West, not the East .. which dashes .. Lebensraum…”
Nonsense. This is just an example of counting Hitler’s mistakes in an exculpatory way, whereas the errors of the Allies or the Soviets are never given such an exculpatory interpretation. When Hitler’s Directive No. 21 from December 18, 1940, was laying out the plans for an attack on the USSR, he didn’t indicate any problems about German forces having been made for the West:
“The bulk of the Russian Army stationed in Western Russia will be destroyed by daring operations led by deeply penetrating armored spearheads. Russian forces still capable of giving battle will be prevented from withdrawing into the depths of Russia.”
However, once the war had begun after about 3 months he was forced to change his tune. A major miscalculation had been made and it was now clear that the Soviets were not going to collapse as fast he had thought. This is then miscast as if it were evidence that Hitler’s avowed aim of conquering living space in the east were somehow irrelevant to his actions.
But I’ll agree that things would have gone much better if the Rumanians had been in charge. For that matter, things could have gone very differently if the Reich had been led by people like Goebbels, Ribbentrop and Rosenberg. These people showed a better grasp of reaching out to the international stage, whereas Hitler and Himmler simply expected to enact their living space agenda without caring about world opinion.
If Hitler had been actually motivated by some concern over a possible expansion of the USSR all that he had to do in 1939 was:
1) Don’t occupy Czechoslovakia, but simply invite Allied diplomacy to resolve relations there now that Germany had been given the Sudetenland at Munich.
2) Raise the issue of a need to work out something with Poland over the Danzig Corridor. Without the occupation of Czechoslovakia that was carried out on March 15, 1939, Chamberlain would have supported all German demands of this type. Poland would have been forced to a new arrangement over the Danzig Corridor, the same that Benes had been forced to accept the Munich Agreement.
3) Now that all of that is taken care of Hitler could proceed to argue in the manner of Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower that he believes the central and western European states should have an alliance to guard against the possibility of Soviet aggression.
4) Stalin would act hurt and express the desire of the USSR for peace. Meanwhile east and west would lock themselves in for about 15 years of Cold War. With Stalin dying in the 1950s, Khrushchev’s subsequent denunciations would have had an even more earth-shattering effect than they did in real history. Maybe if Hitler was still alive in the 1950s he would be able to claim some sort of peace prize.
Things did not occur this way because Hitler was set on the conquest of living space in the east. He tore up the Munich Agreement and occupied Czechoslovakia to advance this agenda, not because of any particular inconveniences in the Munich Treaty as such. Then he pressed demands on Poland, but he was not interested in Danzig per se. His resolve was that either Poland would become a client state that cooperate in Germany’s drive to the east (the way Rumania and Hungary later did) or else he would simply add Poland to the domain of German living space. With that in mind he crushed Poland and then found himself dealing with the unexpected fallout of a war in the west. Having achieved some major victories in the west, but without knocking Britain out, he decided that it was now time to turn back to the USSR.
His immediate goal was to thwart Churchill’s last hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. But once the decision had been made he once again revived his vision of acquiring living space in the east. By this point, the example of Poland had already shown that it would be impossible for states like Hungary or Rumania to simply be neutral while the war between Germany and the USSR took off. Obviously Stalin did not treat them as neutral but rather as pieces on a chessboard where the main confrontation would be between Berlin and Moscow. However it only came to this point because of Hitler’s earlier actions from March 1939 onward.
“Roosevelt had pro-Soviet leanings”
Roosevelt’s willingness to adopt a pro-Soviet stance in the context of the likely confrontation between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union was always bound to the reality that everyone (including Hitler) took the former more seriously as a world power. Most people in the 1930s who were not dedicated members of the Comintern simply assumed that the USSR would be a permanently weak state suffering from internal mismanagement while trying to modernize. Everyone took Germany a lot more seriously as a long-term world power. That may be easy to forget after 4 decades of the Cold War, but it was the reality. If Stalin had done something as dumb as Rezun claims, and if this had really resulted in the kind of easy free-coasting victory which Rezun maintains was just on the horizon, then all of this would have changed overnight.
It wouldn’t just be a matter of Roosevelt changing his mind, although that would happen quickly enough. Most of the people who formed the isolationist opposition to Roosevelt’s interventionist policy prior to Pearl Harbor became willing Cold Warriors later. Charles Lindbergh and Herbert Hoover would not have just sat back quietly while Stalin gobbled up Europe a la Rezun. Roosevelt would immediately have been confronted with the reality that if he didn’t have a firm response to such a hypothetical Soviet conquest of Europe then politics in the USA would have shifted under his feet overnight. Of course was the sort who stayed ahead of things like that and he would have begun forming an alliance with Churchill on his own in this case.
@Sean
“Completely disagree. Unless the Mitford sisters were Stalin’s only agents, he could have been told no such thing. There was no meaningful pro German faction in Britain at all by the time Churchill was PM.”
The existence of a strong pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler faction within the British ruling class not only in the eve of WW2 but during it is a well known fact that many Western chroniclers and historians have addressed even if their work is not as easily available to the general public as the existence of Nazi sympathies among the US elite is in comparison and you have to actually dig in their works to bring it out. After all, the official narrative is written by the victors and the British victors in this case don’t want that ugly secret to come to the light. But I’ll address that subject as soon as I get back to those sources because I am the most interested in exposing it in this thread. But as a convenient preview let’s just mention a well known historical fact, that as soon as had Germany surrendered, Churchill brought out, along with his pal General Patton, the idea of arming all German POWs in Allied hands, which counted millions, and marching with them onward East until conquering Moscow, the Mecca of Bolshevism. To me this undeniable fact serves two purposes here, first, to make a mockery of your claim that the Ribbentrop Molotov pact was
an act of aggression against the West, because it freed Hitler to attack in the West, as he proceeded to do.
This very existence of the intention of Churchill to launch a completely unprovoked and unjustified attack again the Soviet Union at the end of ww2, an aggression meant to destroy it, a USSR led by a man who had dutifully fulfilled all this obligations face to the Anglo Saxon powers and respected his word at every step of the way shows that in 1939 Stalin had done the right thing in signing that non-aggression pact with Germany as Churchill, the man who led Great Britain in all this, had absolutely no intention of respecting his own word or signature. And I am not even talking about the plans the Pentagon was developing at the moment of nuking the USSR out of existence. What the USSR could have done to deserve such a punishment, besides having won the war against Hitler…? So to pretend that the pact Molotov signed with Nazi Germany was one of “aggression against the West” after all these facts considered make of your statement tremendously naive and ridiculous in its absurdity. The truth is, in 1939 as in 1946 (or even in 2021, as it is the case now with Russia and Putin ) Stalin had absolutely no reason to trust his “Western partners” and all the reason to act as he did, purely in the interest of the USSR and her people.
But this undeniable historical fact also makes a mockery also of your so definitive claim that there was no pro-German sympathies among the elite in Great Britain at the time (a country which royalty is German itself anyway..!). because as soon as soon as Churchill saw the Germans defeated and lying on the ground he was ready and willing to make them stand on their feet again and not only that, but also ready to arm them with the best weaponry the Allied had and to send them to finish what they had started in 1941. And this was the best friend the USSR had in Britain, the man who had met Stalin many times and shook hands with him…! All this proves what I wrote several posts ago, that the affinity of the Brits with their German cousins was far bigger than any relationship or link they may have had with the Slav Russians/Soviets and that the Brits didn’t really hate the Germans, they only hate watching them rise to become the dominant power in the continent. And that they were ready to make them raise again but now under their control. So Stalin was absolutely right in not trusting any of them. In the end, when facing a common threat, real or imaginary, Germans and Anglos would stick together no matter what
Charles Lindbergh and Herbert Hoover would not have just sat back quietly while Stalin gobbled up Europe a la Rezun. Roosevelt would immediately have been confronted with the reality that if he didn’t have a firm response to such a hypothetical Soviet conquest of Europe then politics in the USA would have shifted under his feet overnight.
What many seem to ignore is the fact that there was indeed a master plan all along, plan on which both Anglo Saxon powers agreed, and which, curiously enough, gave later the basis and the blueprint for the existence and purpose of their NATO: to keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out. Of these three points only the first was the object of differences at some point but there was no doubt about the other two. The problem they had to solve then, as they saw it, was
How to bring Germany down from her Nazi perch while preventing at the same time the Soviet Union from fulfilling the empty space and emerging as the dominant European superpower.
That was it all. Stalin would have had to be a very dumb and blind man not to see this and he wasn’t.
Okay. Good. Now do Showalter, Citino, and Stahel. The end is in sight 🙂
In any case your post is a random pile of mishmash of cliches, assumptions and conclusions that have no relation with reality. You also contradict yourself in more than one instance. Let’s examine this gem for example:
Hitler failed to get the necessary cooperation of Poland (Danzig and a railway line ) for an attack on the Soviet Union.
Wow, so all what good old Adolf was asking from Poland was a free passage to the East, to Danzig, so he could use it as springboard for an attack on the Soviet Union. Because see, he hated the Russian Slavic untermenschen but not the Polish ones…!Well, maybe he should have explained himself better, so the Polish would have understood what he really wanted; that no, he didn’t want to gobble up their country and turn them all Slavs into the slaves of his precious Aryan race. Frankly, I don’t think this idea is even worth of a minute of anyone’s time. Then we have this:
‘I think that (a surprise Soviet attack against Nazi Germany) would have been welcomed in Britain, it would have helped Churchill not got him thrown out of office”.
and:
“Churchill was viewed as a half foreign political adventurer who had repeatedly changed parties”
Of course! In a continent-wide crisis broke out because of such humongous event (a massive Soviet military attack on Germany) the British would have loved to have as their leader, most likely a war chief, a foreign adventurer who used to change parties at the drop of the hat! Don’t we all…?
See why is so hard to take you seriously…? Already Hitler “only” asking for Polish collaboration on Danzig was a hoot, but this one really takes the cake. (I would may add also “British politicians of the center viewed him as loving war and not to be trusted with a country at peace” but do I need….?)
“for a when America joined in a war he had already warned would be a long one”
That is wrong also. Hitler didn’t contemplate the U.S. joining him in any way, he even thought far more likely the possibility that Germany would have have to deal with the U.S. the same way it was dealing with the Soviet Union, and that was because he thought that “Americans” were already a degenerate race, one in which the White pure component had already been besmirched by the mix with inferior races like Asians and above all, Blacks. He held in deep contempt the concept of the Melting Pot so he didn’t have for the U.S. even a fraction of the respect he had for the Brits (he was an hypocrite on that anyway, because he loved many aspects of “American” culture but that didn’t change an iota his racist views).
In any case your text is rather confuse and sometimes hard to understand, like when you are all over the place like in:
Hitler simply did not take the Soviet Union seriously except that be conquering he could offer German Americans a desirable lifestyle, and resources for a when America joined in..(?)
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, chapter 17.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Genealogy_of_Morals/Peoples_and_Countries
Nietzsche, the schizo jew-lover, strikes again.
The UK’s ‘Deep State’ of the Foreign Office and MI6 were opposed to any concessions to Hitler at Munich, and before it successfully used disinformation to trick the Czechs into mobilising. It is very difficult to see Churchill being replaced with anyone less pro German. While he was PM Neville Chamberlain moved with his party and the other parties and the whole of Britain in coming to the conclusion that war was necessary. Chamberlain was the one who declared war not Churchill this is something quite important. Chamberlain’s conduct of the war was largely at sea, something that Churchill (brought in to head the Admiralty) was always keen on. Chamberlain resigned as PM after a fiasco in Norway that was more Churchill’s fault than anyone else’s, and his attempt to form a government of national unity met with Labour refusals to serve under his premiership. Halifax said a lord could not be an effective PM, so it was Churchill. Had Chamberlain not developed the cancer he died of in 1940, he quite possibly could have returned to power, but that would not have helped the Nazis. Anyway, he did not represent a pro German faction, again, he declared war on Germany.
The name might have lhad an association among foreigners. At the end of the 19th century Germany had rebuffed his father Joseph’s attempts to have a alliance. Joseph Chamberlain was the last industiralist politician; aggressive towards France over West Africa and even favoured a tough line by Britain over the United States demands for a border dispute between British Guyana and Venezuela go to arbitration. Then Joseph was worried about Russia, Germany and Japan partitioning China and excluding British trade. However, after extremely friendly overtures to Germany in which he bloviated about Teutonic triple power world rule, he was humiliated by Bernhard von Bülow who portrayed Britain as a soon to be senescent power envious of German vitality. Joseph Chamberlain went on to start the Boer war, in furtherance British Empire closed off from competition from other countries productive capacities, something that was begining to happen in the 30’s. Hitler with his worry about the productive capacity of India and China if they were given Western technology was similar in many of his ideas to Neville’s father, although I think Hitler was traumatised by the collapse of Germany in WW1 and overestimated the British Empire’s utility.
In 1935 citizenship of the half million German Jews was revoked. Hitler regarded the Jews as a problem to be solved by them emigrating. The inexorable increase of the Jewish population in Palestine brought about an Arab revolt. Chamberlain annoyed Zionists in 1938 by basically deciding the half million Jews already in Palestine was enough to have fulfilled the Balfour declaration and unlimited immigration of them would end; the Jewish Homeland would be modest though taking in the coastal plane, but there would be no partition because that would require mass transfer of Arabs( who turned that deal down nonetheless), but it caused domestic and international uproar, so is the main reason why Chamberlain was disliked at the time rather than in hindsight. It does show though, how Chamberlain was willing to defy international pressure.
The British Liberal and Labour parties loathed Hitler but were more or less pacifist , and the pacifism of the Labour was overcome, but not by Munich. All Britain approved of that at the time, the execration of Chamberlain for dealling with Hitler was in hindsight. The Sudetenland was substantially German, and technically it Hitler acquired it by international agreement. No, the key moment and the decision that Hitler agonized over was annexed the remaining Czech provinces. As he often did when under stress Hitler chose the moment to bait the Jews, which placed increased pressure on Chamberlain domestically through his restriction of Jewish emigration into Palestine. The American consul, Raymond H. Geist was told before the event by General Halder, the purpose of seizing the remaining part of Czechoslovakia (minus the bit Poland invaded) was to have a springboard for attacking’ the Ukraine.
This initiated a countdown to war as Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the independence of Romania and Poland, while Roosevelt (who had alluded to US intervention in a diplomatic note at the time on Munich) excluded German goods from the US. It must be remembered that this was the first occasion on which Hitler had taken non-ethnically German territory or violated an agreement. Absolutely no one of any influence in any political party had sympathies for Germany afterwards
“Hitler simply did not take the Soviet Union seriously except that b[y]conquering he could offer German Americans a desirable lifestyle, and resources for a when America joined in[.] ” Joined in the war against Germany that was. In 1938 General Thomas had given a detailed analysis to Hitler of why such a conflict was one Germany could not possibly hope to win and and former ambassador to the US, Hans-Heinrich Dieckhoff said it was inevitable if Hitler and Roosevelt remained on their present courses. Hitler got angry with them both, probably for saying what he already knew deep down. In the late summer of 1939 Hitler, who was tremendously affected by architecture of course, watched a film of New York City from the air and was disconcerted. Early in his political career Hitler had promoted Britain as having through tough-mindedness attained the sort of empire he aspired to acquire for Germany, and the only place that land could possibly be got now was in the east, where the German communities provided a basis for Greater German Empire. Clearly, Hitler was going to have to outwit the world’s three most powerful countries who were chary of Germany having already fought it in WW1, and defeat in detain a series of opponents, who were not tribes or maharajas, but large European states including one closely allied with the USA.
Hitler saw America as in the grip of Jewish financial and monopoly trusts system and using German Americans against their homeland. He compared America to a pyramid structure because of its broad resource base, especially a vast amount of the best type of arable land. America would have less attraction if Germany could get something like that. Fantastic as it might seem, Hitler wanted a German-American remigration back to a Greater German Reich. Germany as it was, Hitler did not have a high opinion of racially or otherwise. He thought many of the best Germans had had been leaving to be replaced with foreign immigrants for so long that the work of forming his ideal people was far more that just getting them land.
Early in his career Hitler had been willing to speak of slavs as Aryans. I think Hitler was haunted by the disintegration of German cohesion under allied blockade, and his main thing was unifying Germans (inside a impregnable fortess state). Bavarians are quite a bit different to other Germans in religion and they are not all that Nordic either, when his movement was in it infancy Hitler was imprisoned for leading his roughnecks into the meeting of a leading Bavarian separatist and beating him up. At bottom his ideal was of perfect unity, and not as racial as it seems now. He and the economists who were drawing up the plans for the East were willing to Germanise selected members of the local conquered population if they were from upwardly mobile families. Gotz Aly has a book on these plans.
So you keep going, you keep telling us a lot of things much of which that we already know and there is no point been made at the end because there was no point to be made…! I never said that Chamberlain was the representative of the pro-German fraction in government so that British foreign policy during his time in government was been carried out by this fraction, which means it was “soft” to Germany. I even wrote in a post that, contrary to myth, Chamberlain hadn’t been duped by Hitler in Munich, as he had gone overthere simply to earn some time for the RAF to be able to build enough bombers and fighters to match the striking power of the Luftwaffe, which means he was seeing war with Germany in the near future. I don’t see how that could be considered a peace-seeking, even less a pro-German, move. What I clearly said is that the British elite was divided between both tendencies which caused a lack of consistency in their foreign policy. So at the end your first paragraph doesn’t change anything at all of what i said.
I any case, I got lost reading your post and I just finally quit because I got the distinction impression that more than anything you are talking to yourself, you are having your own private conversation so I won’t add anything to what I already wrote.
> “Nietzsche, the schizo jew-lover, strikes again.”
I have an affinity to Nietzsche. If N had lived in the 21st ct., he like myself would have fled not merely Germany, he would have fled Europe.
Incidentally, Nietzsche’s contempt for nationalism reminds me… of Soviet! Nationalism in Russia means low-brow pettiness; Nietzsche assumed it for his European identity vis-à-vis the triumph of the small men men à la Luther against the genius of Napoléon I.
Was Hitler Luther or was Hitler Napoléon? (Hitler was German, like Luther, and Hitler caused a reaction, like Luther, but fought against Christians, like Napoléon.)
1. If we assume that Luther, a Christian in an un-Christian Christendom, attacked Rome and caused a Christian reaction, is different to Hitler because Hitler was already ruling a Jesus-free Europe, then Hitler is a blameless saint that tragically lost a war to the ignoble normie masses. (And even N would have excused him his hatred of the Jews because Hitler is a god.)
2. But if we assume that Hitler was similar to Luther and acted inside the edifice of Christendom, and then we posit that the instigation of war on the Führer’s part interrupted a potentially anti-Christian process in England (which was under way indeed) – that is a frightening possibility. Although it is literally the opposite of my other fear – that the Europeans are so weak, they would have lost in peace-time. (Was Rosa Luxemburg the last hope of the Aryans?)
© Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ[ian], chapter 61 (the italics in the original)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm
Disagree. Among Wilson’s Points there were supposed to be no territorial annexations. Germany had some reason to feel aggrieved that they stopped fighting and then this point was imperfectly honored. Weimar politicians saw it that way too, which is why Gustav Stresemann made agreements with the Soviet Union so he could secretly build up Germany’s military might. As Mearsheimer points out in Tragedy, Stresemann would have used that military force or threatened to use it to try and get historically German territory containing Germans given back to Germany. It was not unreasonable or unexpected what Hitler was asking for. Although he pressed his case and took more risks than another German leader would have, the territories he acquired in Munich were still predominately inhabited by Germans.
Munich made Hitler look like a political genius, and his authority to actually go to war was greatly added to after it, so Chamberlain thought Hitler was acting in good faith; giving him that extra stature among Germans would not make sense otherwise. At the time of Munich, Neville Chamberlain staked his continued leadership on settling what he was told was absolutely the last territorial demand Hitler was going to make. Did even the German generals know all this was just a means to a war of conquest in the East for Hitler? I doubt anyone knew what was in his mind at that time. After Munich Hitler was not happy, he appeared preoccupied as if a period of mental turmoil. If he had stopped at that point he would have been regarded as having playing a poor hand masterfully and remembered as Germany’s greatest statesman ever.
It might be thought that Chamberlain was worried about war in 38 because he thought the RAF was ill prepared, but that would not have been a huge worry in any case. Even had the Germans achieved air superiority over the South coast, the British navy would at whatever cost prevented an invasion force being resupplied . The Luftwaffe was much more a ground attack tactical assist to the army, and no match for the RAF, which is why the Stuka and Me-110 were death traps in the battle of Britain, yet extremely successful in Russia. ‘Suvorov’ is nowhere more misleading than when he talks about the Soviet air force which was huge and useless with painted on gunsights and even female pilots. During Typhoon, Bock actually flew over right over Moscow with Kesselring.
“…As a result, Halifax had a long conversation with Hitler on 19 November 1937 in which, whatever may have been Halifax’s intention, Hitler’s government became convinced of three things:
(a) that Britain regarded Germany as the chief bulwark against communism in Europe;
(b) that Britain was prepared to join a Four Power agreement of France, Germany, Italy, and herself; and (c) that Britain was prepared to allow Germany to liquidate Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland if this could be done without provoking a war into which the British Government, however unwillingly, would be dragged in opposition to Germany.
The German Foreign Ministry memorandum on this conversation makes it perfectly clear that the Germans did not misunderstand Halifax except, possibly, on the last point.
There they failed to see that if Germany made war, the British Government would be forced into the war against Germany by public opinion in England.
The German diplomatic agents in London, especially the Ambassador, Dirksen, saw this clearly, but the Government in Berlin listened only to the blind and conceited ignorance of Ribbentrop.
As dictators themselves, unfamiliar with the British social or constitutional systems, the German rulers assumed that the willingness of the British Government to accept the liquidation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland implied that the British Government would never go to war to prevent this liquidation. They did not see that the British Government might have to declare war to stay in office if public opinion in Britain were sufficiently aroused.
The British Government saw this difficulty and as a last resort were prepared to declare war but not to wage war on Germany.
This distinction was not clear to the Germans and was not accepted by the inner core of the Milner Group.
It was, however, accepted by the other elements in the government, like Chamberlain himself, and by much of the second circle of the Milner Group, including Simon, Hoare, and probably Halifax.
It was this which resulted in the “phony war” from September 1939 to April 1940…
… The fallacy in all of this rests on the fact that every concession to Germany made her stronger, with no guarantee that she ever would stop; and if, after years of concessions, she refused to stop, she might be too strong to be compelled to do so.
The Milner Group thesis was based not only on ignorance but also on logical deficiencies.
The program of the Chamberlain group was at least more consistent, since it involved no effort to stop Germany at any point but aimed to solve the German problem by driving it into Russia.
Such an “immoral” solution could not be acceptable to the Milner Group, so they should have had sense enough to stop Germany while she was weak…
…While all this was going on, the remorseless wheels of appeasement were grinding out of existence one country after another. The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia. This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain…
…The details do not concern us here, but it should be mentioned that the dispute arose over the position of the Sudeten Germans within the Czechoslovak state, and as late as 15 September 1938 was still being expressed in those terms. Up to that day, Hitler had made no demand to annex the Sudeten area, although on 12 September he had for the first time asked for “self-determination” for the Sudetens. Konrad Henlein, Hitler’s agent in Czechoslovakia and leader of the Sudeten Germans, expressed no desire “to go back to the Reich” until after 12 September.
Who, then, first demanded frontier rectification in favor of Germany ? Chamberlain did so privately on 10 May 1938…
…The last piece of evidence which we might mention to support the theory—not of a plot, perhaps, but that the Munich surrender was unnecessary and took place because Chamberlain and his associates wanted to dismember Czechoslovakia—is even more incriminating. As a result of the inadequate rearmament of Germany, a group of conservatives within the regime formed a plot to liquidate Hitler…
…The efforts of the Chamberlain group to continue the policy of appeasement by making economic and other concessions to Germany and their efforts to get Hitler to agree to a four-power pact form one of the most shameful episodes in the history of recent British diplomacy.
These negotiations were chiefly conducted through Sir Horace Wilson and consisted chiefly of offers of colonial bribes and other concessions to Germany. These offers were either rejected or ignored by the Nazis…
…Although Wholthat had no powers, he listened to Hudson and later to Sir Horace Wilson, but refused to discuss the matter with Chamberlain. Wilson offered:
(1) a non-aggression pact with Germany;
(2) a delimitation of spheres among the Great Powers;
(3) colonial concessions in Africa along the lines previously mentioned;
(4) an economic agreement.
These conversations, reported to Berlin by Ambassador Dirksen in a dispatch of 21 July 1939, would have involved giving Germany a free hand in eastern Europe and bringing her into collision with Russia…
…Only after the German Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 21 August 1939 did Halifax implement the unilateral guarantee to Poland with a more formal mutual assistance pact between Britain and Poland.
This was done to warn Hitler that an attack on Poland would bring Britain into the war under pressure of British public opinion. Hitler, as usual, paid no attention to Britain.
Even after the German attack on Poland, the British government was reluctant to fulfill this pact and spent almost three days asking the Germans to return to negotiation.
Even after the British were forced to declare war on Germany, they made no effort to fight, contenting themselves with dropping leaflets on Germany. We now know that the German generals had moved so much of their forces to the east that they were gravely worried at the effects which might follow an Allied attack on western Germany or even an aerial bombing of the Ruhr…
…From the outbreak of war, the Milner Group were determined to fight the war against Germany; the Chamberlain group, on the other hand, were very reluctant to fight Germany, preferring to combine a declared but unfought war with Germany with a fought but undeclared war with Russia…”
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html
http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm
> If N had lived in the 21st ct., he like myself would have fled not merely Germany, he would have fled Europe.
You emigrated to DPRK?
> a potentially anti-Christian process in England (which was under way indeed)
Under way? How? Detail.
> Was Rosa Luxemburg the last hope of the Aryans?
Yes, you must be right. That stinky Jewess was our last hope. Please explain how you can see the bolshevisation of Germany as a good thing.
https://archive.org/details/HitlersTableTalk_1941_1944
“The Soviets could have become a mortal danger to us, if they had succeeded in undermining the military spirit of our soldiers with the slogan of the German Communist Party: “No more War!” For at the same time as they were trying by Communist Party terrorism, by strikes, by their press, and by every other means at their disposal to ensure the triumph of pacifism in our country, the Russians were building up an enormous army. Disregarding the namby-pamby utterances about humanitarianism which they spread so assiduously in Germany, in their own country they drove their workers to an astonishing degree, and the Soviet worker was taught by means of the Stakhanov system to work both harder and longer than his counterpart in either Germany or the capitalist States. The more we see of conditions in Russia, the more thankful we must be that we struck in time. In another ten years there would have sprung up in Russia a mass of industrial centres, inaccessible to attack, which would have produced armaments on an inexhaustible scale, while the rest of Europe would have degenerated into a defenceless plaything of Soviet policy.
It is very stupid to sneer at the Stakhanov system. The arms and equipment of the Russian armies are the best proof of its efficiency in the handling of industrial man power. Stalin, too, must command our unconditional respect. In his own way he is a hell of a fellow ! He knows his models, Genghiz Khan and the others, very well, and the scope of his industrial planning is exceeded only by our own Four Year Plan. And there is no doubt that he is quite determined that there shall be in Russia no unemployment such as one finds in such capitalist States as the United States of America…”
> “You emigrated to DPRK?”
Metaphorically, mate, metaphorically.
> “Under way? How? Detail.”
Well, there was still the old Empire. There was Mosley. There were eugenicist societies in Chamberlainian England and America. Although I will concede that the vector was pointing downward – they were clearly making less strides than in the 1920s. America used to exterminate Indians in the 19th ct., but then they stopped at the Rio Grande, barring some punitive expeditions. It was no Borgian Rome; still, an argument can be made about a war of ideas – isn’t it supposed to be the strongest suite of a truth-based ideology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
> “Yes, you must be right. That stinky Jewess was our last hope. Please explain how you can see the bolshevisation of Germany as a good thing.”
It is fascinating how when push comes to shove, NatSocs side with Weimar, which Rosa opposed. Ideology aside, I prefer thinking in maps. Soviet Russia was still Russia first both to its Bolshevik masters and to its soil-munching European enemies. A Eurasian Union was needed to oppose the Anglo Christians.
Alexander Dovjenko – Ukraine in Flames (1943; translation mine; it’s regarded as a cinematic novel).
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Киноповесть
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Україна_в_огні
https://www.ukrlib.com.ua/books/printit.php?tid=876&page=17
Time has passed a lot of that gloss on events by, Halifax was referring to historically German territories when he had told Hitler:
There is nothing in this about letting Hitler take non German parts of Czechoslovakia or Poland, all that was said was Britain had no objection if the countries themselves agreed. Allegations of pro German groups in aristocratic circles such as Quigley’s analysis is based on originated in characteristic wild speculation by brilliant journalist Claude Cockburn, a communist who was known to entertain the ideal that Western capitalism was plotting to destroy the Soviet Union. The stuff Quigley is saying originated in Cockburn’s the Week, which was really just a opiniony newsletter. It was taken as Gospel in the US nonetheless.
The British Foreign Office (and MI6) were anything but pro-German and the the main suppliers of Cockburn’s evidence, such as it was, were high officials such as the FO’s Vansittart who even before WW1 considered Germans “very crude people, who have very few ideas in their noddles but brute force and militarism.” and was predicting war from 1933. The November 1937 meeting with Hitler having been important for Hitler getting a free hand from a pro German clique is an interpretation by Cockburn’s close associate Times journalist Vladimir Poliakoff. The British view was that the resources of the Eastern Europe could make Germany too powerful to be controlled. Vanstittart’s replacement Alex Cadogan had said this in 1935.
Getting back Germany territories they had before the Versailles treaty would have been an objective for any German leader and as I mentioned above Stresemann secretly built up Germany’s forces contrary to the treaties ending WW1, and in due course he would have been demanding the return of lost land and making veiled threats in much the way Hitler did; for years there was little to show he was all that different. It seems it was The Quarantine Speech of Roosevelt in October 1937 that caused Hitler to go into imminent war mode, it was a watershed in Hitler’s thinking, which had been untill then been in terms of decades and even generations of societal consolidation before going east. After Roosevelt made that speech with its rather clear message that Hitler was a global menace who would have to be dealt with by America sooner or later, Hitler took himself as being under the gun, and aware that after he ceased to be at the helm, no one else would dare take the risk, he suddenly started bringing forward the “securing and increasing” the German population by winning “space” to 1945 at the latest. A few days after the speech the propaganda campaign against Czechoslovakia began.
Chamberlain and Churchill’s preferred strategy was maritime blockade, which had worked in WW1. Bombing would cause retaliatory bombing, and post Guernica it was seriously believed that London might be levelled in a matter of weeks; agitation about a powerful German air force exacerbated this. Staying out while expecting Britain to do the heavy lifting–again–Americans tended to see things in a very different light, but their country was not in harm’s way and Britain had Italy in the Med plus an Empire vulnerable to Japan. After WW1 with trenches and poison gas no one thought a land battle could achieve a decisive result. The big surprise was when Hitler unleashed the German army and it was realised that they were so good they might win the war for Hitler. Until the Battle of France ended in one of the most astounding victories of all time, no one thought it was possible that Germans could turn the Volga into their Mississippi.
This propaganda by Guyenod is totally disgusting and irresponsible. He reveals himself as an imperialist agent at the service of NATO.
Today the propaganda of the West runs like this: Russia is preparing to invade the rest of Europe exactly as Soviet Union did 80 years ago. Hence it is necessary like Hitler to launch a preventive attack. Guyenod acts like an “idiot utile” when the mainstream media are demonizing Russia to prepare their public opinion for a war against Russia.
Halifax talks with Hitler Nov 1937:
…All other questions can be characterized as relating to changes in the European order , changes that sooner or later will probably take place. To these questions belong Danzig , Austria and Czechoslovakia . England was only interested that any alterations should be effected by peaceful methods which might cause far reaching disturbances…
The record of the talks can be found here in these documents:
https://archive.org/details/documentsmateria01germ
https://archive.org/details/documentsmateria0001germ
A summary of the documents can be found in this Soviet publication, it talks about the UK policy of pushing Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union:
Falsifiers of History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiers_of_History
Carroll Quigley gave more information on the policy of the so called “milner group”, a semi secret British political faction within UK political elite in first half of 20th century in this interview:
QUIGLEY: “All right. All right. But, having discovered that, I met Alfred Zimmern, when he
came here to give a speech. And I said ʻIsnʼt this funny that, that All Souls…ʼ He
said ʻThatʼs the Round Table Group.ʼ I had never heard of them. That shows how
little I knew. And theyʼd been around since 1909 and publishing this magazine
from 1910. And this was 1947. And I said ʻWhat is the Round Table Group?ʼ He
named them, who they were. And he said ʻI was a member of them, for ten years.
From 1913. And they, they added, they brought me in, invited me because I was
in their Workersʼ Educational Alliance.” This is extension programs. Night
courses, summer courses for workers. Workersʼ Educational Alliance. And he
said, uh, ʻThatʼs why they brought me in to it. I was for ten years.ʼ And he said ʻI
resigned in 1923 because they were determined to build up Germany against
France.ʼ He said “I wouldnʼt stand for it. So I resigned.ʼ
Now, when I met Lord Brand later and asked him about this, he [said] he had
never seen the letter of resignation.
Now, so Iʼd better start talking, because you see, this gets into all kinds of
things.”
INTERVIEWER: “O.K.”
QUIGLEY: “Now, this is. I knew the Round Table group was very influential. I knew that they
were the real founders of the Royal Institutes of International Affairs. And I knew
that, all the stuff that is in print, that they were they real founders of the Institutes
of Pacific Relations. I knew that they were the godfathers of the, uh, Council on
Foreign Relations here.”
INTERVIEWER: “Uh hmm,”
QUIGLEY: “I knew that, for example, you know the big ʻStudy of History,ʼ many volumes of,
uh, Arnold Toynbee?
INTERVIEWER: “Uh, huh”
QUIGLEY: “All right. I knew the manuscripts of that were stored in Council on Foreign Relations
during the War so they wouldnʼt be destroyed by German bombing, do you
see?”
INTERVIEWER: “Uh, huh”
QUIGLEY: “And so forth, and so forth.
So I began to put these things together and discovered that this group was working
for the following things. They were a secret group. They were working to
federate the English-speaking world, the English-speaking world. They were
closely linked to international bankers. Uh, they were working to establish a
world, what I call a three-power world. And that three-power world was: The Atlantic
Bloc (of England and the Commonwealth and the United States), Germany
(Hitlerʼs Germany), Soviet Russia. The three power world. They said Germany,
we can control because [itʼs] boxed in (and all of this is in my book), itʼs boxed in
between the Atlantic Bloc and the Russians. The Russians will behave because
theyʼre boxed in between the Atlantic Bloc (the American Navy and Singapore,
and so forth) and, uh, the Germans. Do you see?”
INTERVIEWER: “Right.”
QUIGLEY: “And, therefore… Now, this all described in my book, and this was their idea.
Now notice, itʼs a balance of power system.”
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Interviews/Carroll_Quigley_1974_Interview_Transcript_Part3.htm
Alfred Zimmern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Eckhard_Zimmern
Round Table movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement
In no way were Britain or Germany’s actions in 1938 compatible with Hitler being given a free hand such as Quigley and others suggest happened in November 1937. The German translations are likely embellished, yet even those versions of what Halifax said do not support it, and it is very unfair to fall back on Hitler’s gloss on events. He may have told others that is what he understood, but Hitler was not given what could reasonably be thought or mistaken for green light on non German Czechoslovakia; acquiring that could not be done by peaceful agreement, and when Germany bullied its surrender that was the tuning point. Guarantees to Poland and Romania followed. The Sudetenland and Austria were German. Danzig was a German City and Hitler–always laudatory about Piłsudski– had valued a good relationship with Poland and overruled some of his diplomats who wanted an alliance with the USSR against Poland and the West. In November 1937 Halifax had barely touched down in Germany on a hunting exhibition trip Goering had invited him on when Cockburn published the theory that the Cliveden Set had weeks earlier got together and formulated a deal in which Hitler would be given a free hand in central Europe in return for not interfering in the British Empire and of asking to the Former German colonies back. Supposedly this is what Halifax was gave to to Hitler. It became the received wisdom for a time that this was what had happened but
Munich was not against British public opinion, quite the opposite. Communists did not like it, nor did the Americans who had been looking forward to the British Empire fighting Germany (maybe Italy and Japan too) while the US had the luxury of coming in whenever it felt like sorting out those fractious Europeans. But Britain had got the stuffing knocked out it in WW1, and suffered horrifying casualties ; the next war was expected to be even worse with bombing leading to mass death of civilians, for which Germany was wrongly thought to have a huge specialized air force.
Nevertheless, Alex Cardogan convinced Halifax that Britain had to stand by the French and Czechs, which was risky because French were actually relying on fear of the Soviet Union, which Hitler had broken off the friendly relationship of the Weimar era with, to keep Hitler in line. It might be mentioned that France had tried to detach parts of Germany by dubious means including financing various separatist movements, used African and north Africana’s as occupation troops, and bought about a bank collapse to foil a pre Hitler Austrian German Customs Union and contributed to the begining of the Depression ECT ECT.
In Britain there were communists upset at the defeat of the German party, of old school Germanphobes such as Vansittart, or those who were annoyed that Francao had been assisted by Hitler in the Spanish Civil War, though Stalin’s help to the other side was as great. I would note Hitler never asked for even Alsace from France, and there were people like Duff Cooper alleging Hitler was preparing for war as soon as he became Chancellor. Anti appeasement could be by those who disliked Hitler’s way of running Germany and wanted a war for regime change, which is what standing up to Hitler would have entailed, and would not have been as simple as was claimed.
All that stuff about the British upper classes was written with an eye to the US market explaining to them why Britain was not fulfilling the role assigned to it in the US offshore balancing strategem. Shocking as it might have been, the British were not in a rush to re run the first day of the Somme again and again not were they trying to provoke the initiation of bombing that would predictable escalate into all out levelling of cities; hence the prominence given to the American Nancy Astor and even Wallis Simpson. It is pretty much now accepted the idea of this cabal was a fabrication by communist Cockburn who had a reputation for dissimulating ( as Orwell noted in Spain). and was always agog for stories of upper class corruption. Vansittart supplied most of the spin, and he was over emotional, which is why he was replaced with Cadogan.
Why did you think my previous comments mentioned so much about Joseph Chamberlain, his hostility to the French imperial expansion in West Africa, and and his bloviating about Teutonic triple alliance of America, the British Empire and Germany, which was brutally slapped down by Bernhard von Bülow? Neville Chamberlain’s father was pulling the strings of Rhodes and Milner. Vansittart’ s view of Germans was formed on his travels in the aftermath of the Boer War when he found that Britain had become hated as a result of Kitchener (he of the Fashoda Incident) using concertation camps and then tens of thousands of armed black auxiliaries against the Boer noncombatants.
In 1933 Hitler had told the generals in a private meeting that his ultimate objective was to conquer land in the East, but his plan was vaguely long term. In October 1937 the Quarantine speech of Roosevelt in which he compared the Nazis to a sickness to be eradicated made Hitler think a long war against an blockading alliance soon to contain America would be upon Germany. Hitler spoke of his limited time left ‘to live’, and stated that he intended to act by the mid 40 be the very latest if he was ‘still alive’. That same month he issued directives issuing orders for resources priority for the armed forces, and targeting Czechoslovakia. As already mentioned, General Halder told an American diplomat that Hitler needed Czechoslovakia as a staging ground for an attack on the resources of the Ukraine. To get back to the topic of the post, no objection was raised by Hitler to the Japanese about them concluding the USSR-Japan non aggression treaty, which rather suggest that he did not see Stalin as intending an offensive. Moreover, Hitler always tried to incite the Japanese against the British Empire, rather than the Soviet Union. Finally, Hitler was very conservative during Barbarossa, and at an early stage was intervening to overrule ambitious encirclements and turn them into more modest ones. The strength of Germany did not come from the concessions to Hitler, but from the war-fighting abilities of the German army when executing the orders of someone with Hitler’s decisiveness.
While you’re basic thrust is correct, you’re attaching a significance to Roosevelt’s speech which it doesn’t warrant. On October 18, 1936, Hitler appointed Goering to head the Four-Year Plan. Finance Minister Schacht was opposed to the high levels of military spending and argued that this would eventually cause inflation. Hitler dismissed all of this because he was committed to a course of action aimed at acquiring living space.
In the early years Hitler had realized that it was just important to let Schacht do whatever he thought was necessary for economic recovery (while of course Hitler took the credit, thanks to Goebbels’ propaganda). But once his government had stabilized things Hitler always intended to achieve major goals within his lifetime and not trust his successors. That was true well before Roosevelt gave his Quarantine Speech.
Even when giving the speech, Roosevelt was more of a toothless tiger than anything else. Isolationist sentiment was very strong in the US at that time. Roosevelt hoped to change the mood with the Quarantine Speech. But it was always clear that Roosevelt depended fundamentally upon the recklessness of Axis leaders to help him. Hitler undoubtedly did take notice of the Quarantine Speech. But this was because he did have ambitions for acquiring new territories and the conflict between Schacht and Goering was a reflection of this that appeared before the Quarantine Speech.
In the mid thirties Hitler was talking about at least a decade, although he told Goebbels that Germany would be ready to take on the Soviet Union by 1941. The Quarantine speech was given by Roosevelt on 5 October 1937, and in it Roosevelt seemed to include the Soviet Union as one of the peace loving countries that was a potential ally against Hitler, which both incensed and sobered him; the Fuhrer then asked for Baron von Rechenberg’s book that had asserted Roosevelt was a Jew. Before October was out Hitler had held two crucial meetings at which he told party and government high figures of his intention to win land in the east no later than 1945, but also to be ready if it became opportune to immediately deal with Austria and Czechoslovakia. The next month Schacht resigned as minister of economics.
Schacht was a finance capitalism man, his real conflict had been with Gottfried Feder; the policy that pulled Germany out of recession was Keynesianism and Schacht had no problem with spending on armaments or anything else. The problem was resources. because Germany did not have enough for even a limited amount of guns and butter. For instance, Hitler was told that the materials required for constructing the new Schiller Théâtre would require cutting back the army’s allotment of steel. After the Quarantine speech, an awareness that the resources and space were going to be needed for a siege of Germany precipitated Hitler into announcing he was intent on taking them by a war of conquest in the USSR within eight years, maybe much sooner.
This comment-thread is now over 270,000 words long and becoming unmanageable in size, so I’m now closing it.